[Standards] A Meta-Discussion about the Standards Process

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Thu Jan 16 21:50:32 UTC 2020


Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 21:32 Uhr schrieb Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 20:55, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>>
>> 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].
>
>
> I will very heavily resist us placing anything knowingly encumbered onto the Standards Track in any form.
>
>>
>> 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].
>>
>
> I don't understand this - if we're making Experimental the wild west (and, Peter, I am speaking metaphorically here), then why "clean it up"? I might find myself in agreement, mind, I simply don't understand what you mean here.

I think we are currently in a situation where developers implement and
deploy experimental XEPs which made us more and more careful of what
we accept as experimental. When I say clean up I mean advancing
certain XEPs to draft to get into a situation where developers can
take the "Do not implement this XEP in production" warning serious
again because there are enough 'draft' and 'stable' XEPs to choose
from.


More information about the Standards mailing list