[Foundation] Re: [Council] Extension Proposals

Barry G Lee bglee at myjabber.net
Mon Oct 27 07:24:57 CST 2003


Did everyone get the original mailing?

I did not????

Barry


-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On Behalf
Of Jacek Konieczny
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:49 AM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: [Foundation] Re: [Council] Extension Proposals


On Fri, Oct 24, 2003, Paul Curtis wrote on Council mailing list:
> Extension Proposals
> 
> As was stated to me during the last Council meeting, the current
> enhancement proposals
> will not be a part of the IETF standard XMPP protocol.

I agree this that statement. But I cannot agree with the rest of your mail.
 
> Categorize the proposals as Final, Draft, and Deprecated. The 'Final'
> proposals will be
> those proposals that have completed the process, and have been voted on by

> the membership.
> Proposals that are currently 'Final' would remain so, while those that
have 
> not completed
> the process will be marked as 'Draft'. The 'Draft' status indicates that 
> the proposal has
> been entered with the editor, and is currently under review and revision. 

Are you suggesting, that we should get rid of "Experimental" JEPS and have
only "Draft" (which whould be something between current "Experimental" and
"Draft") and "Final" JEPS?

> Further, as many have pointed out, the proposals are not 'Jabber' in 
> the
> way that many are
> accustomed to referring to it. I will not take a position on such things
as 
> foundation
> name changes, but I will suggest that proposals be called 'Extension 
> Proposals' or even
> 'XMPP Entension Proposals' rather than JEPs.

This is the part I disagree with most. Most of JSF members joined JSF to
help developing _Jabber_ protocol and _Jabber_ community. It is great that
new XMPP protocol has been created. It will be the base for Jabber, but not
only for that. Jabber should still be Jabber, but now it will be one of XMPP
aplication. Extesions to XMPP defined by JSF should be considered Jabber
protocol, as standards defined by W3C are considered WWW.

I think such big change probosals should be discussed on members list first
(what is Jabber and what are documents prepared by Council is not what
Council should define). Council list is public (for readers), so I don't
think there is anything wrogn with passing the topic here by me.

Greets,
        Jacek
_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members





More information about the Members mailing list