[Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 14:14:26 UTC 2018

On 24 April 2018 at 14:57, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> I’m not entirely sold that Experimental gets lost in the pile, particularly.
> I think an Experimental XEP that needs work before it’s ready to go to Draft
> is quite similar to a XEP that has gone to Council and needs work before
> it’s ready to go to Draft.

Agreed. We're in the same situation where someone needs to care enough
about the XEP to advance it (e.g. author or council). If a XEP that
goes back to Experimental gets "forgotten" despite outstanding
feedback, maybe it really wasn't suitable to go to Draft?

> I agree with the sentiment of Experimental + needs_changes, but we don’t
> actually need a new state or action flag for that - we can simply put a
> preface “Council Notes” into the spec in question, which is what we’ve done
> (more or less) for some other things in the past. The common case is going
> to be that the Author is shepherding through to Draft and will address
> Council feedback immediately. Where that doesn’t happen, we can shove a note
> in explaining the state, and job done, no new process (other than needing
> the outcome of an LC to be Draft|Rejected|Experimental, instead of just
> Draft|Rejected, as I suggested earlier).

More council notes are a good thing, because it's additional metadata
about the status of a XEP that is currently relatively hard to track

Another note: the council may generally want to advance a XEP but vote
not to issue Last Call because of outstanding issues. We don't have a
special status for that. I can think of a number of XEPs in that


More information about the Standards mailing list