Hi, On Sun, 2024-06-02 at 20:30 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: > Therefore, I suggest that the XSF embraces competition in the early > stages and, in case of duplicated efforts, limits itself to > advocating > certain extensions.
I generally agree. However there has been cases, where a ProtoXEP is submitted without prior interaction was the community and then within the first feedback it is found that there is overlap in functionality with another XEP and that there is a good possibility to make them cooperate instead of compete. Often even the author agrees and is willing to do the adjustment, but changes to ProtoXEPs during the Council review phase are not encouraged (because they reset the voting). Competition might be purely accidental and we should filter those cases *before* they go Experimental (because Experimental is what people implement). I think we might want to have a "scribble" space, where people just dump ideas that certainly don't qualify as Experimental (e.g. because it's just examples). This should be super low barrier (and going through the git certainly is not) and allow for easy sharing of such ideas for very early feedback. In a perfect world, that would be an online tool where you can create and edit your own scribbles (using probably markdown) and make "edit suggestions" to those of others (that they can review and decide to merge or reject). Not sure if something like this exists, I am just daydreaming :) I think Experimental became a high bar not because of the Council, but because the processes don't match what people like to use during their early development and prototyping phase. However this is the phase where feedback is easiest incorporated. Marvin _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-le...@xmpp.org
