[Standards] Fwd: [Members] proposed changes to XEP-0001

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jan 14 12:27:11 UTC 2010


I'm going to respond to this here, because I think it's got some  
impact to the wider XMPP standards community. (Although I would  
encourage you to join the XSF formally if you haven't).

On Thu Jan 14 04:16:05 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>     * Changed the period for Council objections to submitted  
> proposals
> from 7 days to 14 days.

I'm okay with this. I'd suggest that a possible improvement would be  
to allow the Council Chairman to extend the period to 14 days from 7  
for a particular proposal at his or her discretion.

My reasoning is that an active Council should be able to process a  
proposal within a week, but the Chairman might know that a particular  
member (or the author) is away on holiday, for instance, or members  
might request an extension because a proposal is particularly complex.


>     * Changed the period for automatic deferral of an Experimental  
> XEP
> from 6 months to 12 months.

I'm okay with this. I would prefer Council to be able to maintain a  
XEP in Experimental despite inactivity, and I'd expect people to be  
able to request this.


>     * Changed the holding period for advancement from Draft to Final
> from 60 days to 6 months.

I'm fine with this.


>     * Clarified that the Editor is the canonical target for all
> submissions, not necessarily all questions related to the XSF's
> standards process.

We should have a body who is the arbiter of XEP-0001, though. This  
could be the Board.


>     * Clarified that only changes in Draft and Final XEPs that could
> reasonably be construed as material must be reviewed and voted on  
> by the
> XMPP Council, thus exempting correction of typographical errors,  
> minor
> clarifications, and other such errata.

With the proviso I mentioned last night, that is, Council may (and  
may be requested to) demand the reversal of the modifications. This  
in turn suggests Council should be notified, but that's trivial to do  
given that the commit mailing list does just that.


>     * Clarified that Council review is mandatory (not just  
> recommended)
> regarding IANA registrations initiated by the XMPP Registrar.

This seems fine to me.


>     * Updated some references and added some links.

Also fine.

Thanks for doing this, Peter.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade



More information about the Standards mailing list