[standards-jig] JEPs and Jabber Adoption
thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Sat Jun 28 16:54:29 UTC 2003
Paul Curtis <pcurtis at terrapin.com> wrote on 28-6-2003 18:49:35:
>Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
>> We've had filetransfer in the form of DTCP+JidLink+IBB(the old
>> one)+filetransfer(the olde one)
>That's correct. All of which are "Experimental". My point was not
>which JEP to pick (although I have a preference) but for the community
>and the Council to pick one now.
I think it's not that the council isn't picking one. The council has
blocked them, because (part of?) the council had some problems with
them. That resulted in new JEPs, wich have their own problems again.
But it's not like they wouldn't have done the job adequatly.
Ofcourse, I don't see anything wrong with other community members
writing competing JEPs. As I see it, the problems seems to be that only
one will be allowed to go DRAFT, and only when everyone in the council
(and more or less community) is happy with that proposal. Wich means
we're stuck in the experimental fase for longer than necisary.
Just imagine those "old" JEPs would have been passed to Draft. I figure
most clients would have implemented it by now. If there would still be
serious issues with it in the eyes of some community members, they
could have made something like SOCKS, SI, etc. It could be advanced to
DRAFT as well, but if it offers too little advantages over what is
already implemented and noone will pick up on it, it's clear wich DRAFT
will be made ACTIVE, and in the end FINAL.
Software Engineer @ Splendo
More information about the Standards