This point is absolutly valid. Though there still seems to be confusion on what excactly is proposed. Eg. certification on features vs. profiles (your reply to Matthew Millar seems to conflict with the earlier idea of profiles such as "minimal, intermidiate, extended). How deep would certification go, etc.
Okay. Clearly, I've described this all badly; I think the flaws are in my own communication rather than the core concept, based on the fact that those who I've run this by in IM rather than on-list seem to understand where I am coming from, based on our conversations, and does not see (nor do I) the sort of conflicts you take issue at. But every time I try to address one of the points in these mails, I'm clearly not conveying this idea in a way that makes sense to certain others, or else there would not be so much fuss about it.
I had thought the proposal would be good to toss out there, to consider whether or not the process should be something done by the JSF -- lending it an official stamp of approval, and giving it the weight of having a certification mean something in terms of being on the official client list -- but instead it's turned into a debate about whether or not experimental JEPs should be implemented, about how it's bad to 'force' authors to implement various features, and so on. I'm buried in code right now anyway, and can't devote the brainpower needed to trying to get past my evident shortcoming in effectively communicating this proposal.
So I'm going to back off and leave this be until I can figure out a way of phrasing it which will not cause misunderstanding or massive philosophical and political disputes. It's obvious there's a vocal portion of the populace who consider it too fundamentally flawed; I feel these perceived flaws are due to misunderstanding rather than a flaw in the concept, thus I'm obviously not communicating the concept properly in some way. Given this, the discussion can go on until we're blue in the faces, and I think I'm failing to communicate well enough to resolve the fundamental misunderstanding.
I'll resubmit when I have a clear charter written up as a proposal, rather than just an informal one. Consider the proposal retracted for now, at least as far as I'm concerned. I apologize for the miscommunication!
--Rachel
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
