Hello, Le jeudi 17 janvier 2019, 09:55:17 CET Dave Cridland a écrit : > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:48, Tedd Sterr <[email protected]> wrote: > Three things leap out at me: > > 1) Is it worth "cleaning Deferred"? That is, is having 177 documents in > Deferred state a problem? > > 2) If it is, our current solution to move them to some terminal, dead state > is to Last Call and then Reject them: (Deferred -> Experimental -> Proposed > -> Rejected). Is that OK? Does the community want 177 Last Calls of > pointless documents? Can the Council do this unilaterally (if, of course, > we allowed this in XEP-0001)? > > 3) Finally, Tedd makes a very good point here in passing - the initial step > of skimming Deferred XEPs can be done by anyone in the community. While the > Council has to agree to put something into Last Call, anyone can request > that of the Council, as (in my guise as Council Chair) I'm happy to have > the Council vote on any Last Call as a general rule. > > Dave. >
Note that some Deferred XEPs are actively used but either the authors are missing (that's more or less the case for XEP-0277 that Movim and SàT are using a lot), or the author wants time before moving (that's the case for 2 XEPs I've authored: XEP-0355 and XEP-0356: they are in a usable state, and I'm using them, but I plan to do changes on the long run and I feel it's too early to ask to move to draft). In the first case, maybe there should be a way to change/extend the authors after some time (for instance edhelas or me could work on the XEP-0277). For the later case, Deferred is a state that is OK for me, but I would not see the XEPs being killed (it's usable and used), I'm letting them in this state on purpose for the moment. ++ Goffi _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
