[Council] Moving JEPs Forward

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Wed Feb 11 12:36:11 CST 2004


Now that the lists are active again... (-:

This is a status update, and a "request for consensus" regarding the two 
JEPs we're currently focused on.  I've been working with Joe Hildebrand 
and Peter Saint-Andre with regards to these two JEPs (Invisible Presence 
and Packet Headers).

For JEP-0018, stpeter believes it could simply be rejected by this 
Council.  There are compliancy issues between this and XMPP-IM, and 
there are very few implementations that follow even a subset of this 
JEP.  Do we want to vote this to "rejected", or try to move it to 
"obsolete"?  I think my current inclination is to move to "rejected", 
but I'm not committed to that decision.

For JEP-0033, hildjj is working on a new (mostly editorial) revision, 
and should have that available soon (if not already completed).  Once 
that's done, we can motion for LAST CALL.  If anyone here as a specific 
issue they'd like covered sooner rather than later, let hildjj know ASAP.

Related to JEP-0018 is JEP-0126: Invisibility.  JEP-0126 would replace 
JEP-0018 with a model that is much more XMPP-IM friendly.  Since XMPP-IM 
is now a Proposed Standard, stpeter would like to motion for LAST CALL, 
which I'm doing so once I get a response or two regarding my JEP-0018 
question.

And that's all I have for now (-:


-  LW


Thomas Muldowney wrote:

> OK, we need more final decisions and action on our pending JEPs.  So, 
> I'm going to seed the list with 2-3 JEPs that we can discuss and get 
> _final_ action on.  This means it gets to last call, the author is 
> definitely moving, or something like that.  We'll take as long as it 
> takes for each set of JEPs, but I will constantly poke the list during 
> the process and make sure we're discussing and moving.  Our order of 
> operations will then be, discuss, choose an action, initiate that 
> action.  It's all about action.
>
> We'll start it off with two JEPS:
>
> JEP-0018:  Invisible Presence
> JEP-0033:  Packet Headers
>
>
> My personal feelings on those JEPs:
>
> JEP-0018:  XMPP is moving, we want it gone, why do we have to wait for 
> privacy lists to become final to get rid of this when it's so disliked?
>
> JEP-0033:  I really hope this doesn't fall to the same fate as many of 
> the disco era JEPs.  The JEPs just sat pending while new tech was 
> developed and the JEPs were adapted.  How long will the infobits vs 
> namespace discussion take, considering I'm not seeing debate around it 
> right now.  What can we do with this JEP while we wait?  JEPs 
> constantly reworking to new tech really concerns me.
>
> --temas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council





More information about the Council mailing list