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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Mar 10 16:32:29 CST 2011

On 3/10/11 3:30 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> 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'.

It remains Experiemental. Essentially, the Council asks the author(s) to
"revise and resubmit".


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/bde3dc1a/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the Members mailing list