[standards-jig] JANA pt. 3

Russell Davis rkdavis at burninghorse.com
Sun Aug 4 05:23:16 UTC 2002

Ryan Eatmon wrote:

> I don't think that JANA should be seperate from the JSF.  Everything 
> that JANA is going to have control over falls under the JSF umbrella. 
> It's not like the IANA which is actually used by lots of groups 
> looking for port numbers, etc...

> If later on, it is decided that JANA should become its own entity, 
> then we can always spin it off, although I can't imagine that ever 
> needing to happen.
Mike Lin wrote:

>> I'm not sure I quite understand the motivation for a separation of 
>> powers
>> between the JSF and "JANA", especially at this (very early) stage, when
>> we're sort of struggling to keep the JSF together. Would you care to
>> elaborate on why you feel it's needed? 

ok i suppose a disclaimer is in order first.

I am not a lawyer, attorney, solicitor, barrister or QC or anything else 
except a private citizen and none of the statements I make below have 
any legal basis except from my understanding of reading charters, bylaws 
and other legal and administrative documents of numerous committees, 
foundations, charities and political organizations over the years and 
that said the majority of my legal knowledge is based on NYC/NYS CPLR 
and English Common law. So the parts of this response maybe completly 
off the mark.

First of all although I stated that I would like it to be a seperate 
entity I also stated in my first post about JANA

 >I would be willing that for a set time period (say six months) it to 
start under the control of one
 >person (maybe the jep editor or a volenteer) or even Jabber Inc.

That one person could of course also be the JSF but for a set time 
period only if we start say "oh we'll do it later" it will never happen 
as in most groups people will procrastinate and procrastinate until it 
is too late and we have a fait accompli.

Secondly I don't think JANA does fall under the remit of the JSF as on 
the whole it is a purely administrative task requiring very little 
discussion or input from anyone once it is up and running and all 
existing namespaces, entities, catagories and types are entered into 
it's master database other than resolving possible naming conflicts and 
disputes.. The JSF should remain  doing what it does best which is 
handling JEPS and things related to protecting the integrity of the 
protocol and trademark and not allow itself to get bogged down in 
mundane tasks.

To support the above statement I quote the JSF frontpage at 

 >The JSF does not itself develop software. Instead it provides direct 
organizational assistance and indirect technical assistance to the 
software >development projects occurring within the Jabber community. In 
particular, the JSF, led by the nine-member Jabber Council 
<http://www.jabber.org/people/council.html>, manages, documents, >and 
extends the Jabber XML protocols. Such extensions are formally accepted 
by means of Jabber Enhancement Proposals <http://www.jabber.org/jeps/>. 
The best way to get >involved with the JSF is to join the mailing list 
of the Standards JIG 
<http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig/>, which is where 
general protocol discussion takes place.

nowhere do I see the phrase "administrative assistance" although I 
suppose it might be possible to stretch the point and say that JANA 
would be "organizational assistance" or documentation of the protocol 
but I prefer not to read it that way.

My third point is that I don't think the JSF is able to keep JANA under 
it's umbrella due to the language in the bylaws 
http://www.jabber.org/bylaws.html which seems to indicate that the JSF 
and its board of directors are able to form ad-hoc committees with no 
rights or powers, vote on the final disposition of JEPs and very little 
else other than general day to day business affairs. I do not believe 
 that sections 3.11, 3.12, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1 or 8.2 of the JSF bylaws change 
this fact.

It is however possible for JANA to be spontaniously formed with no 
preexisting charter or controling body as long as all parties agree to 
abide by it's rules and if wanted I suppose wording to the effect that 
it may be absorbed into JSF maybe placed in it's charter and bylaws at 
it's inception but to my nose that stinks of an extremly devious way to 
grant yourself more power and control.

Finally in my previous post (JANA pt. 2) I did mention that funding and 
startup costs for an independant JANA would need to come from somewhere 
and proposed that donations to offset the costs be sought from existing 
JSF sponsers until such time as other arrangements can be made

ok I think i've answered all questions but the above is just my personal 
opinion and understanding of the facts and may in fact be completly 
wrong but it is MY opinion and whilst I might be in a minority and wrong 
I feel it should be stated.

bst rgrds
Russell Davis
jid: ukscone at jabber.org
email: scone at burninghorse.com

More information about the Standards mailing list