[standards-jig] Pubsub fun
dj.adams at pobox.com
Fri Apr 12 14:30:39 UTC 2002
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 04:21:11PM -0600, Dave Smith wrote:
> Both JEP 21 and 24 were put forward without a huge amount of community
> effort or discussion. No one had their feelings hurt, no one seemed to have
> any problems with them. Why does even the mention of a JINC proposal seem to
> upset people so much?
>From the perspective of a regular outsider, I can see why there's a
little bit of tension. We've worked hard, collectively, as a community,
to come up with a process whereby things are suggested in the form of
JEPs, discussed in public (previously on the individual mailing lists,
now on this single standards-jig list), and finally submitted to the
council. There have been minor teething problems, but nothing to write
home about. That's the 'space' into which 21 and 24 were born.
(This is why it hurts a bit to read what you write above. This is how
the process is roughly supposed to work, so I don't understand the
The tension comes when we hear second or third hand of an alternative
proposal, but there's nothing put forward in the form of a JEP, not
even a pre-discussion on this list (e.g. following the publication of
21 and or 24). Bearing in mind that a JEP is often seen as the document
that accompanies the 'first outing' of a new idea or proposal, you can
understand why people are suspicious, when not a dickie bird has been
spoken of this third one until recently, and there still isn't a JEP,
much less example implementations. I'm wondering how many people on
this list could quote a sample packet from the third implementation.
It's as simple as that. We're playing one game, and JINC _appears_ to
be playing another. But as you've said, it's probably caused by a
sequence of unfortunate misunderstandings or miscommunications.
> I hardly know what to say beyond that. I'm frustrated by the assumptions and
> alternative standards that people hold JINC (and correspondingly, the
We're also very frustrated, but from a different perspective, which
I've tried to describe here.
> long-time Jabber developers who work there) to. I suppose it happens when
> you have two entities which have such wildly different goals trying to work
> together. There's bound to be tension.
Indeed (this is what I was saying when we talked yesterday). But it's
nothing we can't overcome. The biggest barrier to getting along is
sometimes simply not knowing how the other party feels. So we're doing
the right thing by talking about it :-)
More information about the Standards