[Standards] Re: XSF Process Change Proposals

I don't mind this, but I do think there can be a use for an Experimental in between "early draft" and "previously draft now stable". I would honestly suggest we use a dedicated section of the wiki to lower the bar on "early draft" further. Other spec authoring groups have had good luck with this in the past. Rather than getting council or editor involved or making anyone push any buttons, just write stuff and collaborate (under the IPR policy, sure) and when it's "ready" then submit for eyes, votes, process, numbering, namespace versioning, etc. We can of course do this without using a wiki and still force everything through github, but it's more friction. I'll say that, for myself as an implementor, when I want to do something my first stop is always to find every XEP I can that is remotely related sounding or looking, read them all, and bake that into my brain to try to see how what I want to do could be accomplished using existing specs. Sometimes I miss one, but I don't check the status when I do this. Deferred is where all the good XEPs are after all, and why would I write a new spec for something just because the last attempt is languishing? Now maybe I'm doing it wrong and I should ignore Experimental/Deferred, but then I would have ended up starting from scratch on several more things. Maybe that would have been better, but I'm not sure. However you can see how this contributes to wanting stuff in the XEP pool to be at least indicative of "this is maybe a good idea" as an implementor vs "this is a document that says things".