-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/23/09 11:41 AM, Fabio Forno wrote:
> - is the XSF the correct place where to standardize these kind of > applications? I try to make myself more clear, since this in feature > it will be a gray area with more and more non-chat xmpp applications. > In order to standardize non-chat applications the XFS would need > members, and a council, having experts in the specific application > domain. I don't think that in the present and near future we will have > all these skills. However such contributions are very useful since > they give precious feedback for the infrastructure and even if the > council doesn't decide to accept them as XEPs I think that we could > provide some official space for discussion (e.g. more mailing lists? Fabio, that is a good question, which came up recently within the IETF as well with regard to the proposed Codec WG: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/minutes/codec.txt I'll quote from the minutes there: *** Cullen Jennings @ mic, as AD who will be asked to evaluate codecs: Do we have competence on this topic? The IESG relies a lot on expert advisers across areas. We try to assess whether things cause harm. We have to listen to other people and try to evaluate whether claims of brokenness are legitimate or not. Often our expertise lies in finding the right people to provide input and in listening to them in order to judge which input is reliable. For example, will have to review IDNAbis (internationalized domain names) but there are no linguistics experts on the IESG, so we will have to rely on other people and work with them and try to integrate their feedback. Another factor is that IESG members are selected based on skills needed to do the work and review it. This codec work is really not different from other work and the important thing is that there's expertise to get the right comments so the IESG can make good decisions. *** I think the story is not really different at the XSF. Yes, it would be nice to have people on the Council who know about a particular problem domain. But it's even more important to have people on the Council who are good at finding and then listening to the relevant experts. When the current Council was voting on advancement of the Jingle specs, none of the Council members were experts on session negotiation, multimedia, voice and video, etc. But they closely monitored the relevant list discussions, asked experts for their feedback, etc. So I think that the XSF is the right place for any kind of work on XMPP extensions (where else would we send people?), if we know how to work intelligently and gain feedback from those who know more about a given problem domain than we do. /psa -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq6bXcACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyvmgCcDJlmsFf4IOb488zfBm24OVnb TJMAoNbV1RxojfjTmI6PvpEZORePh7dQ =pdeJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
