[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track
JHildebrand at jabber.com
Wed Jul 30 19:32:53 UTC 2003
(pardon in advance for the tone here, but I'm tired of having to deal with
this sort of thing instead of making progress technically)
Matt Tucker said:
> 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.
Then they should participate in the process, rather than expecting people to
do all of their work for them.
> 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
> 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?
They can start a standards-track JEP that does the same thing, using the
information JEP as inputs, if they desire. Pick a new namespace, and go.
I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.
> 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.
Then you need to give actual substantive feedback on JEPs, and write some of
your own, rather than BOGGING US DOWN WITH YOUR NIT-PICKING.
More information about the Standards