[Standards] length of time in ProtoXEP state
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
> 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
> 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”.
More information about the Standards