[Council] Resolving the file transfer debate

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Mon Jun 30 01:59:34 CDT 2003


Ok, I'm done with the whole file transfer discussion. We must find a way
forward on this (the Board told us too), and soon - we won't be here
much longer ;)

We have the following for the underlying bytestream infrastructure:

  47 - In-Band Bytestream (IBB)
  65 - SOCKS5 Bytestreams

65 is in Draft, so there's no problem with that. I'm not sure of the
status of 47, however Justin Karneges beleives we have consensus on it.

We have two file transfer methods, as far as I can see:

  41 - Reliable Entity Link
  52 - File transfer (original v0.1, http://www.affinix.com/~justing/jep-filexfer.html )

  95 - Stream Initiation
  96 - File Transfer Stream Initiation Profile

(Justin Karneges intends to re-submit the above link as the "official"
JEP-0052).

I haven't been following the threads closely, so I might be wrong with
some of this, but I'll assume that I'm on the right track for the
moment.

I propose the following:

 - We (Council) call for submissions from interested parties. In these
   submissions, the authors will outline why they beleive one method is
   better than others. Flames will be ignored. There will be a deadline
   on submissions.
 
 - Once all the submissions are received, Council members will review
   them and decide which method they beleive to be the best.
 
 - Council votes on which method we will back. This does not mean that
   the chosen method will advance to Draft in its current form, but
   simply that the Council believes that development should be focused
   there (this also allows us to quickly squash new flamewars on the
   topic).

To address concerns of bias (since there are Council members who are
also authors of some of the above-mentioned JEP), I propose a majority
vote (no veto power). We only have eight members (since DJ is no longer
a member), so there's potential for a hang, but in the unlikely event
that this occurs, I expect we can deal with it.

After this, the people who do carry on about bias (and there will be
some) can simply be told that the Council has made the decision that
they beleive is in the best interests of the JSF and the protocol. If
they beleive their is bias, then as JSF members there is action they can
take, from simply not re-electing the Council at the next election, to
moving for removal of one or all members of the Council (avenues made
available in the Bylaws, I beleive).

I'd be quite happy to coordinate this entire process.

So, what do people think. Its probably not perfect, but we need to do
something.

Rob.

-- 
Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20030630/9908f360/attachment.pgp


More information about the Council mailing list