On 8/31/17 1:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 30 August 2017 at 21:32, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2017-08-30 22:10 GMT+02:00 Paul Schaub <[email protected]>: >>> First things first: My intention for submitting JET to the XSF inbox was >>> to get some comments and first feedback in order to discover caveats and >>> pitfalls in the protocol. >>> By no means I'd consider JET ready to be implemented or accepted :D >> >> OK. Fair enough. I think what people usually do at this stage is >> render the XEP themselves, put it up somewhere and show it around to >> get some feedback. That way you don't trigger council action and it is >> way easier to make changes because you don't have to go through the >> editor. >> > > This is getting a bit meta, but the reason I really dislike that is > that you're asking people to work on protocol stuff outside the IPR > policy of the XSF. This exposes people implementing, or discussing, to > all sorts of legal shenanigans that are somewhat mitigated by the > copyright assignment in submission. > > If there's something preventing this, we really need to fix it.
There is: the Council blocking publication of XEPs. Publish the thing, get it into XSF processes, and work on the spec in the right way. Ship and iterate! Peter
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
