[standards-jig] JANA pt. 3
rkdavis at burninghorse.com
Sun Aug 4 14:59:05 UTC 2002
Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> 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.
ok my final final :) comment re: JANA
guess it all comes down to semantics, "terms of reference" and
interpretation. but that still doesn't make JANA a bad idea and apart
from the whos, whats, whens, hows and wheres, dotting the i's and
crossing the t's it seems as if everyone is in agreement that JANA would
be either good or useful if not immediatly sometime in the near future.
So we should get the ball rolling on this and decide one way or another
as soon as possible.
jid: ukscone at jabber.org
email: scone at burninghorse.com
More information about the Standards