[standards-jig] JANA pt. 3

Ryan Eatmon reatmon at jabber.org
Sun Aug 4 14:22:37 UTC 2002


I can understand what you are saying, but I'd like to point out that 
JANA is coupled to the protocol.  They manage the other half of the 
protocol that the Council accepts.  They provide standards just like the 
JSF provides standards.

JANA should not accept any and all applications that come it's way, it 
should make decisions and work with "applicants" to make sure that their 
request fits into the methodology that the JEP specified.  (The other half,)

And to go back to you wording from the JSF web page:

    In particular, the JSF, led by the nine-member Jabber Council,
    manages, documents, and extends the Jabber XML protocols.

Note the word manages.  The JSF manages the XML Protocols that it 
defines.  That's JANA, helping to manage namespaces that need that level 
of help.

As for the by-laws.  The By-Laws do not define what we do as an 
organization, but rather how we do them.  What rules we have to follow 
in doing whatever it is we decide to do.


Russell Davis wrote:

> 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 
> http://www.jabber.org/jsf.html
>
> >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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig


-- 

Ryan Eatmon                   reatmon at jabber.org 
------------------------------------------------
Jabber.org - Perl Team    jid:reatmon at jabber.org






More information about the Standards mailing list