On 1 Nov 2017, at 12:35, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > > Guus der Kinderen recently sparked a discussion about revising our XEP > statuses for better clarity about their intention (thread at > https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-September/033441.html > ). > > Although the thread contains a number of points made by various > people, te proposal emerged around renaming the "Draft" status to > "Stable", with the reasoning that it better represents the way the > status is understood and used. > > The XSF Board is required to approve changes, such as this, to the XEP > standards process documented in XEP-0001. The Board is happy to > consider this change if a positive response is received from the > community of both XEP authors and members of the community who use and > refer to XEPs.
I think, given this is a (very) disruptive change (there is a lot of material out there referring to the existing statuses), that we should be looking for a higher bar than just a ‘positive response’. I suggest that instead we should be convinced that there is a definite advantage to this to make it worth the disruption. At the moment it feels to me like maybe Stable would be a better description than Draft, if we were starting from scratch, but that this big a disruption this far into the life of our standards isn’t warranted unless someone can come up with a convincing argument. I don’t think “Draft dissuades people from implementing it if they don’t read what Draft means” is /that/ convincing - if people aren’t reading a sentence describing what Draft means, they’re probably not reading very much of the spec either. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
