Hi,
On Sun, 2024-06-02 at 20:30 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
Therefore, I suggest that the XSF embraces competition
in the early
stages and, in case of duplicated efforts, limits itself to
advocating
certain extensions.
I generally agree.
However there has been cases, where a ProtoXEP is submitted without
prior interaction was the community and then within the first feedback
it is found that there is overlap in functionality with another XEP and
that there is a good possibility to make them cooperate instead of
compete. Often even the author agrees and is willing to do the
adjustment, but changes to ProtoXEPs during the Council review phase
are not encouraged (because they reset the voting). Competition might
be purely accidental and we should filter those cases *before* they go
Experimental (because Experimental is what people implement).
I think we might want to have a "scribble" space, where people just
dump ideas that certainly don't qualify as Experimental (e.g. because
it's just examples). This should be super low barrier (and going
through the git certainly is not) and allow for easy sharing of such
ideas for very early feedback.
In a perfect world, that would be an online tool where you can create
and edit your own scribbles (using probably markdown) and make "edit
suggestions" to those of others (that they can review and decide to
merge or reject). Not sure if something like this exists, I am just
daydreaming :)
I think Experimental became a high bar not because of the Council, but
because the processes don't match what people like to use during their
early development and prototyping phase. However this is the phase
where feedback is easiest incorporated.
Marvin