[Members] [Standards] Renaming XEP status 'Draft' to 'Stable'
dave at cridland.net
Mon Nov 6 10:23:01 UTC 2017
On 6 November 2017 at 09:59, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2017, at 12:35, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Guus der Kinderen recently sparked a discussion about revising our XEP
>> statuses for better clarity about their intention (thread at
>> Although the thread contains a number of points made by various
>> people, te proposal emerged around renaming the "Draft" status to
>> "Stable", with the reasoning that it better represents the way the
>> status is understood and used.
>> The XSF Board is required to approve changes, such as this, to the XEP
>> standards process documented in XEP-0001. The Board is happy to
>> consider this change if a positive response is received from the
>> community of both XEP authors and members of the community who use and
>> refer to XEPs.
> I think, given this is a (very) disruptive change (there is a lot of material out there referring to the existing statuses), that we should be looking for a higher bar than just a ‘positive response’. I suggest that instead we should be convinced that there is a definite advantage to this to make it worth the disruption. At the moment it feels to me like maybe Stable would be a better description than Draft, if we were starting from scratch, but that this big a disruption this far into the life of our standards isn’t warranted unless someone can come up with a convincing argument. I don’t think “Draft dissuades people from implementing it if they don’t read what Draft means” is /that/ convincing - if people aren’t reading a sentence describing what Draft means, they’re probably not reading very much of the spec either.
Despite having actually made the particular suggestion, I'm not
actually that invested in it, but I don't think your last argument
particularly holds - people have a solid understanding of what a
"Draft" is, and what it means. As I noted before, anyone with an
expectation of what it means in standards terms is likely to have that
from the IETF term which no longer exists.
So the idea that some people might not read a sentence in XEP-0001
should also suggest they don't read the Draft specification itself
seems wrong - I don't think there's any reason why one should follow
the other. XEP-0001 really ought to be needed to be read only by those
of us actually working on standards, and not every implementer.
I think "Draft dissuades people from implementing" is perfectly sound
reasoning, though it'd be lovely to get this idea from more than just
More information about the Members