xeps/xep-0019.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE xep SYSTEM 'xep.dtd' [
  <!ENTITY % ents SYSTEM "xep.ent">
%ents;
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="xep.xsl"?>
<xep>
<header>
  <title>Streamlining the JIGs</title>
  <abstract>This document proposes to streamline the existing Jabber Interest Groups (JIGs).</abstract>
  &LEGALNOTICE;
  <number>0019</number>
  <status>Active</status>
  <type>Procedural</type>
  <jig>None</jig>
  <approver>Board</approver>
  <dependencies/>
  <supersedes/>
  <supersededby/>
  &stpeter;
  <revision>
    <version>1.0</version>
    <date>2002-03-20</date>
    <initials>psa</initials>
    <remark>Changed status to Active.</remark>
  </revision>
  <revision>
    <version>0.2</version>
    <date>2002-03-06</date>
    <initials>psa</initials>
    <remark>Minor revisions.</remark>
  </revision>
  <revision>
    <version>0.1</version>
    <date>2002-02-24</date>
    <initials>psa</initials>
    <remark>Initial release.</remark>
  </revision>
</header>
<section1 topic="Introduction">
  <p>The Jabber Software Foundation is an experiment. When we initially set up our policies, processes, and structures, we knew that our initial thoughts might not be our final thoughts, and that we would need to make adjustments as experience dictated. In this document, I argue that just such an adjustment is now necessary with regard to the Jabber Interest Groups (JIGs). <note>The proposal contained in this document formalizes some conclusions reached during a weekly discussion forum held by the Jabber Software Foundation on 2002-01-23. A log of that discussion is available at <link url="http://www.jabber.org/chatbot/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2002-01-23.html">http://www.jabber.org/chatbot/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2002-01-23.html</link>. Further discussion within the Standards JIG has been helpful in clarifying the argument presented here.</note></p>
</section1>
<section1 topic="The Problem">
  <p>&xep0002; defined a JIG as "a working group approved by the Jabber Council to address specific areas of growth or concern within the Jabber community", and specified that the function of a JIG is to "produce acceptable enhancements to the Jabber protocol within a reasonably limited period of time". In early January of 2002, XEP-0002 was modified to incorporate language about disbanding a JIG after a defined period of inactivity on the JIG's mailing list (normally six months).</p>
  <p>Unfortunately, it is widely recognized in the Jabber community that the JIGs are not working. Ten JIGs have been approved by the Jabber Council,<note>See <link url='http://www.jabber.org/jigs.html'>http://www.jabber.org/jigs.html</link> for the official list.</note> eight of them over six months ago in July and August of 2001. Two of the special-purpose JIGs (OOB and Presence) have seen no activity whatsoever and thus are clearly eligible to be disbanded. The other special-purpose JIGs (Conference, Formatting, Forms, Profiles, RPC, and Whiteboard) have seen extremely limited activity and it is a judgment call whether some of them should be allowed to continue according to the current standards defined in XEP-0002. Only the two "standing" JIGs (Security and Standards) have experienced significant and continued mailing list activity, mainly because the Standards JIG has assumed the role of discussion forum for specifications before they are submitted to the Jabber Council.</p>
  <p>In perhaps the best measure of success or failure, only one JIG has produced a specification for submission to the Jabber Council, and that specification (&xep0009;) was essentially created outside the JIG structure at JabberCon 2001. Perhaps most ominously, no other JIG has shown any signs of progress toward completing a specification, or even starting work on one. With the possible exception of XEP-0009, all of the specifications created so far have come from individuals or small, ad-hoc groups -- not through the efforts of the JIGs.</p>
  <p>In other words, an honest assessment forces us to conclude that the JIGs are not working.</p>
</section1>
<section1 topic="Analysis and Possible Solutions">
  <p>I see several possible solutions to the JIG problem:</p>
  <ol>
    <li>"Crack the whip" -- encourage and cajole the existing JIGs into becoming more active, and energetically manage them so that they produce specifications.</li>
    <li>"Wait and see" -- immediately disband the JIGs that are clearly inactive but keep the existing JIGs and hope that they will eventually produce something of value (over time disbanding any that are conspicuously inactive).</li>
