[Council] Moving Forward: Process

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Mar 19 15:04:02 CST 2002


I like the process we worked out in the meeting on Friday:

1. JEP Editor receives a proposal and informs the Council

2. Council reviews the proposal and writes its position paper within one
week of receiving the proposal

3. JEP Editor publishes the JEP (status: Experimental) and position paper
simultaneously

4. Community discusses the JEP, guided by the position paper, for as long
as the author would like (no time limit on discussion and modification,
though we might want to force a six-month timeout as the IETF does)

5. At the author's request, JEP Editor submits the JEP for a formal vote
by the Council (status: Proposed)

6. After one week, the Council either approves the JEP (status: Draft)
or rejects the JEP (status: Rejected)

7. At the request of the author (which may occur only after at least 60
days have passed since advancement to Draft and after the Council has
received and reviewed an implementation of the proposed enhancement), the
Council either advances the JEP to Final or rejects it (note: we may need
to build in time here for addressing problems with the implementation)

Is this consistent with your understanding of what we worked out, and do
you think it is reasonable? If so, I'd like to use this process
immediately with several JEPs I have in the queue. I say let's move ahead
with this process and at least try it out.

Thoughts?

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jeremie wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Jer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> 




More information about the Council mailing list