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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Sun Mar 3 00:21:49 UTC 2002

> >> So I'm +1 for grunting ;-)
> > 
> > I'm with jer. Let's crank out some more JEPs (and code) just as we've been
> > doing. We can always add more structure later if necessary, but right now
> > I just don't see the need for tiger teams and such (which seem to me like
> > JIGs by another name).
> I'm willing to try it.  However it may be worthwhile to have some objective
> way to gauge whether its working or not.  :)  The problem with less
> structure is usually that its hard to know if its failing because you have
> to throw out metrics with process...

My measure of success in this context is JEPs through the Council. I think
we can do that through the kinds of discussion we're having on this list
with regard to JEPs that have been proposed. We just need to find a way to
get closure on those discussions and submit the JEPs to the Council for a
vote. As far as I can see, it's as simple as that and "JIGs lite" (a.k.a.
tiger teams) won't get us there any faster. If necessary I'm willing to
play the heavy and force some consensus out of this rowdy bunch. :-)


More information about the Standards mailing list