On 9/24/14, 9:59 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sep 12, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/12/14, 9:02 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
Unfortunately, XEP-0155 was only ever used in specs that Ian Paterson
worked on (XEP-0136, XEP-0116). All of his protocols were needlessly
complex and now we need to deal with the consequences (he disappeared
from the XMPP community in ~2007).
This raises the question of what we do about authors who are no longer actively
participating in the XSF's standards process (I ran into this recently with
fixes to various Jingle specs). I wonder if it would make sense to specify who
the maintainer is for any given XEP. For example we could add a line at the top
of XEP-0166 like so:
Authors: Scott Ludwig, Joe Beda, Peter Saint-Andre,
Robert McQueen, Sean Egan, Joe Hildebrand
Maintainer: Peter Saint-Andre
Something like this would provide recognition to the original authors while
indicating who to contact about current issues.
Peter
One approach that's worked well in IETF Working Groups I've chaired is to list current editor(s)
instead of author(s), and listing authors in "Contributors" or other such section
(separate from Acknowledgements). One reason to do this in the IETF is eases RFC publishing
sign-offs, as the RFC Editor requires each and every listed editor/author to say "Okay"
when publishing an RFC.
I think going with Authors being the list of people who wrote it, and
Editor being the person currently responsible for it (so it starts off
as an Author, and then Council can re-assign it if needed) is sane.
The currently situation is a little wooly where taking over specs is
concerned.
That seems quite sensible!
Peter
