Re: [Standards] Un-deferring XEP-0377: Spam Reporting

[Sam Whited]

Thank you, thinking about it more that makes perfect sense. I've
submitted an overhaul based on the list feedback that Zash
reminded me of.

—Sam

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021, at 02:55, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 12:35, Sam Whited  wrote:
> > Can we undefer XEP-0377: Spam Reporting? I don't have any changes
> > that need to be made to it, but it's also in use and not abandoned.
> > It has one or two implementations but I don't know of any services
> > actually using it so I don't think it's ready for advancement, but
> > it definitely shouldn't be deferred.
>
> Modulo Kim's comments, there's a simpler answer:
>
> No.
>
> If there are no changes to be made, then it's either ready for
> enhancement or needs dropping.
>
> Movement in and out of Deferred is automatic for a reason - it's to
> eliminate XEPs which aren't progressing through Experimental.
>
> We don't require implementations at the Experimental->Draft
> transition; we require them at the Draft->Final one. Getting
> widespread implementations before Draft is, in fact, a problem to the
> process - look at MAM, Carbons, and so on, which end up stuck in
> Experimental.
>
> Because moving things out of Deferred (or stopping them getting there)
> is just a minor edit away, there's no need to ask, anyway. But really,
> if there's some implementation but you think some more changes will be
> needed, then force the issue with a Last Call.
>
> (In this case, of course, sort through the changes Kim found
> discussed, first!)
>
> Dave.
> ___
> Standards mailing list Info:
> https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: Standards-
> unsubscr...@xmpp.org 
> ___
>


-- 
Sam Whited
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Un-deferring XEP-0377: Spam Reporting

[Dave Cridland]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 12:35, Sam Whited  wrote:

> Can we undefer XEP-0377: Spam Reporting? I don't have any changes that
> need to be made to it, but it's also in use and not abandoned. It has
> one or two implementations but I don't know of any services actually
> using it so I don't think it's ready for advancement, but it definitely
> shouldn't be deferred.
>

Modulo Kim's comments, there's a simpler answer:

No.

If there are no changes to be made, then it's either ready for enhancement
or needs dropping.

Movement in and out of Deferred is automatic for a reason - it's to
eliminate XEPs which aren't progressing through Experimental.

We don't require implementations at the Experimental->Draft transition; we
require them at the Draft->Final one. Getting widespread implementations
before Draft is, in fact, a problem to the process - look at MAM, Carbons,
and so on, which end up stuck in Experimental.

Because moving things out of Deferred (or stopping them getting there) is
just a minor edit away, there's no need to ask, anyway. But really, if
there's some implementation but you think some more changes will be needed,
then force the issue with a Last Call.

(In this case, of course, sort through the changes Kim found discussed,
first!)

Dave.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___