[Members] Where to Discuss JEPs the Right Way

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Apr 6 11:21:53 CDT 2004

Thanks, Matt.

Perhaps it would be good to make the process of motioning for a Last
Call more objective. Previously, the Last Call was issued at the whim of
the JEP Editor, who is notoriously unreliable. Last fall we added a
"check" with the members to make sure that there was support among the
membership for moving forward with a JEP (or, to be more precise, for
holding a final discussion of the JEP on the Standards JIG mailing 
list). Perhaps it would be more useful to have all JSF members answer a
few simple questions about each protocol proposal before moving to the
Last Call. I have in mind someting like the following:

1. Do you think this JEP solves an important problem or fills a hole
   in the Jabber protocol "suite"? 

   [Yes | No]

2. Do you or your company plan to add support for this protocol to 
   your products or code projects? 
   [Yes | No | N/A*]

   * You're allowed to vote N/A if you're not a developer

Tally up the votes. If a majority of members think this JEP is important
and/or if a majority of developers plan to implement it (perhaps within
the next 12 months?), then we move forward with the Last Call. If not,
we find out why not.



On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 05:48:19AM -0700, Matthew A.Miller wrote:
> I feel I need to say something about the latest threads on this mailing
> list.  I apologize for not saying something earlier, especially for the
> benefit of our newest members.
> There have been a couple of threads on this list discussing the merits
> of JEPs.  Please, I ask that we use standards-jig@ list for these
> discussions, and save this list for matters directly affecting the
> day-to-day operations of the JSF.
> The purpose of last call is to raise concerns and questions about JEPs
> the author(s) and Council feel are ready to move forward.  Yet last call
> cannot happen unless a percentage (15%, or about 8 or 9 members, IIRC)
> of the JSF membership agrees with this, hence the motion (and seconds)
> for last call.
> I understand and appreciate the active discussions about the motioned
> JEPs.  However, at this particular moment in time, replies on this list
> really should be restricted to whether you support the motion or not. 
> There is only so much time that can pass between the motioning of last
> call and its acceptance via seconds.  The current discussions on this
> list, while quite interesting and informative, are also somewhat
> distracting in that they are neither for nor against the motions at
> hand.
> If you want to discuss the technical issues about motioned JEPs, I ask
> that you direct such discussions to standards-jig at .  If you wish to
> state why you do or do not second the last call, you most certainly may,
> but please be prepared to restate those concerns on standards-jig@ (-: 
> Otherwise, please use this list for the direct operations of the JSF,
> and use standards-jig@ for the technical discussions on JEPs.
> Thank you, and good morning (in UTC-07:00 anyway) (-:
> -  LW

More information about the Members mailing list