[standards-jig] JANA pt. 3
theo at theoretic.com
Mon Aug 5 18:38:56 UTC 2002
Like Iain, I think the idea of a JANA is necessary, but unlike him I
feel it is best as a sub-group of JSF, both short and long term.
I put my +1 in for a small (3 person) group to oversee the
administration and standardization of namespaces and "JID types".
One question: how would JEPs approved by the Council work with JANA?
would JANA be obligated to accept jid types and namespaces that are in
JEPs approved by the council, or should JEPs not even suggest or include
jid types or namespaces, leaving that up to the JANA?
Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> I'd like to chime in and say that JANA is a great idea and probably
> necessary as a separate entity from the JSF as Jabber grows. However, I
> also agree with the other half of the debate that the timing for a separate
> JANA is probably premature.
> Internally, Jabber's contributors are all pretty tapped out with the current
> systems and processes in place (JSF, JEPs, coding, documenting, etc). JANA
> as a separate entity is just not going to happen unless someone can dedicate
> the time to do it right now. I just don't see that as likely.
> I will thus put in my +1 for forming a small (3 person) JANA working group
> in the JSF with a clear charter for spinning off in the future when the
> needs demand.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
/\ Adam Theo, Age 23, Tallahassee FL USA
//\\ Email & Jabber: theo at theoretic.com
// \\ (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ)
// || \\ Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
|| "Building Ideas by Bringing them Together"
|| Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
|| "The Next Generation Communications Protocol"
|| "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American Buddhist"
More information about the Standards