Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-24 Thread Kevin Smith
On 24 Apr 2018, at 16:23, Tedd Sterr wrote: > > > Another note: the council may generally want to advance a XEP but vote > > not to issue Last Call because of outstanding issues. We don't have a > > special status for that. I can think of a number of XEPs in that > >

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-24 Thread Tedd Sterr
> Another note: the council may generally want to advance a XEP but vote > not to issue Last Call because of outstanding issues. We don't have a > special status for that. I can think of a number of XEPs in that > category. outstanding_issues  (Though this doesn't seem entirely different from

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-24 Thread Kevin Smith
On 24 Apr 2018, at 14:42, Tedd Sterr wrote: > 'Proposed' represents an intermediate state of "Experimental + awaiting vote > to advance to Draft." The outcome of such vote, may either be: success > (advance to draft), failure (rejected), or changes needed (..limbo). Yes.

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-24 Thread Dave Cridland
On 24 April 2018 at 10:29, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 23 April 2018 at 19:11, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 23 April 2018 at 17:59, Matthew Wild wrote: > >> I think the typical negative vote from Council members is a statement > >> of opinion

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-24 Thread Matthew Wild
On 23 April 2018 at 19:11, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 23 April 2018 at 17:59, Matthew Wild wrote: >> I think the typical negative vote from Council members is a statement >> of opinion that the XEP is not ready to be advanced. This is different >> to actively

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-23 Thread Kevin Smith
I note that my suggestion in the MUC for this was that there were three outcomes from an LC, and Council will pick which. Draft, Rejected or Experimental, and Rejected really did mean rejected. /K > On 23 Apr 2018, at 19:11, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > > On 23 April 2018

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-23 Thread Dave Cridland
On 23 April 2018 at 17:59, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 23 April 2018 at 16:46, Dave Cridland wrote: > > -1 to removing Proposed. We only know there's a problem because a bunch > of > > XEPs are sitting in Proposed; removing Proposed wouldn't remove the >

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-23 Thread Matthew Wild
On 23 April 2018 at 16:46, Dave Cridland wrote: > -1 to removing Proposed. We only know there's a problem because a bunch of > XEPs are sitting in Proposed; removing Proposed wouldn't remove the problem, > just the fact we can see it. I'd really like a similar state during the

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-23 Thread Dave Cridland
-1 to removing Proposed. We only know there's a problem because a bunch of XEPs are sitting in Proposed; removing Proposed wouldn't remove the problem, just the fact we can see it. I'd really like a similar state during the CFE, since that's quite hard to manage. My preferred change would be to

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-23 Thread Kevin Smith
On 23 Apr 2018, at 15:09, Matthew Wild wrote: > We have a number of XEPs stuck in 'proposed' with an expired Last Call. > > I think the reality is that the council "rejected" these, or last call > feedback is awaiting to be incorporated. By "rejected" I mean to imply > that the

Re: [Standards] Abolishing 'proposed' status for XEPs

2018-04-23 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 4/23/18 8:09 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > We have a number of XEPs stuck in 'proposed' with an expired Last Call. > > I think the reality is that the council "rejected" these, or last call > feedback is awaiting to be incorporated. By "rejected" I mean to imply > that the council didn't want to