[Standards] length of time in ProtoXEP state

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Fri Jun 23 08:30:33 UTC 2017


On 22.06.2017 10:30, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 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".

+1 for s/Draft/Stable/.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 642 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170623/01b0b411/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list