On Tue, Sep 26, 2017, at 12:37, Ivan Vučica wrote: > > On 26 September 2017 at 14:47:27, Sam Whited (s...@samwhited.com) wrote: > > As others have said, the real naming problem is "draft". We can't > actively advance draft as much (since final really is final and can't be > touched ever again) > Is that a bad thing?
To be clear, the fact that the name "draft" confuses people into thinking it's something that's not yet ready is a bad thing, not the fact that draft takes a long time to advance (which is a good thing). > Conversely, is it a good thing that certain XEPs have changed a lot since > the first draft? Your use of the phrase "the first draft" illustrates my point. I am not sure what you meant by that, if you meant "the first revision in the Draft status" then XEPs should not have changed a lot. If you mean "the first published revision of an XEP in Experimental", then it's not a bad thing that they've changed a lot, that's just the development process. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
