[Standards] A Meta-Discussion about the Standards Process

Marvin W xmpp at larma.de
Fri Jan 17 10:31:21 UTC 2020


On 1/17/20 11:05 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Yes, I agree with what I think you’re saying - if there is a spec published that does what someone needs, they will implement it regardless of what the state says at the top (or any warnings about readiness). The “Inbox+” idea mostly just accepts that and uses the pre-XEP track to make it easy for people to understand the state of things - because as well as the issue that if there’s a spec people need they’ll implement it, I also believe there is confusion because “Well, it’s been published as a XEP”; 

What will make it easier or more obvious for people to understand they
shall not implement a pre-XEP from inbox that we don't already have for
Experimental today?

> I have at least had people ask for things to be implemented (more by users than XMPP aficionados)  because they’re a XEP and therefore they are Good.

I was always under the impression that users ask for features no matter
if they are a XEP. "There is no XEP for it" is rather the lame excuse by
developers to not implement a requested feature. If people ask you to
implement a XEP (being it pre-xep, inbox, experimental, rejected or
deprecated) I'd already classify them as "XMPP aficionados" to some degree.

Related to that: If XSF fails to provide what the *majority of users*
(even if it's a minority of developers) expect them to provide (in terms
of features or speed of adoption), we'll end up with something like
WHATWG: an independent working group of the top vendors that don't care
if their standards get accepted by the XSF because they can basically
enforce them through their market power. I don't think that's desirable.

Marvin


More information about the Standards mailing list