[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
And that's all I have for now (-:
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.
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
More information about the Council