[Members] XSF @ 10

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Sat Jul 16 03:24:58 UTC 2011

On 7/13/11 5:06 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Just to clear up misunderstandings:
> On Wed Jul 13 11:43:55 2011, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> Changing process to Experimental being granted automatically, but with
>> Council able to kill it on the vine, would have had a different
>> outcome, but I *think* that, in this one case, even the changes you
>> suggest here would have led to 301 being being rejected initially.
>> On the other hand, the sensors document would have gone through, as I
>> believe it should have.
>> > *Some* vetting seems sensible - nobody wants XEP-4597 on colouring
>> toenails,
>> > it's a waste of time and effort. But I think we'd benefit from a low
>> bar.
>> > Something that the Council could usefully add to the vetting process
>> would
>> > be to decide on what track to place the XEP on, and basically handle
>> the
>> > paperworkish decisions.
>> A change, as previously discussed, such that Council can reject
>> Experimentals when they're on the vine might change things.
>> We might change, in that case, the Council such that instead of having
>> to accept something before it's published, it will review the ones
>> that have been recently published. I vaguely feel that this gives more
>> scope for "Seeing how this goes" (which would have probably been good
>> for 301), while still allowing 4597, colouring toenails, to have a
>> very short life.
> I'm uncomfortable with automatic Experimental, and I'm very
> uncomfortable with Council being able to quash Experimental. The risk is
> that an author would have to keep the Council happy continuously until
> they got their XEP to Draft.
> I'd rather just lower the bar for Experimental, and streamline
> submission and editing.

As you know, I rather liked the old process whereby you sent your
proposal to the [J|X]EP Editor, he looked it over for general sanity,
and it was published quickly without Council review. The Council
feedback is generally very helpful, as I think it was for the Real-Time
Text proposal, but IMHO that feedback could happen after the spec is
published as Experimental.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Members mailing list