[Foundation] I wish there was no Foundation
iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 29 10:50:49 CDT 2001
The title (and not the thread) strikes a chord with me. For me there are
two opposing forces at work that wants and doesn't want a Foundation. Now
the reasons "against" are a bit late to have any relevance but I wondered
if anyone else shares my worry...
Hey, Jabber obviously needs some mechanism for allowing the community to be
involved in defining Jabber. There has also been an organizational problem
with standards being far outpaced by implementation. The core people who
should be preventing the two from falling too far out of sync are
understandably too busy to properly deal with the current explosion
The foundation clearly provides some structure to this chaotic situation
and hopefully will help us all work together to craft something bigger and
The reason I wish there was no Foundation is the risk (I think HUGE risk)
that the Foundation's bureaucracy is going to hamstring Jabber innovation
just at the time when Jabber must be the most fluid and quick to
react. Now is the time for a strong dictator to make hard decisions
quickly and concisely. I have a feeling that this kind of leadership is
going to be impossible with the Foundation.
For example, what if we decide that some critical advancement requires
completely restructuring major parts of the Jabber protocol? These changes
are necessary for moving forward. With the Foundation, it must go to a
JEP, get a JIG, get discussed, have a reference implementation built, get
voted on, etc etc. These delays can add up if several changes must occur
at once but the Foundation process requires them to occur in series (for
proper discussion and exploration of consequences).
And how flexible will the foundation process be in allowing such major
rewrites? As an example, I have been thinking about the current JID
format. Every way I turn it, there does not seem to be any reason to have
a JID address that contains resource information. The function it is
trying to serve (multiple devices for a single logical "user") does not
seem to warrant having the resource in the JID... except perhaps in the way
that the current jabberd server implementation uses this information for
internal routing. But this implementation issue should be kept clear from
the standard... If I submit a JEP to remove the resource from the JID how
quickly can I get this through (if ever)? What if one member of the
council that loves the idea of the resource in the JID sits on a -1 for a
few weeks while trying to turn around public opinion (e.g. politics)?
I think eventually the Foundation will eventually work things out and the
"best" decisions will be made. My worry is simply how much of a delay is
this going to incur.
I don't want this to be a complaint or a suggestion that things are
wrong. Just a nagging worry... Anyone else with this worry?
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Members