[standards-jig] Re: [Foundation] streamlining the JIGs
iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 25 22:30:47 UTC 2002
On 2/25/02 1:27 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>> I really think we need two lists and one
>> JIG. Standards-discuss, standards-announce, and the Standards JIG.
>> Standards-discuss being what is now standards-jig, and the announce list is
>> read-only, low-traffic, for JEP announcements that Peter is doing and other
>> significant Jabber announcements.
> We can probably do this with two existing lists:
Yup. That's cool. Just needs to be spelled out as part of the setup.
>> 3. On a vote in Standards JIG (standards-discuss) of no less than 3 days
>> and no more than 7 days, a "tiger team" may be formed. Votes are Apache
>> style (+1,0,-1): you must have +1 or 0 from all voters who decide to vote.
>> Any -1 vote will prevent the formation of the tiger team. Voters must be
>> standards-discuss subscribers and members of the Jabber Software Foundation.
>> -1 votes will only be accepted if a reason is provided along with the vote.
>> Tiger team creation votes are started by the proposed tiger team leader by
>> posting a tiger team proposal to the discuss list which include the team
>> name, its leader(s), goals (JEPs to create or issues to investigate), and
>> schedule for accomplishing the goals. Tiger teams may be disbanded by a
>> vote of no confidence following the same voting procedure as tiger team
>> formation. A vote of no confidence may be called by any JSF member.
>> Tiger team
>> Only tiger teams may submit JEPs for approval by the council.
> Arrgh, no! Too much process, IMHO. When a topic gets hot and heavy on the
> standards-jig list, we'll just informally tell people to go off on their
> own for a while (JaberStudio list, Yahoo Groups, I don't care where) and
> come back when they've settled down. No vote, just "get lost for a while
> and come back with results sometime". Besides, limiting JEP-submission to
> these tiger teams goes against what is working now, which is much more
> informal than that.
Looks like I'm getting voted down on this idea. :) I'm a bit impatient
with the current way things are occurring so this was my attempt at helping
to drive things forward. As Dave Cohen mentions though this could cause
problems (although quality issues should be caught by the council before
acceptance). I agree there are risks with pushing things too fast but I
think there is an equal danger in appearing to have stalled out. There is a
lot to be done and I have a feeling that the window of opportunity won't
stay open forever.
However, I'm more than willing to go with the group consensus here and try
the less structured approach first.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the Standards