[Foundation] Last Call standards

Stephen Pendleton movsoftware at movsoftware.com
Fri Dec 13 13:57:09 CST 2002

I agree with this suggestion as well, even though I am not a council member.
However, it seems to me that until the membership asked for a DTCP last
call, these issues were not raised. If the council is given the power to
raise a last, then they need to accept the responsibility to review the
JEP's for technical issues within a reasonable period of time.

Some sort of DTCP solution needs to be decided upon because a real need for
it is out there!


-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
Behalf Of Ben Schumacher
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 12:22 PM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] Last Call standards

Hash: SHA1

+1... this idea makes a lot of sense to me. I think the current system
has the unfortunate side effect of causing JEPs to be advanced before
they are technically ready, and then summarily rejected by the council.
This, obviously, offers little benefit to the Foundation as a whole, and
could result in unnecessary tension between JEP authors and the

The point is, I think its a fine idea. Ideas like this are important to
the evolution of the Foundation, as it benefits the community as a whole.



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
| 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
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org

More information about the Members mailing list