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

DJ Adams dj.adams at pobox.com
Sun Mar 3 16:52:20 UTC 2002


On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:50:06PM -0800, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
...
> 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
> issue.  At this rate, you, Peter and myself should just become the standards
> gods (all mighty triumvirate) and arbitrarily pass things I guess.  :)  Come
> on the rest of you, chime in!

Well, I'm just catching up with the lists, so I thought I'd throw my two
pence in. I agree with stpete's original premise (expressed in jep-0019)
and am therefore for a looser process. We've seen that tight processes
tend to overburden things with too much skeleton and not enough meat.

dj



More information about the Standards mailing list