[Standards] A Meta-Discussion about the Standards Process

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Thu Jan 16 20:54:58 UTC 2020

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

> 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.

If the status quo does not reflect the process described in XEP-0001
then maybe the status isn’t quo and we should strive to fix that
instead of changing the process.

If we manage to clean up 'experimental' by advancing what deserves to
be advanced and documenting issues in widely-deployed but not ready to
be advanced XEPs I think 'experimental' can become a home for
controversial[1] XEPs; Maybe even for OMEMO in its current form[2].
After all that state contains a big fat warning saying: "Publication
as an XMPP Extension Protocol does not imply approval of this proposal
by the XMPP Standards Foundation". Just because we have seen that
warning so many times that we have learned to ignore it doesn’t mean
it's there.

Note that what I’m suggesting here is has an order of operations:
Clean up experimental first and then, and only if successful, start
making it the 'everything goes' state[3].


[1]: For a wide variety of controversial
[2]: In the case of OMEMO we could introduce a second warning
mentioning the issues with the copyright.
[3]: For a still reasonable definition of everything

More information about the Standards mailing list