[standards-jig] JANA pt. 2

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Tue Aug 6 06:35:02 UTC 2002

I agree. I don't see any point in making this system more complicated than
it needs to be. JEPs can be used to enhance/define the functionality of
the JSF, as defined in JEP-0001. It is not necessarily the responsibility
of the board to define the role of the members and committees, and the
general everyday affairs of protocol and community. Instead the board is
in place to run the business affairs of the Foundation, including
promotion "to potential sponsors and open source projects."

What you are proposing, Adam, is on par with the board of directors of a
large corporation creating departments within that company to fit their
whimsy. While it is true that the board of most companies are generally
able to exert some will over the direction of a company, it is very
unlikely that they will have the knowledge or skills necessary to make
such fine-grained decisions.

To that effect, I reiterate my earlier point, I think JANA is a fine idea,
but its roles and responsibilities should be outlined in a JEP.



On 5 Aug 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> This has been brought up before and the general consensus is that it
> would just create more turmoil by having another system.  JEPs seem to
> fill the niche fine.
> --temas
> On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 21:36, Adam Theo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ben Schumacher wrote:
> > > It probably wouldn't be a
> > > bad idea to write up a JEP to define the exact role of JANA, as a JEP may
> > > be used to provide "information related to the functioning of the Jabber
> > > Software Foundation."
> >
> > Actually, I've been thinking that I should bring up my "Foundation
> > Enhancement Proposal" (FEP) idea. They would be non-protocol,
> > foundation-organization proposals that the Board (instead of the
> > Council) would vote on.
> >
  [...snip excessively long sig -- save us all some bytes...]

More information about the Standards mailing list