[Standards] Renaming XEP status 'Draft' to 'Stable'

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Nov 6 09:59:58 UTC 2017


On 1 Nov 2017, at 12:35, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Guus der Kinderen recently sparked a discussion about revising our XEP
> statuses for better clarity about their intention (thread at
> https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-September/033441.html
> ).
> 
> Although the thread contains a number of points made by various
> people, te proposal emerged around renaming the "Draft" status to
> "Stable", with the reasoning that it better represents the way the
> status is understood and used.
> 
> The XSF Board is required to approve changes, such as this, to the XEP
> standards process documented in XEP-0001. The Board is happy to
> consider this change if a positive response is received from the
> community of both XEP authors and members of the community who use and
> refer to XEPs.

I think, given this is a (very) disruptive change (there is a lot of material out there referring to the existing statuses), that we should be looking for a higher bar than just a ‘positive response’. I suggest that instead we should be convinced that there is a definite advantage to this to make it worth the disruption. At the moment it feels to me like maybe Stable would be a better description than Draft, if we were starting from scratch, but that this big a disruption this far into the life of our standards isn’t warranted unless someone can come up with a convincing argument. I don’t think “Draft dissuades people from implementing it if they don’t read what Draft means” is /that/ convincing - if people aren’t reading a sentence describing what Draft means, they’re probably not reading very much of the spec either.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list