[Members] Voting criteria

Nolan Eakins sneakin at semanticgap.com
Wed May 11 22:24:57 CDT 2005


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hal Rottenberg wrote:

|On 5/11/05, Richard Dobson <richard at dobson-i.net> wrote:
|
|>Favouring any one project at the expense of others would be a very
very bad
|>idea IMO as it would disenfranchise anyone from creating anything
new and
|>also other developers continuing their existing competing projects,
doing
|>something like this would be very damaging to the JSF IMO, keeping
the JSF a
|>more impartial organisation is definately they way to go.
|
|
|While I understand what you are basing your opinions on, I have to
|strongly disagree here.  There is no disenfranchising here.
|Competition would /encourage/ new developers, new projects and
|actually light some fires under people's feet to make their good
|product great.

Disenfranchising might also be a good thing. It could consolidate a
few clients so developers could focus their efforts instead of
duplicating them.

|But--I've always been supportive of the certification idea as well.
|But I would want multiple levels.  We have already established
|several--XMPP, Basic IM, Intermediate IM, etc.  The only thing lacking
|is to formalize a process to get on one of these three lists (or
|others).

A start would be to go through the JEPs specified in each suite and
create checklists for each use case. Then it would only be a matter of
getting some reputable people or other scheme to go through these
checklists. Perhaps this is another "Official JSF" label could come
into play: official JSF certifier. An app gets JSF certified if two or
so official certifiers have certified it. Perhaps a setup like the
certificate authorities have setup to verify identity could be done
where two or three notaries must sign off.

Another question would be do we just certify interop or the use of the
protocol(s). I would also imagine clients would need to be certified
by hand whereas certification of servers and components could be
automated, so long as a certified library was used.

Sounds like a boot strap problem. :-)

- - Nolan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCgsyIhuPszQVSPEARAuR2AKCOO6kbQGooGJOx9HAdBBYtp2IQGQCgveLt
6eyspmhW/TPBk5AO/7/Xjpw=
=eK3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Members mailing list