[Council] proto-JEP: Message Archiving

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Fri Apr 30 10:53:28 CDT 2004

On Apr 30, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Matthew A. Miller wrote:

> Well, since we're expressing our interpretations of the proto-JEP 
> stage...
> I had thought the purpose to seeking council approval (or is that lack 
> of disapproval?) was to reduce the number of "dead-end JEPs".  So far, 
> I've seen two primary causes:
> 1) JEPs that have little or no interest in the community
> 2) JEPs that have serious technical deficiencies (such as lack of 
> reuse, does too much, too complex, etc).
> Personally, I think the full JSF membership (at the least) would 
> better determine cause 1, while we (theoretically) are best suited to 
> determine cause 2.  In fact, I was under the impression from our own 
> discussions that we would establish the protocol wiki to allow ideas 
> to cultivate until something "standards quality" emerged.  Since I 
> don't recall seeing a post to standards-jig and/or an addition to the 
> wiki about it, I also thought it fair for us to voice concerns now.
> -  LW

I agree with this.  My question to this would be.  For part 1, what do 
you do in a case like Justin's JEP where it seemed to come out of 
nowhere?  I think it's appropriate that we ask for it to be on the wiki 
and s-jig for a while before it's move forward.  That begs the question 
of how do we judge the general membership desire for a JEP?  Does it 
need multiple authors or an endorsement of some sort to move forward?  
And this still doesn't define a process for when a number is assigned.


More information about the Council mailing list