[standards-jig] informational vs. standards-track

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu Jul 31 22:14:32 UTC 2003

> Perhaps we should take your work in the Conferencing JIG as a model,
> then? I recall over a year with absolutely no progress, not even a
> requirements document. Then someone needed to step in and clean up the
> mess.

I would advocate for a much ligher-weight process than a JIG, but still 
to have an open expert group around many JEP's. Some reasons this would 
be useful:

  * It would provide a way to create some responsibility for individuals 
contributing to a JEP besides the JEP author (although it sounds like 
this didn't work before so we'd have to figure out how it could work).
  * If we create some simple tools, like a forum for each expert group, 
it would be a handy way to collect all discussion around that JEP rather 
than having to parse back through the standards list. This would 
potentially make it much easier for new people working on the JEP to get 
up to speed.

We'd also want to try to enforce progress (however much that can be 
done) by establishing dates for when the JEP moves through the various 
steps of standardization.


More information about the Standards mailing list