пт, 4 сент. 2020 г. в 16:37, Georg Lukas <ge...@op-co.de>: > This was discussed before, and in my eyes the XEP hammer looks > sufficiently right for this, as it gives us: > > - a proper process to decide what goes into the Compliance Suite
In efficient organizations a process serves as means to some end. But this is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. > - a version numbering for CS versions You can easily achieve it by linking to documents with previous versions. > - an archive of previous versions The list of extensions to a standard is the best place for an archive, right. It is obvious that the smaller the standard, the more accessible it is, so bloating it artificially with non-relevant information reduces the chance someone will decide to implement it. > Making it a dedicated page on the website means that additional process > needs to be created for the web team (check whether a PR touches the > magic compliance URL), and for the Council (is that web page maintained/ > updated in a similar way to an Informational XEP? How do we get > community feedback? How is a new version approved?). This needs then to > be written down and approved by Board. This, again, is a bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. The process can be precisely the same, you don't need to bloat the specs with entries that will be obsoleted in a year just because you need an archive or an orderly way to update information. -- Andrew Nenakhov CEO, redsolution, OÜ https://redsolution.com _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
