[Standards] MIX progress

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Jul 5 09:05:09 UTC 2016


Florian,

On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:

> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> > Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
> > Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
> >> one like MIX, would be more open.
> >
> > For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
> > development there and tag stable version.
>
> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
>
>
I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and
working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches).


> A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating XEPs
> and updates to existing XEPs in xsf at . My vision was to make write access
> to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to publish it
> somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab), with the hope that this will encourage
> collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
> experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for some
> reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like that.
>

I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a really
simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat. All the way
until Draft.

I've no particular interest in improving the quality of ProtoXEPs - the
quality gate there is next to zero anyway (by intention). The quality gate
kicks in at Draft, and we should worry, if anything, about that Introducing
more roadblocks to get to Draft doesn't seem useful.

Basically, your labs proposal ought to happen, but it ought to be the
Experimental state, not some new state beforehand.


> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>

In this, we entirely agree.


>
> - Florian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20160705/cf0b5b34/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list