[standards-jig] JANA pt. 3
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
>> 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
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
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.
jid: ukscone at jabber.org
email: scone at burninghorse.com
More information about the Standards