[Standards] A Meta-Discussion about the Standards Process

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Thu Dec 12 16:41:18 UTC 2019

Am Do., 12. Dez. 2019 um 09:24 Uhr schrieb Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:

> 1) The "Florian Plan" - introduce a phase prior to Experimental, wherein a XEP is semi-adopted but remains without a number. This somewhat happens anyway, but it does so outside our IPR rules, so arguably this is a case of formalizing the status quo to some degree. On the other hand, it abandons anything Experimental about Experimental. I'm calling this the Florian Plan just because Florian Schmaus has been a vocal proponent - but he's far from the only one.

What bothers me about the Florian Plan is that it introduces an
*additional* step to what in my view is already way too many steps.
Ideally what I want is a 'florian stage' (I was tempted to call it
draft stage but unfortunately we already have a stage called 'draft')
and a stable 'stage'. I don’t see why we need a lot in between.
(Maybe; we might want to hold on to the 'in review' stage; but in the
past we haven’t been very thoroughly with actually moving XEPs in and
out of that 'in review' stage.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong but the IETF seems to be doing fine
with just two stages.

> 2) The "Daniel Plan", which is to encourage Council to adopt pretty well anything. If this sounds radical to you, it might help if I described it as simply reimposing the de-jure standards process as described in XEP-0001. I can certainly see the attraction, but I also think it ignores the status quo and the problems alluded to above. Most recently suggested by Daniel Gultsch.

In a way it doesn’t really matter if we introduce a new Florian Stage
or if we reuse the existing Experimental stage for that purpose. In
both cases we somehow have to deal with the status quo. There are a
number of XEPs currently in Experimental that certainly belong into
'Florian'. (I'm going to follow Dave’s example of not providing

But that's to me is one of the underlying issues here; While I can
certainly see why Council would require a certain readiness of a XEP
before giving it a number, that quality measurement has been applied
very unevenly in the past. There are *a bunch* of XEPs that literally
have the text 'TODO' in them.

Which brings us to:

> b) We have to, in particular, codify what each transition means, and therefore tighten up Council's veto-for-any-reason here. I don't mean that we remove any judgement calls on the part of Council, but I do mean that we should create a yardstick on what constitutes a "usual" versus "unusual" veto.

Yes I agree with that. More transparent and fairer processing would
certainly eliminate the feeling of XEP authors to retry after the next
council has been elected.

I feel like only having two stages (Draft and stable) would help with
that; because it is pretty obvious that for it being stable it has to
be stable.


More information about the Standards mailing list