[standards-jig] JEPs and Jabber Adoption

Tijl Houtbeckers 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. 

-- 
Tijl Houtbeckers
Software Engineer @ Splendo
The Netherlands




More information about the Standards mailing list