Replying to Dave and Goffi in one go:
On 17/01/2019 10.19, Goffi wrote:
Hello,
Le jeudi 17 janvier 2019, 09:55:17 CET Dave Cridland a écrit :
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:48, Tedd Sterr <teddst...@outlook.com> 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 the Approving Body do this unilaterally (if, of
course,
we allowed this in XEP-0001)?
I don't believe it makes sense to do that work for all Deferred
specifications. It seems we can roughly divide all Deferred XEPs in a
few categories:
1) More or less complete, considered of value, and maybe even has
(multiple) implementations.
2) Considered of value, but needs more work to be accepted.
3) Interesting idea, but not pursued further.
Out of these, there are also cases where dependencies or dependents are
still in flux (as Experimental), so that it doesn't necessarily make
sense to advance them on their own (yet).
Especially XEPs of category 1 are candidates for moving to Draft. The
biggest problem is that often the author seems to have abandoned the
document before someone (the author or someone else) proposed the
Approving Body (usually Council) to advance.
We should figure out if getting an Experimental XEP to Proposed requires
the participation of the original author. I don't think this is needed.
Unfortunately, XEP-0001 seems to require an updated version for moving
it out of Deferred back to Experimental. I doesn't seem a reasonable
requirement to need changes to move (indirectly) to Proposed:
Given a spec that was last changed on January 18 2017, if someone had
requested to advance to Draft yesterday, the Approving Body would have
it in its queue for consideration and if deemed ready, it would issue a
Last Call without changes. However, today, it would be Deferred, even
though it might be just as ready as it was yesterday.
Therefore I think it should be possible to propose the Approving Body to
advance a spec directly out of Deferred.
If the Approving Body doesn't deem it ready, the onus is on whoever
would like to have it advance, to have changes made to meet the
Approving Body's concerns. Such changes would make it take it out of
Deferred, at which point it can be proposed again. This probably also
solves the lack of an author.
If the Approving Body does deem it ready, the Editor should be able to
do just that.
I want to note that last week the Editor was asked to move XEP-0345
(Form of Membership Applications) to Proposed, even though it was
Deferred, and issue a last call. This was requested by Board (which is
also the Approving Body for this XEP), and has been honored.
Updating XEP-0001 to explicitly allow this route is probably a good idea.
I don't see the value of moving category 3 in any direction. These are
usually not fully worked out, and having to move them to Rejected
requires the Approving Body to make assumptions on what the full thing
would look like. Just staying Deferred is just fine to me.
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
the Approving Body has to agree to put something into Last Call, anyone can
request
that of the the Approving Body, as (in my guise as the Approving Body Chair)
I'm happy to have
the the Approving Body vote on any Last Call as a general rule.
As mentioned above this seems to be what is meant by XEP-0001 as
'deeming ready for advancement'. I strongly encourage people to let the
respective Approving Bodies know which specifications they'd like to
propose for advancement to Draft.
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.
I believe in the absence of the original author, adding a new author
that moves a XEP further along is just fine.
--
ralphm
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
