On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:50, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote:
> Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 21:32 Uhr schrieb Dave Cridland < > d...@cridland.net>: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 20:55, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: > >> > >> Am Do., 12. Dez. 2019 um 09:24 Uhr schrieb Dave Cridland < > d...@cridland.net>: > >> > >> > 2) The "Daniel Plan", which is to encourage Council to adopt pretty > well anything. If this sounds radical to you, it might help if I described > it as simply reimposing the de-jure standards process as described in > XEP-0001. I can certainly see the attraction, but I also think it ignores > the status quo and the problems alluded to above. Most recently suggested > by Daniel Gultsch. > >> > >> If the status quo does not reflect the process described in XEP-0001 > >> then maybe the status isn’t quo and we should strive to fix that > >> instead of changing the process. > >> > >> If we manage to clean up 'experimental' by advancing what deserves to > >> be advanced and documenting issues in widely-deployed but not ready to > >> be advanced XEPs I think 'experimental' can become a home for > >> controversial[1] XEPs; Maybe even for OMEMO in its current form[2]. > > > > > > I will very heavily resist us placing anything knowingly encumbered onto > the Standards Track in any form. > > > >> > >> After all that state contains a big fat warning saying: "Publication > >> as an XMPP Extension Protocol does not imply approval of this proposal > >> by the XMPP Standards Foundation". Just because we have seen that > >> warning so many times that we have learned to ignore it doesn’t mean > >> it's there. > >> > >> Note that what I’m suggesting here is has an order of operations: > >> Clean up experimental first and then, and only if successful, start > >> making it the 'everything goes' state[3]. > >> > > > > I don't understand this - if we're making Experimental the wild west > (and, Peter, I am speaking metaphorically here), then why "clean it up"? I > might find myself in agreement, mind, I simply don't understand what you > mean here. > > I think we are currently in a situation where developers implement and > deploy experimental XEPs which made us more and more careful of what > we accept as experimental. When I say clean up I mean advancing > certain XEPs to draft to get into a situation where developers can > take the "Do not implement this XEP in production" warning serious > again because there are enough 'draft' and 'stable' XEPs to choose > from. Yes, understood, and I fully agree. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
