On Mon, 2026-05-11 at 16:36 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
If you want to say "hey people, I'm trying to come up with something, but I don't know how and what exactly, let's work on this document under XSF IPR policy", you don't need to make it Experimental. You can just say this and avoid any doubts on whether your XEP is encouraged for Experimental implementations or not. And if you think we need a venue that is explicitly under XSF IPR policy but not ready for experimental implementations yet, then talk to the board.
But... that *is* Experimental... Experimental doesn't mandate implementation, it merely encourages it. And you can implement this, not that it's required, and I have, not that I had to. Experimental doesn't even require implementable.
Experimental encourages implementation in experimental branches, which implies implementability and that the XSF as the publishing entity assumes it's worth investing time it to create such implementations.
The Process we have literally doesn't have a stage before Submission. So you're asking, as a Council member, that I should NOT follow our process as documented in XEP-0001?
The process has a phase before submission. It's the research.
Part of the research is to determine if "the proposed protocol extension is truly needed in order to fill a gap in existing XMPP technologies and protocols". That gap is neither explained in the document itself nor obvious from reading it.
The research may include discussion and those are supposed to happen on exactly this mailing list. Which they are.
The only thing we would reach by accepting your latest proposal as a XEP is confusion, because people might assume that they are encouraged to implement this in experimental branches.
If you can't wholeheartedly say that people are encouraged to invest their time into creating experimental implementations from your XEP (which I assume because you yourself opted to use an LLM for the implementation rather than investing your time), why do you want to submit it?
Marvin