[standards-jig] JANA pt. 2

Russell Davis rkdavis at burninghorse.com
Sun Aug 4 06:54:33 UTC 2002

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?
well i had promised myself that my previous post would be my last on the 
subject of JANA for a while however i realised that I didn't really 
answer Mike Lin's question properly.

First of all I don't think we are struggling to keep JSF together 
(although I am currently an outsider looking in). Yes there does seem to 
be a few hurt feelings on both sides of the current misunderstandings 
and i've been the undialiberate partial cause of a few i'm sure but we 
are all adults and we should have thicker skins. We need to all 
"sitdown" discuss our problems in a sensible, civilised and unemotional 
manner, accept whats done as it can't be changed but agree to work 
together better in future and just get on with the job at hand.

My motivation for seperating JSF and JANA is that I believe two 
organisations "flying the jabber colours"  are better than one and that 
JSF and JANA have two completly different functions. One is to aid in 
the development and promotion of the use of jabber whilst the other is a 
purely administrative body thats only current purpose is to keep thinks 
in check and tidy so that everything approved by the JSF with regard to 
the protocol and extensions will work together. JANA's mandate might 
also be expanded over time to encompass many other things although at 
the moment I can not think of any suitable examples.

I think that this post and my previous one should answer Mike Lin's 
question but if anyone has other questions or comments I welcome them.

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


More information about the Standards mailing list