On 13 May 2016 at 17:10, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote: > On 13 May 2016, at 17:05, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > There's a problem inherent in this that we'd need to actually verify the > clients have actually implemented the features they claim, and that in turn > means some volunteer effort in testing them though. I believe that any > effort we put into this would be repaid hugely, though. > > Or, instead of volunteers, projects pay to be certified. (Yes, I realise > that’s not likely to be a popular suggestion). > > I’d be slightly concerned that if it’s volunteer based it needs to be > unbiased - e.g. we couldn’t have some unpopular client sitting in a queue > because the volunteers don’t want to do that one. > > Don't tell anyone, obviously, but any system will be prone to bias. If we charge, we're biasing the system against open source "community" projects, and if we don't, we'll risk being at the whims of volunteers.
I think there's some challenges around how we balance this, which as you know is manager-speak for I don't know what I'm doing (yet). Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
