[jdev] Jabber Certification Program

[Rachel Blackman]

> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20040618/aac8f485/attachment-0002.pgp>