[standards-jig] JEPs and Jabber Adoption

Ryan Eatmon reatmon at jabber.org
Sun Jun 29 02:17:53 UTC 2003


Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
> I've been thinking a little more about this, and the more I do, the 
> more I think that the JSF and Jabber Council were not meant to have 
> this effect on the Jabber community. I'm seriously starting to think an 
> anarchic "linux-style" approach without a Jabber Council would have 
> brought a lot more enhancments with a lot less effort. 


The JSF is there to provide a central place where outsiders can look to 
see what is shaping Jabber.  The Council is there to provide a central 
group that decides what is and what isn't Jabber.  Ideally the Council 
is made up of experienced protocol people who can intelligently look at 
a JEP and point out problems and suggest improvements, or just deny the 
JEP all together.

What I find interesting is that you think Linux is developed by anarchy 
style.  And that's just plan false.  If you mean Linux to be the kernel, 
then there is a central group that everyone looks to (kernel.org), and 
central intelligent body (Linus) who accepts or denies addition to Linux.

If by Linux you mean all of the other free projects that make it up a 
distribution, then I'd like to point out that SOMEONE is in charge of 
each of those projects.  You can't just come up with something and 
expect them to include it their software.  If you want to get it 
included you need to have conversations with them, build a relationship, 
code to their style, etc...

Or you can decide that you want to invent your own piece of software to 
do what you want to.  Which is what I think you mean by anarchic style.
Feel free to NOT write a JEP and go invent your own protocol to do 
whatever it is you need in your client.  But much like a new project, 
you will be on your own to promote and get people to use it.

If you want your new protocol to be considered part of Jabber, then you 
are going to have to convince people why it should be.  Those people are 
the JSF, and the Council.  The convincing comes in the form of a JEP. 
And much like Larry Wall and feature requests that were made to Perl 6, 
you should not be surprised if the JSF/Council decides that your idea is 
not fitting with Jabber.  But we will take the input into consideration 
and probably merge it into an existing JEP so that it all works nicely.


Ryan turns to address everyone:

My complaint about the current state of affairs is that we seem to have 
three groups of people in the JSF.

One group cares and gives a lot of time and works together within the 
rules to find solutions.  They work hard to try and take everyone's 
input and merge it to fit what a JEP is trying to provide.

One group complains about a JEP because it is not how they would have 
designed it, and rather than work with the existing JEP authors to 
improve the existing JEP, they create new competing JEPs.  They work 
hard to undermine the structure that the JSF has set up.

One group just sits back and doesn't give any input.

My feeling is, that if you do not agree with the structure of the JSF. 
If you do not agree with the rules that we have set up and created. 
Then by all means, DO NOT JOIN the JSF.  Do not join and then complain. 
    Do not join and then not participate.  Do not join and then be a 
road block to progress.


-- 
Ryan Eatmon
reatmon at jabber.org




More information about the Standards mailing list