[Members] Motion for Last Call on JEP 88

Sebastiaan Deckers cbas at rhymbox.com
Thu Mar 11 11:28:38 CST 2004


Interesting topic... I freely admit that my knowledge of the JSF 
procedures is limited.

I guess the question on Mr. Rottenberg's mind was: How does one block a 
JEP from ever becoming an accepted Standards Track protocol?

JEP-0001 states:
<blockquote>
A /Standards Track JEP/ defines a proposed enhancement or extension to 
the official Jabber protocol, with the expectation that the enhancement 
will be required by a protocol suite or be the subject of compliance 
testing. This is the main JEP type of interest to the JSF.

An /Informational JEP/ usually defines a protocol in use within the 
Jabber community (either an existing "historical" protocol or a protocol 
that has been added to at least one implementation) without proposing 
that it be added to the standard wire protocol. Less commonly, an 
informational JEP may define processes and procedures related to the 
functioning of the JSF (e.g., the current document). This JEP type is of 
secondary interest.
</blockquote>

One of my main beefs with JEP-0088 is that it should be Informational 
rather than Standards Track.

Also, can someone show me a public implementation of JEP-0088?

-- 
Sebastiaan


Thomas Muldowney wrote:

> You may second which is saying you wish this JEP to progress to the 
> Last Call period where it is given a period of (supposedly) more 
> intense scrutiny in the Standards JIG.  After that period it will move 
> to vote or be asked to continue it's growth on the wiki or elsewhere.  
> The move to Last Call should signify the JEP is in a form that is very 
> near to what would be voted on, and that you at least somewhat approve 
> of it.
>
> It's never really been done, but a nay would be appropriate as well, 
> but would hopefully be backed with reasoning.
>
> If you have questions or comments that you would like answered before 
> voting then by all means ask, this isn't an extremely rigid process.  
> If the question is technical, please CC the Standards JIG.
>
> Did I miss any points or questions?
>
> --temas
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2004, at 7:36 AM, Rottenberg, Hal wrote:
>
>>> This is a motion for last call on JEP 88.
>>
>>
>> Ok, newbie lurker member questions.
>>
>> Upon a last call what are the options here?  Obviously a "second" can be
>> given, I've seen that.  Can one block the last call?  Is the last call
>> to mean that we the members are proposing that a JEP be pushed to a
>> vote?  Does it imply we "like" or support the JEP?  What if I have
>> comments to make on the content of the JEP, should that be done here, or
>> on standards-JIG?  Anything else I should know?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Hal Rottenberg
>>
>> Operations Technical Support Center - Deployment
>> Managed Services Design & Delivery
>> Hewlett-Packard Company
>> 404-774-4041
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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