[standards-jig] JEPs and Jabber Adoption

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Sun Jun 29 20:13:53 UTC 2003


On Sunday 29 June 2003 12:36 pm, Dave Smith wrote:
> On Sunday, Jun 29, 2003, at 13:09 America/Denver, Matt Tucker wrote:
> > Perhaps one way to address the problem would be to set certain time
> > limits/goals on each JEP. For example, a JEP would be proposed on a
> > certain date and then would have between 1 and 3 months to be
> > developed (with feedback from the community) before moving to the next
> > stage. The exact amount of time would be set by the JEP author. Then
> > there would be a last call process with a certain length of time, an
> > approval process, etc, etc. Having dates and deadlines is often a good
> > way to get people motivated. :) This would even help to guide
> > community members in where their feedback might be most effective --
> > for example, there could be a time-based list of JEP's in development,
> > in last call, etc. The one thing we want to avoid is JEP's that
> > languish with no process for months and months. At the moment we're
> > archiving them in an ad-hoc basis, but having timelines for each JEP
> > would make that a more formal process and would hopefully avert more
> > abandoned JEP's.
>
> Perhaps we should just say that all JEP submissions have 90 days (3
> months) to be motioned for a Last Call or be marked as "abandoned"..or
> something like that?
>
> Regardless of the mechanism, I concur we need to put bounds on this
> problem.

True, there quite a few JEPs setting around and doing nothing.  However, what 
about the JEPs that aren't abandoned, but instead are endlessly discussed?  
That's what this thread was originally about, anyway.

For instance, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe JEP-65 did not arise 
until JEP-46 was in Last Call.  By now, we all understand the need for the 
newer JEP, but did it really have to happen at Last Call?  I think it would 
be more optimal if the core problems were solved _much_ sooner than that.  We 
should all be on the same page when Last Call comes, and just working out 
bugs, not arguing over core behavior.

Here's an idea:

Perhaps there should be a point where the authors consider their JEP to be 
good enough to discuss.  This would begin a time frame (90 days?) where the 
JEP can be rejected by the community.  In order to be rejected, flaws must be 
addressed.  If the author does not agree with the criticism (or give a good 
explanation for possible problems), with general community consensus (the JEP 
editor can be the judge, just as he is during Last Call), then the JEP is 
rejected.  If the JEP survives the 90 days, then it is assumed that there are 
no major problems with it.  The JEP editor should be careful about accepting 
counter-JEPs at this stage.  The authors then must finalize their JEP by 
addressing the problems discussed and fixing bugs, and then have it motioned 
for Last Call.

-Justin



More information about the Standards mailing list