I think that the whole idea of making compliance suites as a xep is flawed and creates unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.
It could have been just a page on xmpp.org website, listing XEPs that council currently consideres part of a compliance suites. No bureaucracy, no need to update them every year, win-win for everyone. If someone won't be happy with just a current list, well, add versions to it, in the simplest way possible. On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, 20:41 Severino Ferrer de la Peñita, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, March 3, 2019 3:41:44 PM CET Sam Whited wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, at 13:51, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > Who are you arguing *with*? > > > > The council and new authors. Also specifically the "Pot, kettle, etc." > > statement, if you meant my last email. > > > > > I agree it's ridiculous, but I also note that the number of comments > > > on the 2019 one is considerably below 20, and possibly less than 15, > > > depending on how one counts. The number of people involved in the > > > discussion outside Council is less than 5 (and I'm including your > > > comments here, which are simply that we should have some Compliance > > > Suites). > > > > Then even if we don't think the new ones are ready, let's at least > > deprecate the old ones so we don't look like we're not doing our jobs > > and no one is working on this. The external perception here isn't great. > > > > The next step would then be to try and figure out why the new ones > > aren't ready. I think there are two important things to realize here: 1. > > most of the arguments have already been had in previous years suites and > > the new ones are similar enough that there aren't likely to be lots of > > new comments, and 2. they don't have to be perfect because we'll get > > another chance next year. These are guidelines that can be fluid, they > > can even have mistakes without it being the end of the world (though of > > course we should try to minimize these, but not at the cost of not > > having any published). > > > > > If the community isn't interested in working on these, I'm not sure > > > how we advance them faster. > > > > If the 2019 suites were finalized right now and the 2020 suites were > > already being worked on, we'd have plenty of time for comments. This is > > the only way I see the compliance suites working, and what I was trying > > to do with previous years. > > > > When it comes down to it though, I don't particularly care how the > > situation is resolved, rename the 2018 suites to 2019, just make sure we > > have something with a current date on it which is the only way we're > > going to be able to get people to take the compliance suites seriously > > and not end up in a situation like we had before we picked them up again > > where the 2012 suites (or somewhere around there) were the latest ones. > > > > —Sam > > I agree with Sam, current situation is not very good marketing for XMPP. > How I see it, we should be focusing on discussing next year's instead. > If there is not enough people engaging with compliance suites I trust > Council > to figure out a solution. Sam mentioned pretty valid ways of solving the > problem I think. > > Seve. > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________
