[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for Approval: Jakarta EE Specificatio

[Andrew Pielage <andrew.pielage@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The minutes for the June 25^th Specification Committee call are below and are also available here. Please review and be ready for approval during our call on June 25th.

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - June 25th, 2025

Attendees (present in bold):

Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu

Emily Jiang - IBM - Tom Watson

Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov

Andrew Pielage (chair)  - Payara - Petr Aubrecht

David Blevins - Tomitribe - Jean-Louis Monteiro, Cesar Hernandez

Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative

Marcelo Ancelmo - Participant Member -  Abraham Marin-Perez

Werner Keil - Committer Member

Jun Qian - Primeton Information Technologies - Enterprise Member

Zhai Luchao -  Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co. - Enterprise Member

Guest - Jakarta EE 11 co-release coordinators: Ed Burns, Jared Anderson

 

Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic

Past business / action items:

• Approval is requested for the minutes from the June 11th, 2025 meeting as drafted - nobody has yet reviewed. Given what happened with the namespace vote members are encouraged to review, and we will approve on the next call.

Agenda:

• Catch up on the Jakarta EE 11 Release Plan [Ed Burns]
• EE 11 - Prioritized backlog · Jakarta EE11 TCK Release (github.com) and Jakarta EE11 TCK Release board  
• Release complete
• OSSRH migration
• Projects to be forced to migrate
• Platform held a retrospective yesterday
• TCK also holding a retrospective
• Official launch is tomorrow (6am ET)
• Catch up on the Jakarta EE 12 Release Plan [Jared Anderson]
• Project board: https://github.com/orgs/jakartaee/projects/17/views/1
• No update - focus is on the EE11 retrospectives
• Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of specifications progressing through the JESP specification version lifecycle
• Logging stalled - still pending creation review
• HTTP also still pending creation review
• Jakarta EE Namespace - Discuss whether the language we have around Jakarta package namespace requirements needs tightening up. Email.
• Discuss ballot and its withdrawal
• Should it have been started?
• JESP changes were not listed in the agenda
• Only a discussion around clarifying the existing language
• Best practice is to have these listed on the agenda, and then start the vote on the subsequent call after all discussion points have been addressed
• The proper process was therefore not followed
• The ballot success criteria on the email was also not correct (not mentioning the strategic member supermajority requirement)
• The process also required a supermajority of the steering committee (not documented on the JESP, only on the EFSP)
• There were also comments on the call about members not being ready to vote
• What can be agreed on a call?
• Should it have been allowed to finish?
• The ballot would have failed if no votes were recast - it did not reach a super majority of strategic members (Oracle and IBM voted against)
• Is it worth also mentioning this on the mailing list? 
• It is recorded here
• The ballot was withdrawn as it wasn’t a valid ballot (didn’t follow the correct process)
• Discuss next actions (if any)
• Will revisit next meeting (people had to leave)
• Potentially agree and record a statement (don’t necessarily update the JESP).
• Request for chair cover next call: July 9th
• Tom Watson will chair
• Andrew will publish the meeting minutes and send out the initial agenda
• Issue #55 - TCK Archive Format [Ed Bratt]
• Check in on Ed Bratt’s PR: pending
• Issue #83 - Clean up and clarify how to list TCK service releases on spec pages [Andrew Pielage]
• Check on progress of pull requests
• Issue #74 - TCK challenge automatic acceptance - [Ed Bratt]
• Check on progress of specifications
• Issue #58 - TCK challenge templates [Andrew Pielage]
• Check on progress of pull requests
• PRs not being merged - emails will be sent to the individual project mailing list and to the leads mailing list (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/jakartaee-spec-project-leads)
• Issue #82 - Consistent approach for TCK challenge exclusions [Ed Bratt]
• Carry over from February 19th: TCK Process should be updated with something akin to Scott Starks suggestion.
• Review other open issues:
• Determine which issues to label as “enhancement” and add to our board
• Close issues which are no longer relevant or have been dealt with

--

Andrew Pielage
Senior Software Engineer

		payara.fish
		+448005385490

Try our fully managed cloud native application runtime. 15 day trial available. Payara.cloud

Payara Services Ltd, Registered office: Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, WR14 3SZ, United Kingdom
Registered in England and Wales: 09998946 | VAT: GB 193854467

Payara is a proud recipient of the prestigious Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade 2021