On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 3:32 AM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
>
> On 12/15/24 7:57 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> > 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.
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.
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