[Council] Moving JEPs Forward
rob at cataclysm.cx
Wed Feb 11 16:23:44 CST 2004
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> 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.
I think "rejected" is the way to go. "obsolete" kinda says that I should
expect to see it around in older implementations, which really isn't the
case (at least not all of it, as you say). "rejected" more says "this is
crap, ignore it".
> 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.
Excellent. I've been tracking the updates to this, and its looking very
> 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
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
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20040212/034d710f/attachment.pgp
More information about the Council