On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > The OMEMO saga (of which I am only a distant observer) raises a more > general issue: leaving a specification in the ProtoXEP state for way too > long.
OMEMO is actually in experimental; so I'm not sure this applies to the OMEMO discussion (which is more about continued development when a group at the XSF disagrees with the direction the author wants to take the spec). > I have always been an advocate of accepting a proposal for XEP > publication as quickly as possible, in part to avoid this kind of limbo. > Indeed, in the early days acceptance for publication was handled by the > XEP Editor and the Council wasn't involved at all. Although I was never > sure what problems Council involvement was designed to avoid, it sure > seems to have caused new problems. By "for publication" do you mean moving from ProtoXEP to Experimental? If so, with my council hat on I agree that having the council review protoxeps for publication is not strictly necessary. With my editor hat on: I don't want the responsibility of rejecting XEPs that don't meet a certain standard, that just sounds like a great way for people to acuse me of bias or playing favorites (which is at least spread over a group of people if it's voted on in committee). I'd also be worried that I'd have to accept a lot of duplicates, poor protocols, etc. and the experimental XEPs would become even more confusing for developers wondering what to implement. So I could take it or leave it. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
