[Standards] A Meta-Discussion about the Standards Process

Marvin W xmpp at larma.de
Fri Jan 17 09:54:58 UTC 2020

On 1/17/20 10:29 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> I need a feature X *now* and all I see is
>> an experimental XEP I have two choices; Implement that Experimental
>> XEP or create something myself.
> I don’t think making the barrier to entry to Experimental lower (or Draft) will change that fact, so if this assessment of the cause is right, we’ll still be in the same position

I think the important part when having a higher bar on Experimental is
that it won't solve this issue either. The higher bar already means that
people start implementing things that are in inbox. This happened for
example with the Reactions XEP and if I wanted to implement Reactions
today, I'd certainly use what is in the inbox now. Also aesgcm links are
widely used while stuck in inbox.

To phrase it differently:

Previous way:
Deemed ready by XSF: Draft+
People implement: Experimental+

Current way:
Deemed ready by XSF: Draft+
OKish by XSF: Experimental
People implement: Inbox+

I don't see any improvement. It will always be the case that some people
implement the protocols as soon as they are publicly accessible and if
it turns out those protocols work well enough, others will follow.
Having a higher bar before the XEP is adopted by XSF will just result in
less being adopted by XSF and not less (pre-)experimental things being


More information about the Standards mailing list