[Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Mon Apr 23 15:46:08 UTC 2018

-1 to removing Proposed. We only know there's a problem because a bunch of
XEPs are sitting in Proposed; removing Proposed wouldn't remove the
problem, just the fact we can see it. I'd really like a similar state
during the CFE, since that's quite hard to manage.

My preferred change would be to update XEP-0001 such that anyone can fish a
XEP from Rejected back to Experimental (without a vote) by an update, much
as Deferred XEPs can be recovered.

Note that a XEP can't go from Rejected -> Experimental -> Proposed -> Draft
without having the factors leading to its rejection corrected or rendered
irrelevant by time.

Rejected therefore becomes a state indicating that the XEP cannot advance
in its current form, instead of a terminal state.

There is, however, a gotcha here. A Council vote on Approval (ie, advance
to Draft) can have three outcomes. The vote can pass, in which case the XEP
moves to Draft. Someone can veto, in which case it moves to Rejected
(until, in this new world, someone addresses the reasons behind the
rejection). But it can also simply not gain sufficient votes - in which
case there is nothing, really, to address, per-se, but nevertheless it
moves to Rejected.

But perhaps that's OK.


On 23 April 2018 at 15:09, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> We have a number of XEPs stuck in 'proposed' with an expired Last Call.
> I think the reality is that the council "rejected" these, or last call
> feedback is awaiting to be incorporated. By "rejected" I mean to imply
> that the council didn't want to advance the XEP yet (presumably based
> on LC feedback), but they did not want development on the XEP to
> discontinue.
> However XEP-0001 doesn't specify a way back to 'Experimental' from
> 'Proposed', which is why I think our documented process is not being
> followed here.
> I think we wither need to fix that process (by specifying Proposed ->
> Experimental), or... and this is what I think I personally prefer,
> remove the 'Proposed' status entirely (unless someone can state what
> purpose it serves).
> Thoughts welcome.
> Regards,
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180423/37fb84bc/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list