[Foundation] I wish there was no Foundation

Rahul Dave rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu
Fri Jun 29 15:57:25 CDT 2001


> 
> Against
> 
> 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.

This is why I think that having Jer as dictator for life is a good idea. If the
council is deadlocked, he decides. One problem may arise in voting schemes in
the council. We put:
<quote>
JEPs will not receive approval from the Council so long as any Council Member continues to vote -1, and that Council Member's written concerns must be addressed in order for the JEP to pass.
</quote>

What happens if one person consistently votes -1, and refuses to atleast move to
0. Then the JEP is deadlocked. In this case why not add..whatever Jer decides
wins.
> 
> 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).
> 
Its my hope that JEP's get used in the right way, which im my opinion,
is small enhancements like PASS, xml-rpc over jabber, so that the turnaround
to acceptance is quick.  So if there is a large change it might be better to chunk it down.

One aspect was not clear in the new JEP process. Does the "consensus" before
implementation starts require a vote? Or is the vote for both the initial
consensus and post implementation acceptance into Jabelin as reference code?
The way to address this concern might be that the initial stage is that
initial consensus before implememtation(ie Draft stage) is by Jer declaring
that there is consensus, or simple majority of council, and that the full
vote with -1 business is only for draft->final workflow.

> 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 

Why is having the resource a bad idea. i think the jabber scheme is the
best we have for a universal URN scheme. So much so that in some work I
am doing with mozilla (its not a jabber client per se, but a resource which
connects to a jabberbeans based java client using a local proxy server, with
the jabber URM scheme created as a protozilla protocol(protozilla.mozdev.org))
I use
user at host/resource_instance
and
user at host/resource_class/instance

to represent resources such as web files as well as applications.

I believe this should be a naming issue rather than a protocol issue..
> 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)?
> 
See above for suggestions..
What do you think?
Rahul
> 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?
> 
> -iain
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list