[Council] Moving Forward: Process

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Tue Mar 19 01:54:23 CST 2002


On 3/18/02 7:55 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:

> Hey Diz, since you were not able to attend Friday's meeting, I'd
> appreciate it if you would post to the list your latest thoughts on the
> proposed process changes and our discussion on Friday.

*sigh*

I'm quite swamped at the moment, but here are a few thoughts...

First off, I am against having an "Experimental" phase for JEPs. In my mind,
a JEP is either an extension proposal or it's not. It is confusing to have a
JEP for every wild idea that someone has. Additionally, having unbound
"Experimental" phases for said ideas often leads to (so-called) prototypes
that are never finished (and compliant with the protocol they represent),
yet they become de-facto standards simply by existing in a broken state for
a long time (see: iq:last). The whole point of the standards process is to
avoid these types of things. By only having a JEP when the idea is complete
and tested and ready to be voted on, we can minimize the confusion over the
state and level of standardization that a given JEP represents.

Ultimately, I want people to submit finished ideas to the Council and the
JSF. It's more work for all involved to track every tangential idea that
people have. Just MHO. Along those lines, I'd also like to see some sort of
requirement that forces an implementation or two before a JEP can go to any
sort of official endorsement. *ponder* Maybe it shouldn't even come in as a
JEP until there is at least one implementation that can be tested against.

I recognize that we'll want some way to organize and identify the ideas
being worked on in the community. I'm for a way of tracking those ideas, but
I think that whatever that "way" is, it should be separate from the JEP
process.

All that said, I was greatly encouraged to see the level of conversation and
interest in the Council over establishing a process.  The starting place is
obviously getting JEPs flowing and standards established. That's why we're
here. I'm not against the current mechanisms (at least, not completely), but
I really think that if we tighten up some of the requirements for submitting
JEPs it will help streamline the approval process and keep the overall
number of crazy, not-clearly-thought-out JEPs from overwhelming the
Foundation.

Well, it's 00.53 and I'm still not ready for my presentation tomorrow. Take
what I've said with a grain of salt and blast away.  :)

Diz




More information about the Council mailing list