[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: XMPP Compliance Suites 2016

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Fri May 13 16:34:29 UTC 2016


> On 13 May 2016, at 17:30, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 May 2016 at 17:10, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com>wrote:
> On 13 May 2016, at 17:05, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> > There's a problem inherent in this that we'd need to actually verify the clients have actually implemented the features they claim, and that in turn means some volunteer effort in testing them though. I believe that any effort we put into this would be repaid hugely, though.
> 
> Or, instead of volunteers, projects pay to be certified. (Yes, I realise that’s not likely to be a popular suggestion).
> 
> I’d be slightly concerned that if it’s volunteer based it needs to be unbiased - e.g. we couldn’t have some unpopular client sitting in a queue because the volunteers don’t want to do that one.
> 
> 
> Don't tell anyone, obviously, but any system will be prone to bias. If we charge, we're biasing the system against open source "community" projects, and if we don't, we'll risk being at the whims of volunteers.

(I think there are some other subtleties in there, but) Quite.


/K


More information about the Standards mailing list