[Foundation] membership, money, and meritocracy

Shawn Wilton shawn at black9.net
Sat Apr 5 15:41:47 CST 2003


If this is the case then I vote to absolve the JSF.  It really has no use. 

You say that the JSF is responsible for protocol changes, advocacy and 
helping out the community. 

However the IETF will become responsible for the XMPP stuff and the 
council is responsible for voting on JEP's.  So where does the JSF fit 
in when it comes to protocl changes?  I'm confused.

You want advocacy but then you aim to extricate and obfuscate developers 
of some of the core jabber clients.  W/o clients Jabber would not exist. 

JSF does not help out the community.  Unless of course you include 
projects such as jabberstudio.  In which I digress.  Otherwise I see 
very little help here.  Most of the documentation is the same as it was 
prior to the JSF forming and the mailing lists that help the most really 
aren't even part of the foundation (dev, etc.)

So then if the JSF doesn't maintain the protocol, doesn't want key 
advocators and provides nominal support to the key community.  Where 
exactly does that leave it?  Has it simply become a mechanism by which 
to push the ideals of Jabber.com?  A commercial entity who's sole 
purpose is to accumulate capital.


If I'm confused, please enlighten me.

-Shawn

Peter G. Millard wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Ralph Meijer" <jabberfoundation at ralphm.ik.nu>
>  
>
>>On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 02:10:25AM +0200, johannes.wagener at gmx.net wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I hope you agree that the people in the group that writes jabber related
>>>      
>>>
>code are the
>  
>
>>>same people that bring in JEP (just because why should some non jabber
>>>      
>>>
>developer
>  
>
>>>have the idea to make a JEP???)... and in addition to that they are the
>>>      
>>>
>people that have
>  
>
>>>the neccessary experience in jabber to be able to judge a JEP.
>>>
>>>I am sorry, that the development of my client is not as fast as the one
>>>      
>>>
>of others. That is
>  
>
>>>because of my lag of time of course... I am still implementing my todo
>>>      
>>>
>list that holds
>  
>
>>>mainly the current existing JEPs. Whatever I think I have the skills to
>>>      
>>>
>judge a JEP.
>  
>
>>>Thus I think esspecially the people that write jabber related code
>>>      
>>>
>should have a free
>  
>
>>>oportunity to judge about other JEPs. And this is the JSF i think.
>>>      
>>>
>>As it stands now, the JSF membership does NOT decide on the acceptance of
>>    
>>
>JEPs.
>  
>
>>This is done by the Jabber Council. The Standards JIG is the place to
>>    
>>
>discuss
>  
>
>>protocols, but this list is not for JSF members only. Everyone can voice
>>    
>>
>his
>  
>
>>opinion on the various proposals, and everyone's voice carries the same
>>    
>>
>weight
>  
>
>>there, member or non-member.
>>
>>Changing the JSF structure so that the members of the JSF all belong to
>>    
>>
>teams,
>  
>
>>doesn't change this, at all.
>>    
>>
>
>Exactly - The current state of affairs means that ANYONE that participates
>in the Jabber Community is able to 'voice' their opinions on JEP's via the
>standards-jig mailing list. This is (and should continue to be) a completely
>public list which anyone can join. Being a member of the JSF right now has
>absolutely NO bearing on what JEP's get passed. Anyone in the community can
>author a JEP. Anyone can join the mailing list to participate in discussions
>about JEPs. Only the Council "passes" JEPs so that they become "standard"
>protocols.
>
>pgm.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Members mailing list
>Members at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>  
>




More information about the Members mailing list