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

[Kurt Zeilenga]

On Mar 10, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 3/10/11 3:27 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> 
>> 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).
> 
> Right, and that's what happens now.

Can you clarify 'that' here?  'that' could refer to 'document remains in the Experimental state' or could refer to 'moved to a dead-end state'.

-- Kurt


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