[standards-jig] WebPresence

Iain Shigeoka iain.shigeoka at messaginglogic.com
Sat Nov 2 07:44:24 UTC 2002

On 11/1/02 14:58, "Michael Brown" <michael at aurora.gen.nz> wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre:
>> I'm still not convinced that we need a JEP for this. It feels more like an
>> implementation issue to me.

My first impression (from quick skimming of the recent list posts) makes me
inclined to agree with Peter on this. However...

> Also, to at least keep up the appearance of being fairly neutral, I believe
> you should accept any submitted JEP provided it is correctly formatted and
> meets the specifications listed in JEP-0001.  You are welcome of course to
> vote against it when the time comes if you think it is irrelevant for some
> reason.

I strongly agree with Michael on this point. Any correctly formatted JEP
being submitted with earnest intentions of enhancing the jabber protocols
should be accepted as a draft for consideration by the community/council.
The only exceptions being redundant or significantly overlapping submissions
which the JEP editor should bounce and refer to the existing JEP.

Peter, please don't take this the wrong way, but only the council should
reject JEPs because of technical issues/usefulness/merits. Now I'll
immediately take a step back from that statement to say that we want and
need the JEP editor to help filter out the wheat from the chaff.

I'm not sure where the line should be drawn but I would suggest that if the
JEP submitter shows dedication to moving the JEP through the JEP process
(submitting the document, accepting feedback, making edits as directed,
answering questions) it should be accepted. The JEP editor can push back a
bit to make sure the submitter is serious. But if they are, I think it
should be accepted (and then rejected using the normal JEP process).

Sorry for getting on the soapbox.


More information about the Standards mailing list