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

[Tanja Obradovic <tanja.obradovic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Emily,

You are correct it does not say that explicitly, however as we are discussing the approval and publishing of the meeting minutes as one of the outcomes of a Specification Committee call without quorum, in that sense the meeting is not valid; it cannot produce these. There is also an action documented as part of that call, and that should not have been done.

Also, if you refer to the Voting section the same document it says

"Quorum is necessary in order to formally hold a meeting. Should quorum not be met, matters may be discussed but not decided."

Please let me know if this helps. As you know I am in parallel raising all of the concerns and comments to the internal teams, for future improvements, so your feedback is appreciated.

Hope this helps!

Best,

Tanja

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 11:45 AM Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Tanja,

Thank you for your response! However, I'm still unable to locate the specific policy language you referenced in your email stating that "a Committee call is considered valid only when quorum is present."

I understand and agree that no voting or formal decisions can be made without quorum. However, I have not found any language in the Eclipse Foundation governance documents that explicitly states the meeting itself is invalid if quorum is not met.

Thanks

Emily
================
Emily Jiang

Java Champion, Fellow of BCS

STSM, Jakarta and MicroProfile Architect @IBM

Liberty Cloud Native Architect & Advocate

E-mail: emijiang@xxxxxxxxxx
Twitter: @emilyfhjiang

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilyfhjiang/

---

From: Tanja Obradovic <tanja.obradovic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 16 December 2025 19:10
To: Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for Approval: Jakarta EE Specification Committee Meeting Minutes - December 10th

 

Hi Emily, All, I’m sharing the governance documents links related to this topic, which you may have already looked at. As described in the Working Group Operations Guide, a Committee call is considered valid only when quorum is present. Without

Hi Emily, All,

I’m sharing the governance documents links related to this topic, which you may have already looked at. As described in the Working Group Operations Guide, a Committee call is considered valid only when quorum is present. Without quorum, the call can’t have official outcomes, including approved meeting minutes.

That said, discussions, conversations, and even informal notes between members are absolutely fine and encouraged. These can be shared and carried over to the next Committee call where quorum is met.

I’m writing in relation to the draft meeting minutes from December 10, not approved yet. This topic did come up and was discussed, but there seems to have been some misunderstanding, so I wanted to clarify it via email. As you mentioned as well, having a shared, common  understanding is important, and it’s best to avoid setting precedents that could cause bigger issues down the line.

https://www.eclipse.org/org/working-groups/jakarta-ee/charter/

https://www.eclipse.org/org/working-groups/process/

https://www.eclipse.org/org/working-groups/operations/

Working group committees require quorum and regularly vote on matters pertaining to the working group. As a result, elected representatives are required to be in regular attendance at meetings.

Best,

Tanja

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:49 AM Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Tanja,

I have reviewed the Eclipse Foundation governance policies but was unable to locate specific guidance regarding the handling of meeting minutes when quorum is not achieved.

To ensure I understand the requirements correctly, could you please direct me to the relevant policy section that addresses this matter? Specifically, I would appreciate clarification on the following points:

1. Does the policy explicitly state that minutes from meetings without quorum should not be approved, or does it indicate they do not require approval?
2. If the policy does not mandate that such minutes must remain unapproved, what is the rationale for reverting previously approved minutes to an unapproved status?

Understanding the policy foundation for this practice will help ensure proper compliance with Eclipse Foundation governance procedures.

Thank you for your assistance in clarifying this matter!

Thanks

Emily
================
Emily Jiang

Java Champion, Fellow of BCS

STSM, Jakarta and MicroProfile Architect @IBM

Liberty Cloud Native Architect & Advocate

E-mail: emijiang@xxxxxxxxxx
Twitter: @emilyfhjiang

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilyfhjiang/

---

From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Tanja Obradovic via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 15 December 2025 20:53
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tanja Obradovic <tanja.obradovic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for Approval: Jakarta EE Specification Committee Meeting Minutes - December 10th

 

Hello All, Thanks for sending these out Andrew! I wanted to follow up and clarify the governance practice regarding meetings that take place without reaching quorum. Our meeting on November 19 fell into this category. When a meeting doesn’t

Hello All,

Thanks for sending these out Andrew!

