[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Tue Jul 29 23:43:45 UTC 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday, Jul 29, 2003, at 16:56 America/Denver, Matt Tucker wrote:

> Peter,
> I definitely agree that having different classification of JEP's makes 
> sense. There are "core" JEP's and then other JEP's that only a small 
> subset of users might care about. However, I think the notion of an 
> "informational" JEP is totally bogus. It basically gives someone the 
> ability to create a de-facto standard without any sort of real review 
> process by the JSF membership. This is obvious from the recent 
> discussions to change an informational JEP for software version. If 
> you can do that, what's the point of the whole JEP process?

People can create "de-facto standards" without ever drafting a JEP, 
Matt. When the JSF was founded, the point of the "Informational" JEP 
was to provide a mechanism for people to document non-core protocols so 
that other users in the community could build on existing work. 
Selection of any given protocol as a standard is still left up to the 
implementers -- those who choose to implement the JEP. A 
standards-track JEP does not a standard make.

What power does the JSF "membership" (such that it is) really _have_?! 
None. The Council holds final power over a protocol's "approval" -- but 
even that doesn't mean much. I view Peter's post as a question which 
drives at the very heart of the value of the JSF membership. Are we 
here to act as a Community that encourages and builds and collaborates 
(i.e. running code and rough consensus!), or are we here to be a 
standards-body that gets into analysis paralysis?

I don't know the answers, but I do know we need to ask the questions. I 
also believe that we must reduce the amount of process, not increase 
it.  We must get back to our roots of moving forward, and away from 
these long-winded, often circular, protocol discussions.


Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)


More information about the Standards mailing list