>> I agree that finished specs as submitted and accepted by the XSF should be
>> covered by the IPR.
>
>OK, so you're not accepting any ProtoXEP unless it is "finished"? As in,
>what, Stable quality or Final?
>
>I'd like to understand what it'll take to get something published.
In general my guiding principle is to avoid things we've seen in the past
like MIX, COIN, JinglePub, Inbox, XEP-0284, etc where the spec is published
(and in some cases lots of work goes into the spec or multiple other specs
end up notionally depending on it) but it never actually goes anywhere.
Especially in this case I hope we can agree that a repeat of the MIX process
is not likely to get us to a better (for the ecosystem) result.
There is an irony here in that I'm using an Inbox implementation every day... But I accept that Inbox is tricky to do unless you either ignore MUC, or have some kind of bare jid based occupancy. Gosh, if only there were a spec for that, eh?
But Inbox works absolutely fine with muclight or muc-sub.
So what does "finished" mean? Does it mean ready for Final? Certainly not.
But I'd hope it means that the primary design considerations and latent
ambiguities have been squeezed out and that there is some reason to believe
that adoption by (some non-trivial part of) the ecosystem is going to
happen.
Isn't that Stable? If not, what's the purpose of Experimental?
We explicitly ask about implementation intention in the Last Call, for example, and not before.
Dave.