[Foundation] Re: [Council] Extension Proposals
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Oct 28 16:46:18 CST 2003
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Let's see how it goes.
And David, I agree with you that the very environment in which we work
may be changing. There is a lot to assimilate here, and I think the h2o
process will help us do that.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 04:31:44PM -0600, David Sutton wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> Reply inline..
> On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:18, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> > As there seems to be some confusion (and some animosity) surrounding my
> > earlier post, I've decided to forward this message to the list, which is
> > my response to Paul, clarifying my position (and I do apologize for the
> > wording in the original post, it was shot off quickly at a point when I
> > realize I had insufficient information). It begins:
> > > Look... the point is, if this is really intended to be an open
> > > discussion amongst members, then it should be posted about on the
> > > members list. I don't read council. I don't, generally, care about the
> > > goings on of the council mailing list, as I imagine that when they've
> > > come up with something they're prepared to present to the membership,
> > > then they'll do that... (and frankly, I don't have time for another
> > > mailing list)... besides, it mostly seems to consist of discussing
> > > technical nit-picks that are nothing more than rehashes of what's
> > > already been discussed on standards-jig. It does, however, bother me
> > > when people seem to be moving away from formats of communications that
> > > are open and transparent... it reminds me of O'Reilly's "No Spin
> > > Zone"-- which is nothing more than a playing field over which he has
> > > complete control, and as such, he gets away with censoring and
> > > attacking people, without giving them the opportunity to defend
> > > themselves. Moving the JSF (and discussions related to the JSF) into
> > > an environment where one person is able to exercise complete control
> > > over ideas is not productive... and there is a long history of folks
> > > trying to do just that. While there is a ton of fluff on mailing
> > > lists, there is, also, a ton of important and useful things... as
> > > the song goes, "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them
> > > both, and there you have... the facts of life."
> > And in response to Paul's later emails on the same issue.
> > 1) List admins may have some control, but since these lists are
> > unmoderated, it seems startlingly unlikely that anybody could stop a post
> > that was intended to be delivered to the membership, at-large, without at
> > least one person seeing it. As I understand the H2O system, responses are
> > hidden from view until a "round" is over. It would be, I imagine, a simple
> > matter for somebody with control over the system to modify or remove a
> > reponse from the system, and leave the other parties involved (with the
> > exception of the person who sent the message and the person who
> > altered/removed it) unaware. I am in no way implying that this is
> > something you would do, but I do think it is a risk when we move from the
> > transparent system of mailing lists we currently use to discuss such
> > matters.
> The problem with this argument is that it can be applied to the mailing
> lists as well. There is nothing to stop someone switching over to a
> silent moderation, and checking every post before it is made. I'm not
> saying that it has or ever would, only that it could.
> If you boil away all the excess, it comes down to a question of trust.
> Having seen how mailing list discussions have gone in the past, I am
> interested to see how the h2o model will work. Having to take time to
> work on an answer is a benefit in my mind, so that answers are likely to
> be more measured and less of a snap decision. Is it a 'be all and end
> all' solution? No, but it will help to clarify the points being made, so
> there is less confusion when the result is discussed as a whole.
> > 2) Something that so radically changes the meaning of JEP's, their goal,
> > etc, seems like it should be discussed with the membership, at-large. As I
> > understand the organization of the JSF, the council is supposed to be a
> > body that guides the technical standards. I do not, personally, believe
> > that renaming, recategorizing, or significantly changing the process under
> > which JEP's are accept falls under the realm of technical guidance
> > although, undoubtably, people will disagree with me on this particular
> > point.
> I think there are some more fundamental questions that need to be
> addressed first. We need clear and precise definitions of what each of
> the commonly used terms, such as 'Jabber' and 'XMPP' are, and the
> relationships between them. The IETF and XMPP developments are possibly
> changing the very environment that we are working and developing in, and
> a review of where we are now and where we want to be going is a need in
> my eyes.
> In XML, we have namespaces to define the 'language' so all sides know
> what it is that they are talking about. We need the equivalent in these
> kind of discussions - define then discuss.
> > Cheers,
> > bs.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
Jabber Software Foundation
More information about the Members