[Standards] Experimental XEPs

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Aug 15 21:57:23 UTC 2007


Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/15/07 5:34 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> 
>> Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>>> In the W3, they publish in the internal working groups multiple versions of
>>> specs for a standard that then hash it out. I think we need a similar
>>> process. 
>> Sure, people here can publish things on their own websites and we can
>> use those as input to the design process. But I don't think it's a great
>> idea to publish those as XEPs because developers will just get confused.
>> (No, lots of developers don't look at the spec in enough detail to see
>> that it's labelled "Informational" or whatever.)
>>
> 
> so let's create a formal process for doing draft proposals like the W3 and
> IETF both have.

Feel free to propose a formal process based on your experience working
in the W3C. (I don't know if different W3 activities operate in
different ways -- are you able to disclose which activities you have
worked on and how they operated, at least in a general fashion?)

Based on my experience in the IETF since 2002, I am not familiar with a
formal process for doing draft proposals there. You just publish an
Internet-Draft, others may propose similar or competing I-Ds, and you
hash it out on mailing lists and at in-person meetings. Hmm, that sounds
awfully familiar...

I assume that your proposed process would fall under the definition of a
"Special Interest Group" as described in Section 8.2 of the XSF Bylaws:

http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/docs/bylaws.shtml

But that you would propose a specific process to be followed by SIGs.

>>> I think we need a more organized approach to developing complex XEPs.
>> Most of the complex specifications we've developed have benefited from
>> an in-person meeting where various parties could hash things out in real
>> time (e.g., we had one of those for pubsub in 2002). Perhaps that would
>> make sense for the whiteboarding / shared editing domain.
>>
> 
> I agree a meeting is in order, but I also think a formal working group
> should be established

See above.

Peter

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070815/193f01e2/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list