It would be good to see if we can find some unpolished gems in that stack
of deferred XEPs - thanks for bringing this up. I am, however, wondering if
making Council go through all deferred XEPs periodically is an effect way
to spend resources. If our goal is to revive those XEPs that are relevant,
I suggest that we instead:
- Modify the warning text that is added to these XEPs (currently: "*WARNING:
This document has been automatically Deferred after 12 months of inactivity
in its previous Experimental state. Implementation of the protocol
described herein is not recommended for production systems. However,
exploratory implementations are encouraged to resume the standards
process.*")
to include an invitation to resume work on the XEP, and a reference to a
very accessible description on how that's done best. The goal here is to
pull in people that are basing implementations on the XEP and like to see
it advance, but don't necessarily know how to do that.
- Periodically, and hopefully in an automated fashion, ping
authors/contributors of deferred XEPs to ask them if they're interested in
resuming work, or would like the XEP to be moved to a different state
('retracted', or 'obsolete' perhaps), which would make the pings stop. That
way, council need only act on feedback from those pings, instead of weeding
through the entire haystack.
On top of that, it'd be good to make people aware that, indeed, anyone can
ask Council to re-evaluate a particular XEP, as Dave and Tedd already
suggested.
Regards,
Guus
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 11:06, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 09:19, Ненахов Андрей <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest not accepting XEPs without any kind of existing technical
>> implementation in the future. If one suggests a standard extension, he
>> should provide a working software that supports it.
>>
>>
> I'm highly against this. Our process is actually very clear on this -
> while we encourage implementation throughout, we do not require it until
> Final - not even Draft has an absolute requirement.
>
>
>> Also, XEP-0333 Chat Markers should not belong to deferred. It is
>> widely used in XMPP clients.
>>
>>
> Is that a request to Last Call it? Happy to put that on the Council agenda
> if you like.
>
>
>> --
>> Ненахов Андрей
>> Директор ООО "Редсолюшн" (Челябинск)
>> (351) 750-50-04
>> http://www.redsolution.ru
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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]
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
