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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Jan 14 14:49:12 UTC 2010

On 1/14/10 5:27 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 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.

Well, I think it's good to have some leeway here. Scenario: Council
takes a break (e.g., over the winter holidays), clever spec author
submits ProtoXEP the day after the last Council meeting before the
break, then demands publication on the 8th day of Christmas. The "or at
the next meeting" handles that, but IMHO it's fine to give the Council
two weeks.

>>     * 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.

The Council sort-of does that already (if the spec will soon be
considered for advancement), but IMHO there's been no lasting damage
from the automatic deferrals. If you don't want your spec deferred,
update it or as for it to be advanced on the standards track.

>>     * 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.

Sure, the Council has final authority. And I assume that all Council
members already subscribe to the xmpp-commits list. :)


>>     * 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.

We AIM to please!


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20100114/c81bae02/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list