[Standards] length of time in ProtoXEP state

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Wed Jun 21 15:59:42 UTC 2017


On 21 Jun 2017, at 16:47, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> 
> The problem here is that XEPs usually don't move up the ranks as it is
> intended by XEP-0001. We have countless - very essential - stuck in
> very low ranks like experimental and draft. This leads to developers
> implementing (and deploying to large user bases) experimental and
> draft XEPs (which they are not really supposed to) which in turn leads
> the XSF enforce higher standards for experimental XEPs.
> 
> The deduplication Sam mentions for example is only supposed to happen
> when something moves to draft.
> 
> So I think we got into that situation somewhat by accident and/or by
> our disability to advance XEPs at a reasonable pace.

I think it’s partly because Experimental and Draft and Final look the same to all but a particularly interested observer. This makes it heavily disadvantageous to publish duplicate XEPs, for example. Also, given the IPR considerations, it would be poor form to accept XEPs (and take the IP) that anyone with an involvement could see would be blocked from progressing.

It’s a complicated issue, and it’s not clear to me that we’re being particularly stupid, although clearly there’s room for refinement in anything.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list