[Foundation] I wish there was no Foundation

Thomas Charron tcharron at ductape.net
Fri Jun 29 14:48:36 CDT 2001


> 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.

    Here's something to counter this just a bit, and I find that to me the
argument counters itself.  It's quite simply this..

> just at the time when Jabber must be the most fluid and quick to.

    What *IS* jabber?  In this sentence, it's treating jabber as 'an
entity'.  Without a group of individuals working together personally AND
professionally what *IS* jabber?  The foundation is the legal *AND*
theoretical difinition of 'Jabber'.  Otherwise there is no Jabber.  It seems
that one of the counters 'AGAINST' the foundation is *ACTUALLY* a statement
*FOR* it..

> 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).

    Again, that 'We' statement.  Tell me, where does it go *WITHOUT* the
foundation.  It gets tossed around, modified by every little special
internest, and in the end, more then likely will suffer code rot in the
depth of the eBasement on some web page..  As an example, , 4 little, ugly
letters..  'MIME'..  :-)

> 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)?

    Then you're in *REAL LIFE* and not a fantasy land.  Here in real life,
individuals are NOT always right..  8-)




More information about the Members mailing list