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