[Council] Moving Forward: Process

Peter Millard me at pgmillard.com
Tue Mar 19 16:36:17 CST 2002


I'm ok with most of this, but it seems that Dizzy is trying to promote more
"active" pushing of the JEPS so that a JEP is not allowed the time stagnate.
The problem we've had in the past is that an idea is proposed, then
implemented, then holes get shot thru it :)

If the JEP author is allowed the luxury of letting the JEP sit in
experimental for a long time, we run the risk of having it become a
"de-facto" standard because an implementation exists. Would imposing a time
limit on Experimental JEPS solve this problem?? (I'm not sure and can argue
both sides of the issue I think :)  So it seems the key elements are steps 4
& 5:

> 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)

Should the council be responsible for "poking" the JEP author after
discussion dies down on the list?? Should the JEP editor be responsible for
this?? OR, do we have some notion of "inactivity" that can be measure and
mandate that some state change happen withen some time limit of inactivity?

My $0.02

Peter M.






More information about the Council mailing list