| [jakarta.ee-spec] Jakarta EE Spec Committee Approved Meeting Minutes - January 27th, 2021 |
Attendees (present in bold):
Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu
Dan Bandera - IBM - Kevin Sutter, Tom Watson (guest)
Ed Bratt - Oracle - Dmitry Kornilov
Andrew Pielage - Payara - Matt Gill
Scott Stark - Red Hat - Mark Little, Scott Marlow
David Blevins - Tomitribe - Jean-Louis Monteiro, Cesar Hernandez
Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative
Marcelo Ancelmo - Participant Member - Martijn Verburg
Werner Keil - Committer Member
Scott (Congquan) Wang - Primeton - Enterprise Member
Eclipse Foundation: Wayne Beaton, Tanja Obradovic, Paul Buck (chair)
References: JESP, Spec Committee page including approved meeting minutes
Past business / action items:
Approval is requested for the meeting minutes from the January 13th meeting as drafted - Approved.
Agenda:
Ongoing tracking spreadsheet of individual specs progress through the JESP
Jakarta EE 9.1 Platform Spec, Plan Review update [Kevin]
Public ballot of the 9.1 release plan to follow Steering Committee’s endorsement to proceed to that step
Review and discuss Jakarta EE 9 Specification Committee EE 9 Retrospective
The in-progress retrospective document was sent to the jakartaee-spec-project-leads and jakarta.ee-spec mailing lists for additional community input
Establish plan to provide the Specification Committee’s input for the Simplify Release Process objective in the Jakarta EE Program Plan - Quarterly Progress
See slides 5 & 6
For Q1 this item was added - Infra required for concurrent testing Java 8 and Java 11 support starting w/ EE 9.1. See draft proposal from Scott Marlow is here.
The committee will review the retrospective and identify items for Q2, Q3 and Q4.
Continue working on the Release Review requirement for a Service (Patch) Release
PR for the updated JESP - https://github.com/jakartaee/jakarta.ee/pull/1050
PR to Modify ops guide for a Service Release - https://github.com/jakartaee/jakarta.ee/pull/1047
Issue created against the EFSP - https://github.com/EclipseFdn/EFSP/issues/29
Refine the definition of “significant” in the EFSP to be “No functionality changes whatsoever to the specification” in the JESP. Consider applying the condition to just the specification document.
Is a ballot always required? The Specification Committee acts in its best judgement whether a ballot is needed.
Changes to the EFSP regarding Service Release will be contemplated in the next rev of the process.
Open issues to the EFSP as required
Wayne to investigate leveraging an “errata” approach to handling no-functionality-changes
Note: Call on February 10th is at 2:00PM UTC / 6:00AM PD / 9:00AM ET / 3:00PM CET / 10:00PM CT / 11:00PM JT
Calls now alternate every two weeks at 17:00 and 14:00 UTC