[Standards] length of time in ProtoXEP state

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Wed Jun 21 16:44:04 UTC 2017

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> 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.

That's a good point; you're right, things lingering in experimental is
the only reason duplicates in experimental are bad. This is the more
fundamental issue to some of the things I mentioned.

Although I'd also note that draft XEPs are okay to implement widely
and are not "low rank". This is a separate problem though; the fact
that its named "draft" makes everyone think that, including some council
members and people involved in the process (I still have the "I
shouldn't implement that in prod, it's just a draft" as a gut reaction
after all this time).


More information about the Standards mailing list