[Standards] MIX progress
flo at geekplace.eu
Tue Jul 5 09:25:12 UTC 2016
On 05.07.2016 11:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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).
That approach would not be visible enough. For one, PRs are not build
and made available as rendered HTML somewhere. Granted, this eventually
could be changed. But I still think there is a need for a repo for
> 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 <http://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 believe the current process is seriously flawed and has never worked
as it was envisioned. So yes, it is an admission of failure. But what's
wrong with that if the goal is to improve it? People want feedback about
their XEPs before they are submitted to the XSF. It is as simple as
that. A we as XSF do not provide them with a tool-chain to support them
with this venture. Georg Lukas has just recently made the same
experience, I made with *every single XEP I wrote*.
> 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.
No, please not. IMHO counterproductive and ultimately harms the XMPP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards