[Members] Fwd: [Board] proposed version 1.14 of JEP-0001

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Sep 14 10:46:52 CDT 2004

FYI. Feel free to discuss these matters here, since they will change  
some JSF work processes and affect the role of the membership in Last  
Call decisions.



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
> Date: September 10, 2004 10:51:41 AM MDT
> To: board at jabber.org, Jabber Council discussion list  
> <council at jabber.org>
> Cc: Subject: [Board] proposed version 1.14 of JEP-0001
> Reply-To: Discussion list for JSF Board members <board at jabber.org>
> In consultation with the Jabber Council and as discussed in today's  
> meeting of the Council [1], I have provisionally modified JEP-0001 to  
> do the following:
> 1. Defined a new category of "Organizational JEPs", which is the union  
> of the old "JIG Formation JEPs" and certain "Informational JEPs" (such  
> as JEP-0001 and JEP-0053), in order to lessen confusion about what an  
> Informational JEP really is and how they are processed:
> http://www.jabber.org/~stpeter/jeps/01.html#types
> 2. Following up on a thread on the Standards-JIG list [2], added a new  
> section on "Modifications to Approved JEPs" in order to make explicit  
> existing Council practices regarding changes to Active and Final JEPs:
> http://www.jabber.org/~stpeter/jeps/01.html#mods
> 3. Specified that JEPs on which voting was not complete at the end of  
> a Council term shall undergo a second Last Call and subsequent vote by  
> the new Council:
> http://www.jabber.org/~stpeter/jeps/01.html#approval (paragraph 2)
> 4. Most controversially (background reasoning at [3]), modified the  
> Proposal Process to specify that the Jabber Council shall issue Last  
> Calls on JEPs for which it is the approving body, with all discussion  
> to occur on the Standards-JIG list (i.e., no longer require a 5%  
> threshold of approval within the JSF membership):
> http://www.jabber.org/~stpeter/jeps/01.html#proposal
> Note well that all of these changes are provisional. The Board and  
> Council need to reach consensus on the changes and the Board needs to  
> approve these before they shall take effect.
> Regarding the point #4, it may be valuable to seek more involvement  
> from the membership in various activities of the JSF, but there are  
> probably better ways to do that than requiring a mere 5% of members to  
> approve of motions for a Last Call. I see this as a topic for  
> discussion by the Board, since it is not really the responsibility of  
> the Council to keep JSF members involved and interested. Perhaps a  
> separate thread on the Board list would be appropriate for that  
> discussion, or it can be brought up in the next Board meeting.
> BTW, I have also enabled cross-posting across the Board and Council  
> list (Board members can now post to council at jabber.org and Council  
> members can now post to board at jabber.org) so that we discuss these  
> issues jointly.
> Thanks.
> Peter
> [1]  
> http://www.jabber.org/muc-logs/council@conference.jabber.org/2004-09 
> -10.html
> [2]  
> http://www.jabber.org/pipermail/standards-jig/2004-September/ 
> 006063.html
> [3] http://www.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2004-September/001408.html
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at jabber.org
> https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/board

More information about the Members mailing list