[jdev] Jabber Certification Program
justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Fri Jun 18 05:21:11 CDT 2004
On Thursday 17 June 2004 5:44 pm, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> The DTCP argument is old and dead. It was a matter of multiple
> standards doing the same job coming out at the same time and then
> people pushing and shoving to make something move to the head of the
> class. That issue is over and dead, let's move past it, we're big kids
I may have had a cynical tone in my post, but I wasn't rehashing an argument.
Standards, procedures, and policies are important. Maybe I wasn't happy with
what happened back then, but if you re-read my text above you'll see that I'm
actually "on your side" now.
- Don't implement Experimental JEPs.
- Do implement Draft JEPs.
- Too bad if you implemented something that got superceded.
Those were the words of the council, and these are my words now.
Rachel was suggesting that the certification program might want to recommend
experimental JEPs, and I'm just trying to explain that this is a bad idea.
I can't imagine the JSF have a certification program involving experimental
JEPs, when you consider the nice red warning text that is currently at the
top of all of them. Left hand, meet right hand?
> As to the council opinion, implementations are fine, but if you're
> using a "real" JEP and it's experimental, than it's expected that
> you'll use the current version and then whatever becomes draft. We
> can't have ideas that are just written down, they need to be tested.
> This is also, related to the recent council discussion about not as
> quickly accepting or pushing JEPs through the process, and using the
> wiki more.
Maybe times have changed, because back then you (read: council) made a big
deal about not implementing Experimental JEPs. I mean it was a really big
deal, like a "don't even touch it" kind of thing. But it has been awhile, so
who knows anymore... but I think this led to the adding of the red warning
text in the JEPs.
But heck, by all means, change this policy if you want. To me, it doesn't
matter, as long as we are all on the same page. However, if the new position
is that implementations of Experimental JEPs are to be encouraged, then the
red text probably shouldn't contain "not recommended" (which, to put things
in perspective, is also in the Deferred and Retracted text).
> JEP-Secure has political issues and you know that. Don't make
> statements that are loosely blaming other people for that hold up.
My bad, this really wasn't a council issue. I was just trying to point out
that sometimes it can take a long time for JEPs to advance, and during that
time you just have to wait.
More information about the JDev