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

[Andrew Pielage <andrew.pielage@xxxxxxxx>]

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - August 19th, 2026

Attendees (present in bold):

Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu - Takahiro Nagao

Emily Jiang - IBM - Tom Watson

Dmitry Kornilov - Oracle, Robert Patrick

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 August 5th, 2026 meeting as drafted - Approved

Agenda:

• Jakarta EE 12 Update [Jared Anderson]
• Dashboard
• Platform Minutes
• CDI 5.0 in review
• Still aiming for fourth quarter for Core Profile
• GlassFish has a new M3 release, which includes new milestone releases e.g. Faces
• Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of specifications progressing through the JESP specification version lifecycle
• Check on Progress review for Jakarta Config
• Ondrej is aware of the need for a progress and is looking to submit one after the summer holidays: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/config-dev/msg00275.html 
• Check on progress of Termination Review for Jakarta RPC
• Carry over from previous call: 
• Email sent to EMO and PMC, and response given: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec.committee/msg03739.html 
• EFSL version: the latest version is 2.0 [Emily]
• Some specs still uses 1.0
• We should tell the Jakarta EE platform team that all of the updated specs need to use 2.0
• 1.1 is good enough, but no harm in 2.0
• They do need to move off of 1.0 - we should fail reviews on this
• Emily to send email
• If linking to a license, you should link to a specific version, rather than the versionless URL (as this is always the latest)
• E.g. don’t link to https://www.eclipse.org/legal/efsl/ - link to https://www.eclipse.org/legal/efsl-1.1/ 
• Issue #74 - TCK challenge automatic acceptance - [Andrew Pielage]
• Check in on progress of pull requests
• 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. Check in on any updates to email. Add a checklist item to the spec review checklist
• Added to the spec review checklist via a PR and Ivar merged it. I have started using it to review Jakarta CDI 5.0 and the team has done the update as a consequence.
• https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/pull/90
• We also need to update the checklist in the specifications template: https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/pull_request_template.md 
• Issue #89 - SHA512
• Discuss any reasons why we shouldn’t allow
• Nobody is aware of any reason why not
• Pull request templates need updating
• Any documentation where we mention it needs updating:
• TCK Process guide: https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/tckprocess/ 
• Any others where it’s mentioned under https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/ 
• Maintained in GitHub here: https://github.com/jakartaee/jakarta.ee/tree/src/content/committees/specification 
• The promotion scripts where we generate the SHA-256 will also need updating: https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-tools/blob/master/promotion/ 
• Requesting an owner
• Issue #48 - Dependency Injection Name
• Check for any response or update by anyone if anything needs doing, and potentially close if not
• Everything seems to be correct as far as we can tell:
• https://github.com/jakartaee/inject/blob/master/src/main/java/module-info.java: module jakarta.inject
• https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/blob/master/names.adoc: Says the module name is jakarta.inject
• Issue closed
• Promoting TCKs is a collective effort [Ivar Grimstad]
• Carry over from previous call
• Probably worth doing a refresher course when there are more members present
• Can we also document them in our GitHub repo? https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee 
• Tools repository where the scripts exist: https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-tools/tree/master/promotion 
• Timeboxed demonstration when we have time and enough members present
• Todo (ivar): Add a link to the CI instance and job with a couple of bullet points explaining it
• Issue #55 - TCK Archive Format
• Check for any feedback
• On hold for now. Waiting for concrete ask from MicroProfile
• 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
• Issue #44
• Those present on the specification committee call today believe this issue is no longer relevant: we will look to close it on the next call (2nd September) if nobody provides an update on the issue stating that it is still relevant
• Issue #43
• This is nominally now standardised - most specifications are using the same format now.
• What's unclear is whether this is documented anywhere, and if a need to have a written standard is required.
• Do we need to perform a review?
• Those present on the specification committee call today believe this issue is no longer relevant: we will look to close it on the next call (2nd September) if nobody provides an update on the issue stating that it is still relevant