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

Kurt Zeilenga Kurt.Zeilenga at Isode.COM
Thu Mar 10 16:27:04 CST 2011

On Mar 10, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> 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.

so far.

My point is that it clearly possible that a Last Call would get issued and then the Council learns something during that call that leads it to deny the request for progression.  If this were to happen, I think it would be generally for the document remain in the Experimental state (so the issues raised during Last Call can be addressed) then automatically be moved into a dead-end state (requiring the authors to submit a whole new XEP with largely the same content).

-- Kurt

> Peter
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/

More information about the Members mailing list