| [jakarta.ee-spec] Jakarta EE Spec Committee Approved Meeting Minutes - May 19th, 2021 |
Attendees (present in bold):
Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu
Dan Bandera - IBM - Kevin Sutter, Tom Watson
Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov
Andrew Pielage - Payara - Matt Gill
Scott Stark - Red Hat - Mark Little, Scott Marlow
David Blevins - Tomitribe - Jean-Louis Monteiro, Cesar Hernandez
Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative
Marcelo Ancelmo - Participant Member - Martijn Verburg
Werner Keil - Committer Member
Jun Qian - Primeton - Enterprise Member
Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic, Wayne Beaton, Paul Buck (chair)
Past business / action items:
Approval is requested for the meeting minutes from the May 5th meeting as drafted - Approved.
Agenda:.
Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of individual specs progress through the JESP
Jakarta EE 10 Plan Review PRs - Candidate specifications
Noting the Compatible Implementation(s) used in Release Review and the Ratification step of specifications. Kevin’s proposal for review and decision:
Discussion: Instead of listing the CI used for ratification on specification page, create a link to the list of CIs. Two lists are needed, one for Platform and one for Web Profile. Also applicable to all specifications. The lists need to be locked down at ratification ie. they are not updated by CCRs that come along later.
Ed asked, should we do this for all specs or just Platform and Web Profile? Yes, for all specifications
Governance: These lists need to be locked down at ratification, and have a formal process for creating.
Ivar & Kevin to propose an approach to do this. Proposal to be reviewed and voted on either on the list or on a follow-on meeting.
Proposal from Dan, Kevin and Scott S. for how to handle optional features in Jakarta EE specifications including Platform and Web Profile. The proposal is here.
Discuss next steps to finalize the review and proceed to a resolution
Spec committee members that are not aligned with proposal 1. or 2., are requested to make suggested edits to these options or introduce a new option for consideration.
Process to revise the EFSP is underway, Jakarta EE Specification Committee asked to name their representative to the EFSP revision committee
Background - Wayne’s board to manage all of the issues that he’s tracking for this iteration
Dan, Kevin, Scott S. volunteered to represent the Specification Committee
Can’t recall if it’s been discussed already. So please apologize for the stupid question. https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/jakarta-config ← license is ASL v2. Do we want Eclipse instead? [Jean-Louis]
Topic was discussed on Slack, the outcome: The ASLv2 was chosen because there is code being brought in from MicroProfile Config.
Establish minimum contributors/committers a specification needs - See our Jakarta EE Program Plan Q2 objectives [Tanja]
Based on the metrics, all our specification projects have 6+ eligible committers
The data for these projects is available on the Jakarta EE Working Group Metrics page
The following item were not covered and will be added to the agenda for next meeting
Who can initiate specification ballots for the Specification Committee? Our current practice is that the ballots is initiated by the assigned Specification Committee mentor
Plan Review for Jakarta Messaging 3.1 was initiated by a committer on the specification project
Consider governance, EFSP and Spec Committee Operations Guide implications