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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Mar 4 18:47:19 UTC 2002

> > 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.

Given that even that Perl maniac DJ Adams thinks this is a good idea, I'm
going to send it into the Jabber Council in the next day or two.


More information about the Standards mailing list