[xmppwg] possible charter text

Brian Waite ujustwaite at gmail.com
Sun Mar 22 12:16:10 CDT 2009


Alexey,
I think that the suggested changes to the proposed charter text I submitted
capture Salvatore's intentions, although I'm sure he'll confirm this. There
is a broader point here, though.

The charter, in my opinion, should not only capture the specific problems
the working group has already identified and is addressing, but should more
broadly define the responsibilities the working group intends to take on.
Salvatore's point is that a review is what is being done now. But what are
the next steps? Clearly the group intends to make revisions based on the
review and then promote the newly revised proposal for acceptance into the
standards process.

To that end, perhaps the charter should define a work plan process whereby
the goals of the working group and the specific problems it intends to
address in a given period are identified. Then a roadmap can be drawn as to
what each line of effort will result in. This work plan can then be reviewed
periodically to reflect and reform the current efforts of the group.

Thoughts?

--Struggles

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov at isode.com>wrote:

> Hi Salvatore,
>
> Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>
>  about the xmpp - sip interworking,
>> I don't think only reviewing the produced draft would be enough
>>
>
> Can you be a bit more specific about what you think needs to be done?
> If you can propose some update to the charter text, that would be ideal.
>
>
>  /Sal
>>
>>
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>  <snip>
>>>
>>> Many of the core and extended features of XMPP have also been
>>> implemented in technologies based on the Session Initiation Protocol
>>> (SIP). To ensure interworking between XMPP systems and SIP systems, a
>>> series of Internet-Drafts (draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-*) has been
>>> produced. The group will complete reviews of these documents in order to
>>> prepare them for standards actions.
>>>
>>
>>  In completing its work, the group will strive to retain backwards
>>> compatibility with RFCs 3920 and 3921. However, changes that are not
>>> backwards compatible might be accepted if the group determines that the
>>> changes are required to meet the group's technical objectives and the
>>> group clearly documents the reasons for making them.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Let the bashing begin. :)
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/xmppwg/attachments/20090322/ecabd80b/attachment.htm 


More information about the xmppwg mailing list