[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for Approval: Jakarta EE Specificatio

[Andrew Pielage <andrew.pielage@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The minutes for the April 2nd Specification Committee call are below and are also available here. Please review and be ready for approval during our call on April 16th.

Jakarta EE Spec Committee - April 2nd, 2025

Attendees (present in bold):

Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu

Emily Jiang - IBM - Tom Watson

Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov

Andrew Pielage (chair)  - 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

Jun Qian - Primeton Information Technologies - Enterprise Member

Zhai Luchao -  Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co. - Enterprise Member

Guest - Jakarta EE 11 co-release coordinators: Ed Burns, Jared Anderson

 

Eclipse Foundation: Tanja Obradovic

Past business / action items:

• Approval is requested for the minutes from the March 19th, 2025 meeting as drafted - Approved

Agenda:

• Catch up on the Jakarta EE 11 Release Plan [Jared Anderson]
• EE 11 - Prioritized backlog · Jakarta EE11 TCK Release (github.com) and Jakarta EE11 TCK Release board  
• Web Profile release review PR created: https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/802 
• Ballot ongoing - supermajority reached, though not everyone has yet voted
• Platform TCK progressing
• Initial delivery estimate: 1 month
• Will happen this quarter
• Web Profile and Core Profile POM
• Not normative, provided for convenience
• No action required at this time
• Do we want to adjust the language slightly? Currently the Platform and Web Profile pages say that they have “removed all usages of the Security Manager”
• Change to “Remove Security Manager requirements”?
• Catch up on the Jakarta EE 12 Release Plan [Jared Anderson]
• Project board: https://github.com/orgs/jakartaee/projects/17/views/1 
• Aim to get Plan Reviews in by the 15th April
• Do we need to increase the Creation Review requirements?
• Require a Progress Review within x months (instead of the standard 12)?
• Do they need to list milestones?
• Would require adjusting the JESP text
• Need to be careful that we don’t make the requirements to stringent
• We shall make an issue to investigate and discuss in the specification committee repo
• Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of specifications progressing through the JESP specification version lifecycle
• Issue #55 - TCK Archive Format
• Check in on Ed Bratt’s document: link
• Check in on Ed Bratt’s PR: pending
• Issue #83 - Clean up and clarify how to list TCK service releases on spec pages
• Carry over from Feb 19th call:
• Action: Ivar to update the template: https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/blob/master/spec_page_template.md 
• Check on progress of pull requests
• Issue #74 - TCK challenge automatic acceptance
• Email: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec.committee/msg03564.html 
• Carry over from Feb 19th call:
• An issue will be created to track this
• Should we instead track it in the existing issue in a similar manner to #83?
• Yes - Andrew will add a comment to issue #74
• Issue #58 - TCK challenge templates
• Check on progress of pull requests
• No noticeable progress, mentors reminded to create the pull requests and then update the appropriate checkboxes in the issue
• Issue #82 - Consistent approach for TCK challenge exclusions
• Carry over from February 19th: TCK Process should be updated with something akin to Scott Starks suggestion.
• No progress
• MicroProfile Rehoming Proposal
• MicroProfile Working Group raised concerns about the openness of Jakarta EE
• What is meant by “openness”?
• The specification committee mailing list is private
• It is publicly indexed however: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec.committee/2025/Mar/index.html 
• The approved meeting minutes for the specification committee are published to the website and to the public specification mailing list
• Is this about participation?
• Do we actually need the private mailing list?
• Could run most things in the public by default
• Do we want to open up the regular specification committee meeting which is currently private?
• Possibly once a quarter?
• Encourage feedback via GitHub issues?
• Allow “listen only” participation?
• The MicroProfile mailing list conversation: https://groups.google.com/g/microprofile/c/6HI5JjrZi3c 
• 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

--

Andrew Pielage
Senior Software Engineer

		payara.fish
		+448005385490

Try our fully managed cloud native application runtime. 15 day trial available. Payara.cloud

Payara Services Ltd, Registered office: Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, WR14 3SZ, United Kingdom
Registered in England and Wales: 09998946 | VAT: GB 193854467

Payara is a proud recipient of the prestigious Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade 2021