[standards-jig] Re: JANA pt. 2

Jean-Louis Seguineau /EXC/TEC jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com
Tue Aug 6 00:59:48 UTC 2002

>From what I gather of the thread JANA would be in charge of administrating
naming in the protocol, isn't it.

Knowing that the protocol is entirely based on xml namespaces, does it mean
that JANA will have to be consulted for every new namespace extension to be
added in a JEP by the JSF ? If that is the case what would be the process ?
Apart from namespaces, what kind of names would JANA handle ? Could we have
a use case for each of them ?


Jean Louis

----- Original Message -----
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:33:52 -0600
> Subject: Re: [standards-jig] JANA pt. 2
> From: Dave Smith <dizzyd at jabber.org>
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Reply-To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> 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
> Diz
> 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
> >> 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.
> >

More information about the Standards mailing list