[Standards] length of time in ProtoXEP state

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 22 08:30:28 UTC 2017

On 21 June 2017 at 17:44, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> 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).

If it really is the name, then let's call it "Stable".


More information about the Standards mailing list