[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Wed Jul 30 04:53:31 UTC 2003


Dave,

>>> Further, I intend to document the internal jabberd2 protocols in exactly
>>> the same way.
>>
>> I think that's great but that it just shouldn't be called JEP's.
> 
> This is clearly flame-bait, but DUDE, is there anything in the JSF you 
> _don't_ want to change? ;)

Any joking aside, I think the current JEP process does need some change. 
I've read many comments recently from people that:

  1) Are frustrated that there has been so little progress on some 
important JEP's.
  2) Have had tons of confusion over what JEP's they should implement in 
their clients.

Having a bunch of informational JEP's that don't go through a real 
approval/review process doesn't seem like it will help with those 
issues. Let's imagine a hypothetical conversation about an informational 
JEP:

Tom: "Hey Joe, how about changing XYZ in your informational JEP ABC? 
Without the change the protocol is broken for reason 123."

Joe: "Neah. I already implemented stuff the way I described it in the 
JEP and an informational JEP is just meant to document something that 
was already done."

How can we resolve disputes like that when there is no process in place? 
To me, that's what the whole standards process is for.

All I'm advocating is for higher quality JEP's and that anything that 
appears to be an official protocol from the JSF is actually that. I 
actually think that more things should be standards-track then are now. 
So, anything that is an informational JEP now should certainly qualify 
to become standards track if so desired.

If people aren't happy with getting rid of informational JEP's then I 
think there are other alternatives that should work too, such as:

  1) List standards-track and informational JEP's completely seperately.
  2) Include a prominent disclaimer at the top of each informational JEP 
that it's not standards-track and what that might mean to people looking 
to adopt it.

Regards,
Matt




More information about the Standards mailing list