[jdev] Jabber Certification Program

[Rachel Blackman]

> I think it would be a very very good idea to have *one person* be 
> responsible for the client requirements for a particular year. A 
> "Client Compliance Master 2005" or something... and eventually we 
> could have a "Server Compliance Master 2006". That person has final 
> say on what the requirements are, and has final say on whether 
> particular things are or are not compliant. Perhaps we could vote for 
> who this person is or make it a requirement to vote on their decisions 
> or something, but for something as subjective as this I think it just 
> makes more sense to have a final say, rather than leaving it all up to 
> some kind of ambiguous discussion.
>
> Also, I think initially we should try to get this running for clients, 
> and then expand into servers, gateways, components...

The other reason I thought there should be a Board overall is that 
expecting one person to verify every piece of software sent in for 
certification would be... er, scary.  Even ignoring the sheer enormity 
of the potential workload, there are other practical problems; for 
instance, what if the Client Compliance Master for a year does not have 
a MacOS X box, and one of the pieces of software submitted requires 
MacOS X to run?  Hence the Board.

That said, I agree there has to be one 'master' in the end, to make the 
final call.  Perhaps the Master is appointed by the Council, and they 
appoint the rest of the members?  Or perhaps eventually the Board could 
be the 'Compliance Master' for each of the categories?  They'd be able 
to discuss among themselves and provide resources to help test the 
things submitted for certification, but only one person would have the 
responsibility for making the final call on what the 
certification/compliance requirements for a given category were that 
year.

	--Rachel