On Sunday, March 3, 2019 3:41:44 PM CET Sam Whited wrote: > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, at 13:51, Dave Cridland wrote: > > Who are you arguing *with*? > > The council and new authors. Also specifically the "Pot, kettle, etc." > statement, if you meant my last email. > > > I agree it's ridiculous, but I also note that the number of comments > > on the 2019 one is considerably below 20, and possibly less than 15, > > depending on how one counts. The number of people involved in the > > discussion outside Council is less than 5 (and I'm including your > > comments here, which are simply that we should have some Compliance > > Suites). > > Then even if we don't think the new ones are ready, let's at least > deprecate the old ones so we don't look like we're not doing our jobs > and no one is working on this. The external perception here isn't great. > > The next step would then be to try and figure out why the new ones > aren't ready. I think there are two important things to realize here: 1. > most of the arguments have already been had in previous years suites and > the new ones are similar enough that there aren't likely to be lots of > new comments, and 2. they don't have to be perfect because we'll get > another chance next year. These are guidelines that can be fluid, they > can even have mistakes without it being the end of the world (though of > course we should try to minimize these, but not at the cost of not > having any published). > > > If the community isn't interested in working on these, I'm not sure > > how we advance them faster. > > If the 2019 suites were finalized right now and the 2020 suites were > already being worked on, we'd have plenty of time for comments. This is > the only way I see the compliance suites working, and what I was trying > to do with previous years. > > When it comes down to it though, I don't particularly care how the > situation is resolved, rename the 2018 suites to 2019, just make sure we > have something with a current date on it which is the only way we're > going to be able to get people to take the compliance suites seriously > and not end up in a situation like we had before we picked them up again > where the 2012 suites (or somewhere around there) were the latest ones. > > —Sam
I agree with Sam, current situation is not very good marketing for XMPP. How I see it, we should be focusing on discussing next year's instead. If there is not enough people engaging with compliance suites I trust Council to figure out a solution. Sam mentioned pretty valid ways of solving the problem I think. Seve.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
