Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[jakarta.ee-spec] Jakarta EE Spec Committee Approved Meeting Minutes - November 30th, 2022

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - November 30th, 2022

Attendees (present in bold):


Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu

Tom Watson - IBM - Emily Jiang

Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov

Andrew Pielage - 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

Scott Stark - Red Hat - Scott Marlow  Enterprise Member

Zhai Luchao -  Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co. - Enterprise Member

 

Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic, Wayne Beaton, Paul Buck (chair)


Past business / action items:

  • Approval is requested for the minutes from the November 16th, 2022 meeting as drafted - Approved.


Agenda:

  • Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of specifications progressing through the JESP version lifecycle

  • Ongoing work on and resolve Specification Committee’s process enhancements items including those identified in the Jakarta EE 10 retrospective:

    • Issues with the “enhancement” label are here 

    • Enhancement labeled issues in a project board is here 

See the issues in the board for updates

  • 11/15/22 Does the EFSP mandate that authoritative sources live within a specification project?  That is source input that ends up producing the final specification content [Tom]

    • API JAR’s are provided as a convenience, they are not normative. The JavaDoc and signature tests are part of the spec and therefore normative.

    • Is it a requirement that the sources used to create normative artifacts required to be managed as part of the specification project’s sources?

    • Is there a situation where a committer may have merged an artifact from sources outside of the project that has provenance elsewhere?

    • Is there a situation where there is a committer on an open source project that is not a committer on the specification project, where that committer has contributed to an artifact that is normative?

      • Scott Stark commented: This is the fundamental question given that implementation projects don't have a requirement that committers sign the specification working group agreement. If you think about this in terms of provenance as discussed in the current push for SBOMs, I don't think we want a situation where any source feeding into a specification project artifact is from a repo outside of the specification project.

    • Need to establish policy (if required) that apply to all specs

    • Wayne Beaton joined the meeting on November 30th to explore this topic further with the Specification Committee.

A discussion took place to help Wayne understand the situation, he will now consider it and consult with others in the Eclipse Foundation and update the committee at a later date.

  • Proposal - Cancel the next call scheduled for 12/14/22 … or is there a volunteer to chair the call? 

No objections were noted to cancel the call scheduled 12/14/22

  • Note: Biweekly call series to be created starting on 01/11/23

Back to the top