Re: [Standards] On making "Compliance Suite 20xx" a Non-XEP

2017-02-08 Thread Nicolas Vérité
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

Re: [Standards] On making "Compliance Suite 20xx" a Non-XEP

2017-02-08 Thread Dave Cridland
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, >

Re: [Standards] On making "Compliance Suite 20xx" a Non-XEP

2017-02-07 Thread Jonas Wielicki
-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

[Standards] On making "Compliance Suite 20xx" a Non-XEP

2017-02-07 Thread Georg Lukas
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