[Standards] length of time in ProtoXEP state

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Wed Jun 21 15:06:01 UTC 2017


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> The OMEMO saga (of which I am only a distant observer) raises a more
> general issue: leaving a specification in the ProtoXEP state for way too
> long.

OMEMO is actually in experimental; so I'm not sure this applies to the
OMEMO discussion (which is more about continued development when a
group at the XSF disagrees with the direction the author wants to take
the spec).

> I have always been an advocate of accepting a proposal for XEP
> publication as quickly as possible, in part to avoid this kind of limbo.
> Indeed, in the early days acceptance for publication was handled by the
> XEP Editor and the Council wasn't involved at all. Although I was never
> sure what problems Council involvement was designed to avoid, it sure
> seems to have caused new problems.

By "for publication" do you mean moving from ProtoXEP to Experimental?
If so, with my council hat on I agree that having the council review
protoxeps for publication is not strictly necessary. With my editor
hat on: I don't want the responsibility of rejecting XEPs that don't
meet a certain standard, that just sounds like a great way for people
to acuse me of bias or playing favorites (which is at least spread
over a group of people if it's voted on in committee). I'd also be
worried that I'd have to accept a lot of duplicates, poor protocols,
etc. and the experimental XEPs would become even more confusing for
developers wondering what to implement. So I could take it or leave
it.

—Sam


More information about the Standards mailing list