[Members] the "Proposed" state in XEP-0001

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Mar 10 16:19:54 CST 2011

On 3/10/11 3:18 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 3/10/11 3:12 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> I've effectively stopped using the "Proposed" state defined in
>>>> XEP-0001 (too many specs went into Proposed during Last Call
>>>> but had to be moved back to Experimental because the authors
>>>> needed to revise the XEP before the Council would approve it,
>>>> and sometimes they were in the Proposed state for a long time).
>>>> I wonder if we want to get rid of it entirely...
>>> +1
>>> What about Reject?  The state digram shows the only way to Reject
>>> is via Proposed.
>> The Council hasn't moved anything to Rejected since 2002, and then
>> only at a single meeting.
> I was more recently advised not to request progression to Draft until
> I was sure it would be approved else the XEP might get moved to
> Rejected and I'd have submit a new Proto-XEP...
> If a XEP is not ready for Draft, I rather the council say "address X
> and Y at Experimental and then resubmit"...

Well, that happens nowadays because the Council needs to approve
issuance of a Last Call. That has enabled us to avoid Rejected.


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20110310/8bc1bb10/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the Members mailing list