On 24 April 2018 at 14:57, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m not entirely sold that Experimental gets lost in the pile, particularly. > I think an Experimental XEP that needs work before it’s ready to go to Draft > is quite similar to a XEP that has gone to Council and needs work before > it’s ready to go to Draft.
Agreed. We're in the same situation where someone needs to care enough about the XEP to advance it (e.g. author or council). If a XEP that goes back to Experimental gets "forgotten" despite outstanding feedback, maybe it really wasn't suitable to go to Draft? > I agree with the sentiment of Experimental + needs_changes, but we don’t > actually need a new state or action flag for that - we can simply put a > preface “Council Notes” into the spec in question, which is what we’ve done > (more or less) for some other things in the past. The common case is going > to be that the Author is shepherding through to Draft and will address > Council feedback immediately. Where that doesn’t happen, we can shove a note > in explaining the state, and job done, no new process (other than needing > the outcome of an LC to be Draft|Rejected|Experimental, instead of just > Draft|Rejected, as I suggested earlier). More council notes are a good thing, because it's additional metadata about the status of a XEP that is currently relatively hard to track down. Another note: the council may generally want to advance a XEP but vote not to issue Last Call because of outstanding issues. We don't have a special status for that. I can think of a number of XEPs in that category. Regards, Matthew _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
