Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] [BALLOT] Release Review for Jakarta Security 3.0
  • From: Andrew Pielage <andrew.pielage@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 13:31:45 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=81VAFyZkGD7NYSJuFgYksl2siJmcHk5qgN6TDPfkT+M=; b=mZ77pY7gyVL9B2aSD9oHWjZ/UG39NqV/kpczg/3LcbOUsToa8/NHeRCoqsx+BEJmHYIAsQs6+uRcUf9hmYB8rgx4qK/Cn7TvKsUYPD/9qlQrbAseL+aE7JBEBcdhM2mR4NTiTZLN9HjvfGGOisN7xFAAAb6y6/U+ZMZUizV9wj9VnBcml6iVSu8qXhW0ljGcuVAH4zdNHj+oEUppDswYzX7v1yWYzG09+2KFH2FQfoa9VQA+TJlH+A7T2Ttj7r1IsDCea3JacVus3O0CpfUrfTPs7Ag8po4nNOpIMnoYRSKYKm3PWDvz2qMvB7oVbb3ONMsujTGBTP9WSesIijcPjg==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=ELwntsAADpgFyUQ0wMhVle3UsjlYSutYErrEWDfIkngxYGNGMg6BtAYAspkfAbFuqwW1/eur6EQvamFpEkUyWHkExI2n/kAVlDXAdV67zRROmWftlbYuNfPenrbz/wSMxqVC6QMnryqZRfMUrDnSylgNHG74aEjEH/we7EQZ5gmk8SucY9ohe2aTXMKZmIlYKGk/b7EeWkbeagMoZHdEkcGX192muwYB2QHLrJiBTcnGsRb1QByJ60utxszLE6aJDenAANArsxVmmlq33uNbNXNlXSYN2TGWLJlxOwTN9iHl4c3lfs1VQ72Xew/iOl27s7ppD4sZCS8gkx1QIxClIw==
  • Delivered-to:
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • Thread-index: AQHYXsExjoLy22qQLEyXjULexYh00a0jJECA
  • Thread-topic: [] [BALLOT] Release Review for Jakarta Security 3.0

As commented on the PR itself, the staged TCK is missing the TCK User Guide.

Arjan asked if we’re allowed to update the TCK mid-ballot, and I’m not confident on saying whether we are or not?

It’s a non-functional change in the same manner as a copyright license update, but it’s on the TCK so updating it would presumably change the SHA and arguably justify needing the CI in the CCR to be rerun against it?


If someone more knowledgeable can advise it would be appreciated, although I think I’m the only person to have not voted +1 so far so unless this invalidates the ballot I think the die is cast.

Apologies for noticing this at the 11th hour!



Andrew Pielage

Java Developer at Payara Services Ltd
Payara Services Ltd - Open Source Enterprise Software & Support


From: <> On Behalf Of Jean-Louis Monteiro
Sent: 03 May 2022 08:41
To: Jakarta specification discussions <>
Subject: [] [BALLOT] Release Review for Jakarta Security 3.0


Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee,

I request your vote to approve and ratify the release of Jakarta Security 3.0 as part of the Jakarta EE Platform 10 release.

The JESP/EFSP requires a successful ballot of the Specification Committee in order to ratify the products of this release as a Final Specification (as that term is defined in the EFSP).

The relevant materials are available here:

Per the process, this will be a fourteen-day ballot, ending on May 17, 2022, that requires a Super-majority positive vote of the Specification Committee members (note that there is no veto). Community input is welcome, but only votes cast by Specification Committee Representatives will be counted.

The Specification Committee is composed of representatives of the Jakarta EE Working Group Member Companies (Fujitsu, IBM, Oracle, Payara, Tomitribe, Primeton, and Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co.), along with individuals who represent the EE4J PMC, Participant Members, and Committer Members.

Specification Committee representatives, your vote is hereby requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject). Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.


Back to the top