[Council] Moving Forward: Process

Jeremie jeremie at jabber.org
Tue Mar 19 14:10:35 CST 2002

> 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. 

Ok, I'm sufficiently confused, this seems to be quite opposite of your
first stance:

> The first step that we can take to accomplish these goals is to begin
> a more active participation in the JEP process. By publicly reviewing
> and promoting the development of JEPs we can ensure that innovation
> continues to happen, and that innovation is widely understood and
> documented (an area where the Jabber community tends to fall down).

I believe being involved early in the process and providing more feedback
is of greater importance to the community and those working on adding to
Jabber.  I don't believe it is confusing to have experimental status JEPs,
or hard to seperate those from the agreed-upon and standardized ones, and
if this becomes a problem it can probably be solved by simply
presenting/listing them differently.

> 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.

It's obvious that we're not overwhelmed with JEPs, and to be honest, I'd
much prefer to have that problem versus a lack of activity.  If we start
getting large amounts of "crazy, not-clearly-thought-out JEPs" then we're
not doing a very good job in communicating the common issues and comments
on other experimental JEPs.


More information about the Council mailing list