[Standards-JIG] Proposed Changes to JEP-60 - PubSub
Fletcher, Boyd C. J9C534
Boyd.Fletcher at je.jfcom.mil
Wed Jun 9 03:05:25 UTC 2004
that fact that it is one voice is irrelevant if the points being made are still valid.
most of the vendors that I have dealt with lately are very reluctant discuss this stuff openly.
I don't agree with their choice but they have their reasons like sometimes by discussing stuff openly it potentially gives away a company's intentions. And yes, I have urged them to be more active.
From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org on behalf of Justin
Sent: Tue 6/8/2004 9:13 PM
To: Jabber protocol discussion list
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Proposed Changes to JEP-60 - PubSub
I am going to stick my nose in this thread. Mainly because its going in
circles and is quite pointless.
Both sides of this argument have good points. Fletcher, you are fighting
an uphill battle with only one voice. Your arguments are good, but not
good enough by yourself. You keep referring to unhappy commercial corps;
this is an open community, let them come and voice their discontent. So
poke those unhappy corps and get them to join in.
In fact, I really hope the people who are unhappy with something show up
and voice their concerns. Sitting on your hands in the cube farm helps
Standards-JIG mailing list
Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards