On 23 April 2018 at 17:59, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 April 2018 at 16:46, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > -1 to removing Proposed. We only know there's a problem because a bunch > of > > XEPs are sitting in Proposed; removing Proposed wouldn't remove the > problem, > > just the fact we can see it. I'd really like a similar state during the > CFE, > > since that's quite hard to manage. > > I believe the problem is completely artificial, and only exists within > the framework that we constructed. > > There is a different between "this XEP is not ready for Draft" and > "this XEP should be rejected". The 'Rejected' state was included in > the process as an intentional dead-end, not a holding place for XEPs > which may come back to life (Deferred is more appropriate for that). > > I think the typical negative vote from Council members is a statement > of opinion that the XEP is not ready to be advanced. This is different > to actively rejecting the XEP, which is something that happens in rare > circumstances (but has happened, for one reason or another). > >
This is an argument for getting rid of Rejected, not getting rid of Proposed. > > My preferred change would be to update XEP-0001 such that anyone can > fish a > > XEP from Rejected back to Experimental (without a vote) by an update, > much > > as Deferred XEPs can be recovered. > > So the only difference between Rejected and Deferred would become > "this XEP had the misfortune of having been considered for Draft and > receiving some negative feedback". > > This is an argument for getting rid of Rejected, not getting rid of Proposed. > > Rejected therefore becomes a state indicating that the XEP cannot > advance in > > its current form, instead of a terminal state. > > I think this would only be valuable if we do a better job of recording > (perhaps in the XEP), the reason why it was rejected. > > This is an argument for getting rid of Rejected, not getting rid of Proposed. > > There is, however, a gotcha here. A Council vote on Approval (ie, > advance to > > Draft) can have three outcomes. The vote can pass, in which case the XEP > > moves to Draft. Someone can veto, in which case it moves to Rejected > (until, > > in this new world, someone addresses the reasons behind the rejection). > But > > it can also simply not gain sufficient votes - in which case there is > > nothing, really, to address, per-se, but nevertheless it moves to > Rejected. > > > > But perhaps that's OK. > > In the current process, it's not, because we're not able to pull it > back to Experimental. Which is why so many XEPs are lingering in > Proposed. > This is an argument for getting rid of Rejected, not getting rid of Proposed. > > Regards, > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________
