15 Dec
2024
15 Dec
'24
7:57 a.m.
Hey hey,
Boring incoming:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1407
This is draft to avoid the XSF Board accidentally approving it before the
community has had a chance to discuss.
The main change is the paragraph added in Section 6 (Discussion Process),
covering changes to the XEP during Experimental:
The XEP author incorporates the feedback by creating source control patches
(such as Pull Requests), in line with the preferred
method in &xep0143;.
Direct changes to an Experimental XEP, such as a contributor providing a
patch (or Pull Request on GitHub), are still the responsibility of the XEP
author, and are only applied if the XEP author agrees. If a XEP has
multiple authors, while agreement is sought from all authors, only those
opinions from responsive authors are considered. If the Approving Body
feels that the XEP author is not responsive, another author may be added
unilaterally by the Approving Body.
This is trying to do two things:
1) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed,
whereby changes to Experimental XEPs need "agreement" (PR approval, or
similar) from the XEP Author.
2) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed.
whereby if a XEP Author isn't responsive (ie, doesn't respond to emails,
etc) the XMPP Council can add a new XEP Author.
3) Document the *new practice* that if a contribution isn't a PR, it's the
XEP Author who is responsible to turn it into one.
The rest of the changes surface and restate existing process/policy/URLs
and aren't that interesting (well, even less interesting).
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?)
Dave.