[Members] Where to Discuss JEPs the Right Way
ginomi at tipic.com
Tue Apr 6 11:40:25 CDT 2004
Peter, I agree. It could be more useful, especially to know how many people
are ready to implement the protocol extension proposed. IMHO, but some JEPs
was approved with no opposition at all by the JSF body, but in fact nobody
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-bounces at jabber.org
> [mailto:members-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:22 PM
> To: JSF members discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Members] Where to Discuss JEPs the Right Way
> 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
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members