Folks,
just a note that there's nothing like an official voting process or
so. Please continue to express your opinion and preference using
technical arguments on this mailing list, and it will be noted
accordingly to find consensus.
I'd also like everyone to indicate to what extend you'd be able to
actively contribute to realize your preferred option. An option only
becomes viable if there are enough committed resources to help
realizing it!!
Thanks,
Markus
jfcm wrote:
At 23:48 08/05/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Just for the record, in the parallel terminology used in prior
e-mails and on jfc web site, this vote is equivalent to:
ICAP/1.1: 5%
ICAP/2.0: 75%
OCP/BEEP: 20%
>From now on, let's avoid confusing references to ICAP for the
OCP/OCPTRAN solution. So let's use these:
ICAP/1.1 (polished ICAP, very similar to existing ICAP/1.0)
OCP/OCPTRAN (OCP over OCPTRAN)
OCP/BEEP (OCP over BEEP)
Reworded site for you. I am to go home. Now. May I expect your list?
Also we could record the people's position in % as decision factor.
See site. http://jefsey.com/ocph.htm
Both OCP/OCPTRAN and OCP/BEEP may eventually be called ICAP/2.0 for
political/marketing reasons, but let's ignore the naming issue for
now.