[Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

Ralph Meijer ralphm at ik.nu
Wed Dec 17 14:30:56 UTC 2014

On 2014-12-17 14:24, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> [..]
> It seems you are holding this ProtoXEP hostage for a general discussion
> and possibly more (“a better system”?).


I haven't fully digested all words in this thread. However, I think I
understand the general idea of the arguments being made by (mostly) Dave
and Kurt.

My general approach to accepting proto-XEPs into our XEP series has
always been:

 * Is the problem this proposal aims to find a solution for general
   enough that it is reasonable to standardize it within the XSF?

 * Does the proposal make general sense, without going into details?

I specifically tried to avoid digging into (potential) implementation
obstacles or protocol specifics /for the purpose of (not) objecting to
the publication of the proposal/. Naturally any such comments would
still be conveyed along with the non-objection.

In my view, publication of a specification as an Experimental XEP is the
*start* of a discussion on the proposal, and mostly everything within
the document is subject to scrutiny and change before moving forward in
our standards process.

Dave rightly raises a bunch of problems one might encounter while trying
to get this implemented in existing code bases, mostly following from
the lack of a coherent idea of modeling objects, permissions, etc., in
already accepted (and widely used) protocols.

I agree that this should be addressed. I don't agree that this should be
a per-requisite for the publication of this specification. I am pretty
sure that implementation experience will prove Dave right in some of the
aspects raised, and that's fine, because that gives people a better
understanding of what's needed.

I want to note that there is only a (very) small subset of contributors
in our community that can grasp the entirety of our protocol suite from
implementation experience. If this is required to get proposals accepted
(hyperbole much), we are doing it wrong.

On the other hand, we (the community, lead by the Board and Council)
have an obligation to inform and educate people new to our community on
how to present and work on proposals they might have, so that they at
least have a chance of moving forward. But also, make it very clear that
experimental XEPs might not have received the 'full treatment' of
scrutiny yet, and are thus not (yet) 'ready' for general use.

There have been suggestions to move such scrutiny forward, but in my
opinion that just creates a congruent situation, with the difference of
not having a number for such proposals.



More information about the Standards mailing list