[Standards] A Meta-Discussion about the Standards Process

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jan 16 21:52:29 UTC 2020


On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:50, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:

> 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.


Yes, understood, and I fully agree.

Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200116/931ee356/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list