[Members] Where to Discuss JEPs the Right Way

JD Conley jconley at winfessor.com
Tue Apr 6 12:01:44 CDT 2004


I agree as well.  We need to get a little more feedback from the members
as well as, or in lieu of, the vote on the motion.  How about a text
description of "If you're not going to implement this, why not?".

JD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gino Micacchi [mailto:ginomi at tipic.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:40 AM
> To: 'JSF members discussion list'
> Subject: RE: [Members] Where to Discuss JEPs the Right Way
> 
> 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
> use them... 
> 
> Gino
> 
> > -----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.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > 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
> > https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/members
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/members
> 



More information about the Members mailing list