On 06/01/2023 23.08, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:49 AM, Florian Schmaus wrote:
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.
I am not sure even that is necessary. Take a look at, say, the first 50
JEPs we worked on as a community. Progress happened very quickly, often
with new versions every few days. As an example, version 0.1 of XEP-0045
was published on 2002-09-09 and version 0.23 was published on
2002-11-06, which was the version that the Council advanced to Draft on
2002-11-21. It took us two months to develop and advance a large,
foundational spec! Yet at some point we got bogged down in process and
now things take way too long.
Unfortunately, I can not comment on how it was in the early days.
But let use assume that we remove the council approval requirement for
experimental XEPs. And further assume that we clearly state that
experimental XEPs may change protocol without namespace bumps. