[standards-jig] JANA pt. 2
dizzyd at jabber.org
Mon Aug 5 15:33:52 UTC 2002
I like the idea of JANA. However, I too share Mike Lin's concerns about
having it be a completely separate entity at this point in time.
Starting a new organization comes with significant time and personnel
requirements. We ran into problems when JSF was first getting started --
we tried to introduce too many procedures and organizational complexity
too quickly. To this end, I would prefer to see JANA start out as a
small group of people (preferably 3) within JSF (a department, if you
will). This "department" would derive its power from the members of the
JSF agreeing to trust them and endow them with the ability to make the
appropriate naming decisions.
As for who?
* Ryan Eatmon
* Joe Hildebrand
* ??? third suggestion here
On Sunday, August 4, 2002, at 12:54 , Russell Davis wrote:
> 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?
> 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
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards