[Standards] On making "Compliance Suite 20xx" a Non-XEP
nicolas.verite at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 13:19:48 UTC 2017
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
> > Can we make the "Compliance Suite" a stand-alone document that is not an
> > XEP?
> There is a lot of process around publishing and updating an XEP. It
> requires discussion, approval from the council or board (once draft
> status is reached), etc. I think this is good for the compliance
> suites. It reduces the agility, but also means changes are well vetted
> by the community (a wiki page or some other document may not do that).
> I'd be all for a BCP style document that acts as a pointer to the
> compliance suites, but I don't personally want to try and set up
> infrastructure for maintaining those documents, or try to figure out
> what the procedures look like for publishing them, etc. it sounds like
> a lot of work for very little benefit to me.
Oops, confusions around that: the CS would still undergo a XEP process.
Only it would be published in a more visible place, probably with more
> - having this as a non-XEP might increase the maintenance burden or
> > reduce the "credibility" of the document
> I agree.
> I don't want to completely shut down the discussion, but I'm not sure
> it's useful. While I'm writing these I'm just going to submit new
> documents. If someone else wants to take over and figure out a
> different way, I'm happy to let them work on it instead.
Once again, trying to clarify the discussion:
* still keep and apply the XEP process (it’s awesome)
* make it easier to discover and adopt
Nicolas Vérité (Nÿco)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards