On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Georg Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can we make the "Compliance Suite" a stand-alone document that is not an > > XEP? > > There is a lot of process around publishing and updating an XEP. It > requires discussion, approval from the council or board (once draft > status is reached), etc. I think this is good for the compliance > suites. It reduces the agility, but also means changes are well vetted > by the community (a wiki page or some other document may not do that). > > I'd be all for a BCP style document that acts as a pointer to the > compliance suites, but I don't personally want to try and set up > infrastructure for maintaining those documents, or try to figure out > what the procedures look like for publishing them, etc. it sounds like > a lot of work for very little benefit to me. Oops, confusions around that: the CS would still undergo a XEP process. Only it would be published in a more visible place, probably with more readability. > - having this as a non-XEP might increase the maintenance burden or > > reduce the "credibility" of the document > > I agree. > > I don't want to completely shut down the discussion, but I'm not sure > it's useful. While I'm writing these I'm just going to submit new > documents. If someone else wants to take over and figure out a > different way, I'm happy to let them work on it instead. > > —Sam > Once again, trying to clarify the discussion: * still keep and apply the XEP process (it’s awesome) * make it easier to discover and adopt -- Nicolas Vérité (Nÿco)
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
