[Standards] Move Carbons to Last Call ("Proposed")

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Wed Aug 12 14:45:51 UTC 2015


On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> 2) Carbons will need some changes in the (hopefully near) future once the pubsub/account stuff is specced/we have deployment experience. I believe this means that going to Draft now wouldn’t be appropriate, as knowing there will be backwards-incompatible changes is at odds with the Draft requirement of avoiding such things where possible.

I'm skeptical that this will happen in the (hopefully near) future. We
should not hold back a spec from advancing IMO because of some vague
idea that it might need to be changed later. If we stopped advancing
all XEPs that might need changes to make them comptaible with some
as-yet-undefined future spec, no XEP would ever be able to move
forwards.

This isn't a personal dig at Kevin, but a general observation of the
many times I've seen statements like this used in standards bodies, or
privately for architecture decisions and the like at places I've
worked: It's just a stalling tactic used to halt a discussion without
requiring any actual citation or reference material (an actual spec,
or even work on an actual spec, for which carbons needs to be
changed). Put a document on the table, and then I'll probably agree
with the above.

—Sam



-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
https://blog.samwhited.com



More information about the Standards mailing list