[standards-jig] section 6 of jep-001

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Dec 9 17:37:16 UTC 2002

Good point. I'll work to clean that up sometime soon.

/me adds to .plan


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

On 5 Dec 2002, Russell Davis wrote:

> nothing really important or interesting but after rereading jep-001 I
> think that maybe section 6 should be tightened up a fraction. it
> currwntly reads.
> --------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------
> 6. Proposal Process
> Before a JEP may be proposed to the Jabber Council [7], a motion to
> propose it must be initiated by a member of the JSF. The motion must be
> seconded by at least 5% of the full membership of the JSF before the JEP
> shall advance to a status of Proposed. This ensures that the proposal
> meets a minimum standard of interest among the Jabber community. Once 5%
> of JSF members second the motion, the JEP Editor shall issue a Last Call
> for discussion on the mailing list of the Standards JIG (the Last Call
> shall expire not less than 10 days after the date of issue). JEP authors
> may not propose or second the Last Call for their own JEPs, and the
> person proposing the Last Call is strongly encouraged to confer with the
> JEP Editor before doing so.
> If all issues of substance have been addressed by the JEP author before
> the end of the Last Call, the JEP Editor shall formally propose a
> specific revision of the JEP to the Jabber Council.
> --------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------
> it seems to me that after the first member has proposed that a jep be
> moved forward an imaginary clock should start ticking for a nominal
> period of time (say two weeks) in which the jep must receive the
> required number of seconds and that the initial number of seconds
> required to move the jep forward is fixed at the time that the initial
> motion was made and that the proposing member must remain a member
> during the time when the seconds are made.
> otherwise we can endup with weird situations including the situation
> where a jep is stalled being one or two seconds short for months even
> years (unlikely but possible) and then all of a sudden after after a
> membership purge it meets the requirements or even worse that the
> initial proposing member is nolonger a JSF member.
> none of this is that important or urgent but i think it tidies up the
> jep a little a gives us that belt and braces feeling.
> bst rgrds
> Russell Davis
> jid: ukscone at jabber.org
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list