[Foundation] JIGs and JEEPs

[David Waite]

Rahul Dave wrote:

>So, if I understand it right, projects may want but dont need to use JIG's and
>JEEP's and such. Thats good, as each person will have their own style.
>
>Providing the "JabberForge" functionality is great too. Will jabelin use this?
>I hope so, as it will set the pace for things...jabber.org as David says will
>probably host this, right?
>
<snip/>

>Stpeter wrote:
>
>>All coding projects will be separate from the Foundation. However, the 
>>Foundation may provide infrastructure for Jabber-related projects, such 
>>as CVS, mailman, etc. Kind of a "JabberForge". :) So Jabelin, JPS (the 
>>mythical Jabber Perl Server), transports, clients, and so on would have 
>>their separate sites but might use resources at jabber.org.
>>
>>At least that's how I understand it.
>>
Hmm, wouldn't it make a bit more sense for the Jabelin project to fill 
this role, though? I just don't want the current 1.4 soon-to-be-Jabelin 
server to be confused as a reference implementation of the server, and I 
wouldn't want the Jabber Foundation to be geared towards either open or 
closed-source endeavors. Perhaps others feel differently? :-)

On the original announcement page (http://jabber.org/?oid=1309), the 
only goals I really see for that is for 'dissemination', being listings 
of server, component, client etc. implementations. I can especially 
agree with this for protocol-enhancing JIGs wishing to let people know 
what projects claim to implement the protocol drafts. What I don't want 
is for a JIG to be directly producing a 'binary standard', where people 
have to read sourcecode or probe features with a client to discover how 
things are supposed to interact.

Again assuming we aren't pushing open-source implementations over 
closed-source ones, it could be conceived as a promotion of a particular 
product by providing local hosting to it on the Jabber foundation's 
machines or domain.

-David Waite