[Council] proto-JEP: Message Archiving
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
> 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