I wanted to follow up and clarify the governance practice regarding meetings that take place without reaching quorum. Our meeting on November 19 fell into this category. When a meeting doesn’t reach quorum, only discussions can occur.  Any notes taken do not require formal approval.

That said, the dated notes or discussion can still be brought up at the next meeting that does have quorum, and we can add any comments or updates as needed before including it in the minutes for approval.

Only meetings that achieve quorum have their formal minutes approved, because quorum ensures the legitimacy and fairness of decisions and proposed actions by requiring a minimum number of voting members to be present and participating.

I will add a comment in the meeting minutes document as well, asking for the notes taken on November 19th not to be approved. 

Thanks,

Tanja

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 5:02 AM Andrew Pielage via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The minutes for the December 10th Specification Committee call are below and are also available here. Please review and be ready for approval during our call on January 7th.

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - December 10th, 2025

Attendees (present in bold):

Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu - Takahiro Nagao

Emily Jiang - IBM - Tom Watson

Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov

Andrew Pielage (chair)  - Payara

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

Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative

Arjan Tijms - Omnifish OU - Elected Participant Member Representative 

Werner Keil - Committer Member

Jun Qian - Primeton Information Technologies - Enterprise Member

Zhai Luchao -  Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co. - Enterprise Member

Guest - Jakarta EE 12 co-release coordinators: Jared Anderson, James Perkins

 

Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic

Past business / action items:

• Approval is requested for the minutes from the October 29th, 2025 meeting as drafted - Approved
• Approval is requested for the minutes from the November 12th, 2025 meeting as drafted - Approved
• Approval is requested for the minutes from the November 19th, 2025 meeting as drafted - Approved

Agenda:

• Jakarta EE 12 Update [Jared Anderson]
• Dashboard
• M2 deadline: Deadline moved to January 27th
• Not enough specs ready for publication
• OSSRH progress being made
• Testing of staging underway
• MicroProfile namespace: ballot didn’t pass
• Discussions to continue in the new year
• Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of specifications progressing through the JESP specification version lifecycle
• Carry over from previous call:
• Progress reviews for Jakarta Config and RPC overdue.
• Jakarta Config approaching two years overdue
• Jakarta RPC approaching three years overdue
• Jakarta EE 11 Platform Retrospective
• Discuss action items, if any, which require the spec committee to follow up on
• Issue #55 - TCK Archive Format [Ed Bratt]
• Check in on Ed Bratt’s PR: pending
• Issue #74 - TCK challenge automatic acceptance - [Ed Bratt]
• Check on progress of specifications - set as a goal for M2
• Issue #58 - TCK challenge templates [Andrew Pielage]
• Check on progress of pull requests - set as a goal for M2
• 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.
• Issue #85 - Document Jenkins Maven Publication Jobs [Emily Jiang]
• Specifications having wiki pages (or equivalent documentation) goal for M2
• Carry over from previous call: Needs to be brought up in the Platform call and/or poke projects leads via email
• Issue #86 - Simplify Compatibility Certification Requests [Ivar Grimstad]
• Carry over from previous call
• Example to be created
• Ivar to reach out to understand the complaints
• Issue #83 - Clean Up And Clarify How To List TCK Service Releases On Specification Pages
• Feedback has come in now that the PR has been merged
• Discussions ongoing on how to track changes between TCK service release versions
• There’s already a changelog file they can update, it’s just not mentioned on the PR template file
• https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/blob/master/service_release_pr_template.md vs. https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/service_release_pr_template.md 
• It needs to be clear which changes are for the API service releases vs. the TCK service releases
• An issue to be created for further discussion [Ivar]
• Next call to be held on the 7th Jan
• 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

Deploy your Spring, Quarkus, and Jakarta EE apps in seconds with Payara Qube. Try FREE

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

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee

--

Tanja Obradović

Java Programs, Sr. Manager | Eclipse Foundation

Twitter:@TanjaEclipse

Eclipse Foundation: The Community for Open Collaboration and Innovation

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN

--

Tanja Obradović

Java Programs, Sr. Manager | Eclipse Foundation

Twitter:@TanjaEclipse

Eclipse Foundation: The Community for Open Collaboration and Innovation

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN

--

Tanja Obradović

Java Programs, Sr. Manager | Eclipse Foundation

Twitter:@TanjaEclipse

Eclipse Foundation: The Community for Open Collaboration and Innovation