[Foundation] Last Call standards

[Dave Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1, obviously :)

Diz
On Friday, Dec 13, 2002, at 09:41 America/Denver, Peter Saint-Andre 
wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> DTCP is at Last Call stage because a couple of people proposed it as
>> such. That does _not_ mean it _should_ be at Last Call stage -- 
>> indeed,
>> I would argue that the barrier to "Last Call" should be significantly
>> higher.
>
> IMHO the old system (essentially a JEP Editor autocracy) was not 
> broken,
> but we fixed it anyway because we wanted to make sure that there was 
> some
> level of community interest before proceeding to Last Call. Now, 
> however,
> we've lost the previous check of the JEP actually being ready for prime
> time (which was negotiated between the JEP Editor and the author, with 
> the
> JEP Editor often consulting with Council members).
>
> During the tenure of the first Council we didn't have the Last Call
> process, but there was an effort to get the Council members more 
> involved
> earlier on to make sure that a proposal was sound before proceeding 
> (e.g.,
> Dave Smith proposed that a Council member write a "report" on each JEP
> before it could given a number and then published). That idea never 
> took
> off, but I do think it would be good to get some feedback from the 
> Council
> before moving to Last Call.
>
> One possible solution is that only Council members could propose the 
> Last
> Call. This would force Council members to read and review the JEP 
> before
> it goes to Last Call, since in essence the proposing Council member 
> would
> act as a sponsor for the JEP. I don't think Council members would do 
> that
> without first consulting with other Council members, because their
> technical reputation would be on the line. This would also force JEP
> authors to communicate with Council members earlier in the process 
> (IMHO
> such communication has been lacking). Once a JEP was proposed for Last
> Call by a Council member, 5% of the JSF membership would still need to
> second the proposal as we are doing now (thus retaining the 
> "democratic"
> aspect of consent from the community). I feel that this would introduce
> some checks and balances into the process -- it's not autocratic as in 
> the
> past (much as I yearn for the good old days of absolute power :) nor 
> fully
> democratic as we have now, but a good mix of both (the Council is like 
> the
> Senate and the JSF members are like the House of Representatives).
>
> A system such as this would be my strong preference going forward.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 (Build 349) Beta

iQA/AwUBPfopBGDRN3IVRx7DEQJtOACggjwAtWuINwTKpgaVBLnS/cvEohcAoI9g
Yn4CAs79KFYn+XjxiJS+Dkqz
=7vHh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----