> On 13 May 2016, at 17:30, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > > > 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 are some other subtleties in there, but) Quite. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
