On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 7 February 2017 at 16:25, Georg Lukas wrote:
>
Also, who gets to make changes? How are those agreed?
>
Council, like all XEPs, not much doubt about it. Right?
> All a XEP is, is simply a document
On 7 February 2017 at 16:25, Georg Lukas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today the current Compliance Sutie work was discussed in xsf@ and I
> asked again why it needs a new number vs. just updating XEP-0375. This
> resulted in some yak shaving, and an interesting, albeit controversial,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Some comments, I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.
On Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 17:25:40 CET Georg Lukas wrote:
> - it would be great to have a stable link/identifier to spread to
> developers and reference in documentation
Being
Hi,
today the current Compliance Sutie work was discussed in xsf@ and I
asked again why it needs a new number vs. just updating XEP-0375. This
resulted in some yak shaving, and an interesting, albeit controversial,
proposal:
Can we make the "Compliance Suite" a stand-alone document that is not