[Standards] length of time in ProtoXEP state

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Fri Jun 23 08:40:36 UTC 2017


On 22 Jun 2017, at 22:23, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
> On 22 June 2017 at 21:49, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>>> If it really is the name, then let's call it "Stable".
>> 
>> I actually do think that would be very helpful; I can't tell you how
>> often random people I'm talking too say "we tried XMPP, but it didn't
>> have the feature we wanted" and I say "sure it did, that's XEP-XXXX"
>> and they reply "no, that was only draft, and we needed a working
>> version right then". Some variation of that is a significant portion
>> of conversations I end up having with random people who have tried
>> XMPP.
> 
> Names are important, I agree. We picked Draft - I think, it was well
> before my time - because that's what the IETF used. It's since ceased
> to be used there; they go straight from Proposed Standard to Internet
> Standard.
> 
> We could, equally well, go for the same, but if we're picking terms
> because of their utility for marketing (and I don't think that's a bad
> thing to do) then "Stable" seems the better option.
> 
> It might even be worth having "Unstable", or "Alpha", or something for
> Experimental, but I'm not so sure about that. I'd rather imply
> "Bleeding Edge" than "Broken”.

If we did change Draft->Stable, does that imply we’d want to actually make them stable (and get rid of Final)? Draft is currently “best effort at stable, but might have to change”.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list