[standards-jig] JEPs and Jabber Adoption

Ryan Eatmon reatmon at jabber.org
Sun Jun 29 17:49:43 UTC 2003


Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
> Ryan Eatmon <reatmon at jabber.org> wrote on 29-6-2003 4:17:53:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Wrong, there is a main branch of the kernel that is maintained by Linus.
>  There are several other active branches as well, for example by Red 
>  Hat, etc. With linux you do not have to discuss your ideas till a 
>  council approves of them and moves them forward. Ofcourse, you don't 
>  have to consider the council opinion with Jabber, but it's simply not 
>  attractive to implement your ideas before the council takes the step 
>  of making them draft. With linux quite the opposite is true. You can 
>  write experimental major patches to the kernel, and people will use 
>  this for testing. Also, if it's a nice idea, other coders will mostly 
>  take in account your patch (even if it is experimental) and make sure 
>  their own patches don't break it. You can then evolve your patch into 
>  a stable usaable product, all this without a single council or person 
>  having to mark your idea as "good". Then Linus, or one of the other 
>  persons with CVS acces to the main branch can choose to accept your 
>  idea. Even if they don't, someone else might choose to put it in their 
>  branch. 
> 

Linus maintains a kernel.  You are free to do whatever you want to with 
your local copy of the kernel.  The JSF maintains a protocol.  You are 
free to ignore the JSF and DO WHATEVER you want to in your Client.

No one ever said that in order to use XMPP to transport your data you 
must have an accepted JEP.  Just like no one said you had to get Linus' 
approval to write a new VM.  You just have to get everyone on board when 
you want your thing to be accepted as a standard.

I use Jabber to transport lots and lots of things.  Some of them have 
been written up by JEPs, but I'm not putting forth my view of how they 
should be done.  Instead I offered up my experience in comments to 
improve the JEPs.  In the future, I might switch over to the standard, 
but for now my homebrew protocol works jsut fine for me.

And going through the process to be accepted as a standard can be 
annoying.  That's my point.  You are free to do what you want when you 
want.  Just don't expect that when you come forward with an idea to be a 
standard that we aren't going to push back and tell you work with others 
to merge ALL of the ideas into a usable form for everyone.


-- 
Ryan Eatmon
reatmon at jabber.org




More information about the Standards mailing list