[standards-jig] Re: JANA pt. 2
theo at theoretic.com
Mon Aug 5 20:21:01 UTC 2002
another type of name would be "JID Types". Take a look in JEP 0030,
Disco, for examples.
Jean-Louis Seguineau /EXC/TEC wrote:
>>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 -----
>>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
>>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.
> 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