[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Joe Hildebrand 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
> 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? 

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.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand




More information about the Standards mailing list