[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Compatibility Fallbacks

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Sun Jan 9 21:15:28 UTC 2022

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 at 13:38, Marvin W <xmpp at larma.de> wrote:

> Given that (as you know) I originally proposed this for XEP-0428 and you
> argued against, I'd say that updating XEP-0428 *was* my first choice,
> but it is your right as author to refuse this.

XEP-0001: XMPP Extension Protocols

No, it isn't! A XEP in Experimental state isn't the property of an author,
the author just gets the responsibility to incorporate feedback from
discussions on this mailing list. All published XEPs are owned, entirely,
by the XSF, and subject to change control under XEP-0001.

We have, as a community, generally deferred to the author to decide how to
(and indeed whether to) incorporate specific suggestions, but if the rough
consensus of the participants of the standards list is to add something, it
should be added even if the author is in the rough. If an author isn't
doing that, we find another author who will (and Council have,
historically, made that kind of decision formally).

But equally, if you're in the rough that doesn't mean you just submit
another XEP. That just gives us fragmentation, and it's something that the
Council has correctly pushed back on over the years (sometimes including
against XEPs I've proposed).

In this case, I don't think we got consensus either way. You made an
argument, I disagreed - but I certainly didn't intend to "refuse". I did
intend to see what other people thought before I went further - that is, I
wanted to get an idea of where the consensus was - but that's why I asked.
Nobody at all replied, and quite honestly I forgot about it, but it doesn't
seem to me that we got any kind of consensus.

The "for" thing I *did* mean to add, since I just didn't really see much
point but wasn't against it. Since everyone else seemed largely for it or
ambivalent, I would have added it - except that one slipped off my todo
list. I think, in my defence, I was waiting for replies to the other

In the case of the other two XEPs you've proposed, it's actually worse -
both have close prior art, but unless I'm missing something these came as a
total surprise to the authors, who are both active (XEP-0353 is being
updated *right now*). As I said, this appears to be a general pattern, and
it's a worrying one to me.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20220109/3866bce3/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list