(Council/JEPs) Re: [Foundation] I wish there was no Foundation

Jeremie jeremie at jabber.org
Fri Jun 29 18:05:35 CDT 2001

> 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.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I think I'd rather see any such
deadlock situation simply be taken to the membership as a general vote
like any other issue can be.

To touch on some of the other aspects of this thread, one of the reasons I
initially *wanted* a foundation, was that in my role and duties to the
community, I couldn't keep up to the increasing pace and demand on
development and extensions.  I was becoming a wall to progress for Jabber,
and the rate of communication between interested parties was dropping
because things weren't getting through me.  By having the foundation come
this far I'm already seeing the pace accelerate again, and the amount of
cooperation, participation, and communication increase significantly.

> 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.

Absolutely, I'm expecting as much.  Many of the JIGs are already very
focused, and I'm hoping to see some of the protocol drafts we've had
sitting around a while turn into small JEPs.  Anything that would be a
radical architecture change, such as the interest in JAM possibly, would
likely be a seperate effort and project that would interoperate, derive
from, and just directly support the Jabber specs.

> 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.

I'm not entirely sure either, it's one of those things I think we need a
little experience with and have some JEPs going through the process before
it's clear.


More information about the Members mailing list