[Members] Where to Discuss JEPs the Right Way
cbas at rhymbox.com
Tue Apr 6 12:00:24 CDT 2004
I believe your first question should be asked by the Council as part of
the Publication Process (JEP 0001, Section 5) *before* the JEP is
accepted, assigned a number, etc.
The current approval system allows Council members to ignore JEPs that
they are not interested in.
It is my opinion that this has lead to a fair number of JEPs of
Why not let the Council (or even the full membership) decide whether the
JEP bears any relevance, right at the start?
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>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.
More information about the Members