[jakarta.ee-spec] Jakarta EE Spec Committee Approved Meeting Minutes - A

[Andrew Pielage <andrew.pielage@xxxxxxxx>]

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - April 1st, 2026

Attendees (present in bold):

Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu - Takahiro Nagao

Emily Jiang - IBM - Tom Watson

Dmitry Kornilov - Oracle

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 March 18th, 2026 meeting as drafted - approved

Agenda:

• Jakarta EE 12 Update [Jared Anderson]
• Dashboard
• June Core Profile deadline seems unrealistic due to participation issues
• Core Profile by end of year still desired
• Web Profile and Platform may slip into 2027
• M3 completed
• Movement happening across a number of specifications
• Question from the Platform for the Spec Committee: What is the appropriate and consistent way of specifications to communicate updates to APIs, TCKs, etc. to vendors?
• TCKs are downloaded from download.eclipse.org - how would they know that a new service release version is released?
• There is no obligation for a vendor to use the very latest service release - any and all are valid
• The specification page also has a link to the TCK downloads page generally, not to a specific version.
• The specification committee doesn’t feel that any new communication channels are necessary
• Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of specifications progressing through the JESP specification version lifecycle
• Carry over from previous calls:
• Progress reviews for Jakarta Config and RPC overdue.
• Jakarta Config approaching two years overdue
• Discuss any movement from the Jakarta Futures meeting
• Check for updates on actions from the talk with MicroProfile Config
• No updates
• Should we move to start following a Termination Review?
• Does this effect EE 12?
• No
• How do we run these? 
• Example: https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.skills/reviews/termination-review 
• Post to the spec committee mailing list and the project mailing list to check for any dissent before kicking off a termination review
• 2 weeks lazy consensus?
• Andrew to send the email
• Jakarta RPC approaching three years overdue
• Oracle to be poked before contacting the EMO
• Check for interest in helping out with this project: Oracle not currently working on this
• We should move to start following a Termination Review
• Post to the spec committee mailing list and the project mailing list to check for any dissent before kicking off a termination review
• 2 weeks lazy consensus?
• Andrew to send the email
• Issue #55 - TCK Archive Format
• Carry over from previous call: Need to double check with the MicroProfile community regarding the usage. Emily and Ed to bring this for further discussion at the next MicroProfile Technical call.
• Check in on progress
• MicroProfile are asking for the TCK to not be in a ZIP
• We need to reassign this and remind ourselves where this got to
• Issue #74 - TCK challenge automatic acceptance - [Andrew Pielage]
• Check in on progress of pull requests
• Ongoing
• Should we revisit this?
• Need to review the meeting minutes from previous calls to see if we voted on following the approach listed in the mail
• Suggestion to change the TCK Process to simply enforce lazy consensus
• Issue #58 - TCK challenge templates [Andrew Pielage]
• Check in on progress on final pull request for Config - merged
• We’re potentially looking at terminating this project
• Issue #82 - Consistent approach for TCK challenge exclusions
• Discuss adding some text to the TCK Process along the lines of “excluded tests should be disabled” to keep it general (since the exclude list file doesn’t make sense for all test frameworks).
• Actually, the TCK Process already has text to this effect: “Excludes MUST be included in the TCK project release in a format that is compatible with the testing framework in use so that as the excludes are updated, the affected tests are automatically removed from the test suite.”
• Check in on status of pull request
• Not discussed
• Issue #85 - Document Jenkins Maven Publication Jobs [Emily Jiang]
• Carry over from previous call: Needs to be brought up in the Platform call and/or poke projects leads via email. Emily to send an email to the spec leads mailing list.
• Check in on progress
• Not discussed
• New Jakarta EE release process with the new Eclipse Foundation Staging repo [Andrew Pielage]
• Any further action required?
• Issue #86 - Simplify Compatibility Certification Requests [Ivar Grimstad]
• Carry over from previous call
• When the CCR for GlassFish 8 comes in Arjan/Ondrej will come with proposals - if no proposals we shall close the issue
• Check in on progress
• Not discussed
• Issue #83 Follow-up - Clean Up And Clarify How To List TCK Service Releases On Specification Pages
• Carry over from previous call: We should draft an example for us to discuss and iterate on, taking into account the easiest way for us to then update all of the changelog files (volunteer welcome)
• Discuss any further amendments and actions
• Not discussed
• Sharing Maven Namespaces
• Questions raised about multiple specifications sharing Maven group IDs and namespaces: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/issues/7254 
• Carry over from previous call: Andrew to send an email to the spec committee mailing list to gather opinions
• Check in on progress and discuss
• CDI and Concurrency are moving their namespaces away from `jakarta.enterprise` 
• There is some support for potentially defining some rules
• Andrew to send email to mailing list
• Reminder: Promoting TCKs is a collective effort
• See mail from Scott 
• Ivar usually does this, but it is in everyone’s interest that other committee members help out as well since Ivar is not necessary always available and some of the promotions may be time critical
• Here is the CI Job for promoting TCKs
• Is a “refresher course” for how it is done needed?
• The mentor for each specification should be doing this
• Andrew will help to publish the Platform TCK in this instance
• 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
• Not reviewed
• Ed Bratt unfortunately is no longer going to take part as a member of the Jakarta Specification Committee