[Foundation] Last Call standards
ukscone at burninghorse.com
Sat Dec 14 04:10:07 CST 2002
I +1 this, I wasn't too keen on any of the other suggestions but didn't
feel strongly enough to actually put finger to keyboard. but I can
definatly live with this.
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 04:59, Justin Kirby wrote:
> While all the suggestions are perfectly fine. Personally I would like to
> see something like this as the method to bring a jep to last call and
> presentation to the council......
> 1. Author (or JSF member) consults with jep editor about going forward
> 2. jep editor says ok
> 3. jep editor issues request for "sponsor" from council
> 4. sponsor then rounds up 5% JSF members to second
> This has several benefits, it puts the initiating power back to the
> author and JSF members. It gives the JEP Editor control to stop
> frivolous last calls. Plus it involves the council early on in the
> One addition which might be useful is that the dissenters of the Last
> Call can not exceed 1/3 of the approvals. If the dissenters are more
> than 1/3 then the JEP must address the issues before initiating another
> Last Call.
> On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 11:41, 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
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members