[Foundation] Last Call standards
justin at affinix.com
Fri Dec 13 13:35:56 CST 2002
This doesn't sound like a problem, except let me share my experiences with the
council and DTCP. Most of the council does not care about this sort of
thing. The only person I can ever talk to about it is temas. This number
should be higher.
It is important the council actually care about the issues, even if the JEP is
totally uninteresting to them. In other words, they are going to have to
read new JEPs and be actively involved with the authors, otherwise we'll
never get anywhere. They should also have a responsibility to being
available (Jer: hint, hint).
On Friday 13 December 2002 08:41 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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 Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members