    <li>"Bite the bullet" -- recognize that, for whatever reason, the existing structure (many special-purpose interest groups) is not working and seek a better way to produce enhancements to the Jabber protocols.</li>  
  </ol>
  <p>Given the lack of activity in the JIGs so far (and the lack of time available to those who would manage them), I am skeptical that "cracking the whip" will produce results, and I believe the onus of proof is on those who would argue that the existing JIGs can be successful. Similarly, taking a "wait and see" attitude will simply let a bad situation continue unchecked, and in my opinion will at some point require us to choose between option 1 and option 3. Rather than postpone the day of reckoning, I argue that we need to address the problem head-on and take action to streamline the JIGs and find a better way of working.</p>
  <p>But what is that "better way"? In order to figure that out, we need to understand why things are not working now. I don't think it's that the current JIG members are lazy, stupid, or incompetent -- after all, these are the same people who have in many instances created good Jabber-based software. Nor do I think it's that members of the Jabber community are incapable of creating specifications, because individually and in small, ad-hoc groups they have created quite a few.</p>
  <p>I see several reasons why the JIGs are not working:</p>
  <ol>
    <li>The Jabber community right now is too small to be split up successfully into smaller interest groups.</li>
    <li>We have tried to overlay too much structure too quickly. Jabber has traditionally been a fairly anarchic project (or set of projects), and creating ten JIGs right away was at odds with that successful lack of structure.</li>
    <li>Good specifications, like good software programs, are usually created by at most a few interested people, not a formal group. Formal groups are not needed to move Jabber forward.</li>
  </ol>
  <p>If we reflect on what is working, we see that specifications are being produced by individuals and small, ad-hoc groups. We also see that active discussion of those proposals is taking place in the Standards JIG, which contains everyone who is strongly interested in the Jabber protocols. Finally, we notice that the special-purpose JIGs have not played any appreciable role in our success so far.</p>
</section1>
<section1 topic="Proposed Solution">
  <p>My proposed solution takes into account everything we have learned to date about producing specifications and advancing the state of the Jabber protocols. Specifically, I propose that we take the following steps:</p>
  <ol>
    <li>Immediately disband all but the Standards JIG. <note>In an earlier version of this document, I proposed that we retain the Security JIG. However, since there is a security aspect to all protocols, I now think it is best if security-related topics are discussed within the Standards JIG, not in a separate Security JIG.</note></li>
    <li>Rely on individuals and small, ad-hoc groups to create specifications.</li>
    <li>Continue to use the Standards JIG as the preferred forum for discussion of experimental specifications before they are submitted to the Jabber Council.</li>
    <li>If the Standards JIG cannot reach a working consensus on a given topic, let the document author(s) continue to rework their proposal informally outside the context of the Standards JIG. <note>One option would be to send interested parties off to their own ad-hoc mailing list (e.g., on JabberStudio, <link url="http://www.jabberstudio.org/">http://www.jabberstudio.org/</link>). Unlike the current JIGs, such a list would be established on the initiative of the document author(s) and would not require any formal approval by the Jabber Council.</note></li>
  </ol>
  <p>There may be value in bringing back specialized JIGs in the future when the Jabber community becomes larger. However, at this time I urge that we face the facts and proactively implement the solution I have outlined in this document. <note>Lest there be any concern that disbanding the JIGs is outside the power or purview of the Jabber Council, I note that Section 8.2 of the Bylaws of the Jabber Software Foundation states in part that "The Jabber Council or the Members of the Corporation may, by resolution, ... terminate a Jabber Interest Group at any time for any reason." (An electronic copy of the Bylaws may be found at <link url="http://www.jabber.org/bylaws.html">http://www.jabber.org/bylaws.html</link>.)</note></p>
</section1>
</xep>