On 06/01/2023 14.10, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 at 21:38, Florian Schmaus <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 05/01/2023 16.31, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 1/5/23 3:18 AM, Florian Schmaus wrote: > >> I become more and more convinced that we may be better with an IETF >> I-D / RFC style standardization process. Where an I-D is a mutable, >> living document on the road to become an immutable RFC. > > You know, we could move all of our activities to an IETF Working Group... I would not want to replace our document tooling with xml2rfc. I really like what we have to produce high quality publishable standards documents. It is really just the process that needs to change. My idea is as follows:I think all you've done is "shift left", so that ProtoXEPs take the place of Experimental, and Stable/Final become formally frozen in terms of compatibility.
Right, that's certainly a way to look at it.
Changing Experimental for ProtoXEP is really just a name change (modulo you'd like to publish without Council approval, and I am ambivalent to that). You're removing, though, a lot of the protections for deployability we have with Experimental.
Reality is that there are many implementations that do not comply with XEPs (mostly experimental XEPs). I think this is because developers want a larger degree of freedom, allowing for experimental derivations of the standard, at this "early" stage.
I'd like the XSF to provide infrastructure to publish (and discuss) XEPs without Councils approval. Everyone can already publish stuff (cause "internet"). So the XSF not allowing this just scatters the documents around the web and does more harm.
I am not sure which protections you are referring to, given that there are implementations out there which not comply with "our" specifications. And this can simply not be prevented. Instead, we should make it more clear that incubating ProtoXEPs are 1. subject to change in any way without any backwards guarantees, and 2. implementations of such may not follow the spec (due to 1. and the fact that developers may decide to try something a little bit different).
I still want council to have a final word about an incubating ProtoXEP being adopted as official and council-approved XEP.
- Flow _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
