[Members] Where to Discuss JEPs the Right Way

Michael Bauer bauer at michaelbauer.com
Mon Mar 29 10:35:39 CST 2004

Nicely and professionally put, Matthew.  I second you.  :)

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
>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 mailing list