16 Dec
2024
16 Dec
'24
1:30 p.m.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 at 07:22, Daniel Gultsch <daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 3:32 AM Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter(a)stpeter.im>
wrote:
OK, so I have multiple hats to wear, and therefore multiple responses:
Process Documenting Hat: We should definitely document that, since it
deviates entirely from our published submission. I'll get onto that
(possibly on the train I'm on). Should be an easy PR against XEP-0143.
Personal Hat: This - as well as the proposed changes I've made to XEP-0001
- effectively mandates that at least one author has a GitHub account, or
there's an un-named person with a GitHub account who's doing a lot of the
heavy lifting. Is this something we're happy with? I seem to recall in the
past some people have objected to a GitHub account being a requirement.
This might not be awful; but I think if we are formalizing this we might
want to have a named role (or perhaps more sensibly, expand the existing
Document Shepherd role) to cover this.
Should the Document Shepherd be listed on the XEP alongside the Author(s)?
Dave
On 12/15/24 7:57 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
Slow mode was submitted as PR after I instructed the author to do so.
And yes PRs is what I prefer and what I strongly suggest we use going
forward.
There is one additional possible process
deviation we should document
(or call the Process Police out, or something). Submission of a XEP, as
per XEP-0143, occurs via email tot he Editor. Is this really still the
case? Or are these now by PR? That'll need changing in XEP-0143, which
I'm happy to do if that's the case. It'd be nice to have a non-PR
variant of the process (post here?)
In the recent past I've seen specs submitted via email (e.g., MUC Slow
Mode). But it does happen via PR and we might even want to settle on
that as the preferred method. I'd defer to Daniel on that.