[Foundation] Last Call standards

Stephen Lee srlee at myjabber.net
Fri Dec 13 16:58:31 CST 2002


Although I don't necessarily agree with everything Justin said, I do
hope your last comment was in jest.. Does seem a little counter

If we want Jabber to move forward, it would seem to me we should perhaps
try and be a little more forgiving when it comes to not agreeing with
someone's posts.

If Justin has pushed this to far , I'm sure there is a more polite way
of telling him.


-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On
Behalf Of Nicholas Perez
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:41 PM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] Last Call standards

I think you are mistaking lack of interest with lack of applicability 
or severe technical flaws (which have been addressed). But if you 
insist on continuing with this, how about I get you some cheese for 
that whine.

Nicholas Perez
Email: 	nick at devzero.homelinux.com
Jabber:	nickperez at jabber.org
Home:	303.759.0574

On 2002.12.13 12:35 Justin Karneges wrote:
> 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).
> -Justin
> 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
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org

More information about the Members mailing list