On 31 August 2017 at 15:37, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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! > > Which has been improved upon greatly in the past few weeks! I'm hoping that we can keep that up, and improve where needed. > Peter > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
