On Monday, March 4, 2019 5:42:24 AM CET Ненахов Андрей wrote: > 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.
I've been asked this a couple of times as well, why the compliance suite is not a page at xmpp.org with the current situation instead of a XEP. People usually assume XEPs are protocol specifications to be implemented. Seve.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
