[standards-jig] Re: [Foundation] streamlining the JIGs

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 26 17:30:59 UTC 2002

On 2/26/02 8:33 AM, "Thomas Muldowney" <temas at box5.net> wrote:

> From: "Iain Shigeoka" <iainshigeoka at yahoo.com>
>> On 2/25/02 7:15 PM, "dave at dave.tj" <dave at dave.tj> wrote:
>>> You may very well be right, for all I know, about the window of
>>> opportunity not staying open forever.  However, none of our competing
>>> protocols is advancing nearly as quickly as we are, so I think time is
>>> on our side if we simply continue doing what we've been doing so far
>>> (outrunning the competition).  If we start making drastic changes,
>>> we may make more progress, or we may mess everything up.  I just don't
>>> think it's worth taking the risk until we have much more to gain and
>>> much less to lose (i.e., when we have more momentum).
>> I agree there is definitely a danger in pushing for progress too fast.
>> Before new JEPs reach final standard state we should have some requirement
>> for implementations to be created and used to make sure they live up to
>> their promise.
> I think that one is in there?  If not it has been discussed before that the
> JEPs should come with a reference implementation in order to be accepted
> (Just made me think of patent issues and what not.  Might need to make this
> clear that it's a public reference?).

It was definitely discussed.  I don't think it was formalized into a
requirement though.  As far as patent issues that is an important factor to
consider.  As far as being public I don't know if that has to be the case.
I agree that a free reference copy should be made to the council for testing
but I don't know if it must be made public to count as a reference
implementation.  My thought was reference implementations are primarily a
proof that the standard is implementable.  However it was suggested, and I
do like the idea that there should be at least 2 independent reference
implementations and that at least one is open source.

>> My read of the industry is a bit different though.  The primary movers in
>> the space as I understand it are actually delayed because of political and
>> business reasons.  For example, as part of their SEC merger agreement AOL
> This AOL is very tricky, and supposedly they have already done this by using
> a small unknown partner, which I can only assume they will buy out once they
> are released from their obligations.  They do not have to largely
> interoperate.  That's just a note, I agree with the industry moving forward
> part =)  We're getting behind in some of the more crucial areas such as XML
> middleware, even in IM we lack major features.


>> There is no foolproof way to do these things.  The question is should we
> go
>> with a looser or tighter process.  We've got 3 votes (2 for looser, 1 for
>> tighter).  My primary concern is the fact that we've only got 3 votes on
> the
> We've tried to have a loose camp in the past and we had to tighten it up,
> things ran ok for a while.  We said, ok we can loosen it up again, things
> slowed down.  Yet again we're looking to tighten up, and from my experience
> with Jabber every time we tighten it up things run better.  It's not about
> overhead or bureaucracy, it's about having a well defined process that
> allows for us to streamline to the end goal.  I for one am with you Iain,
> because it more closely reflects what I was suggesting way back during the
> initial talks for forming the council, jigs, and other jsf measures.
> The concerns about getting shot down are partially valid.  It happened to me
> with Avatars, but I also think it would not have happened if we had a
> process for the JEPs.  It was so loose, and there were no defined channels
> for the council to communicate with the authors, or the authors to
> communicate with the council, so councils that were covered, or not valid
> were not discussed.  A clear path would have made it easier to submit and
> work through the council.
> Overall I'm in favor of Iain's proposal.  Sorry this is rambly, my head is
> still buried in JS.

Whoo hoo!  Alright Temas!  Now we've got a coalition...  OK everyone else.
The vote is 2-2!  Any other voters out there?


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Standards mailing list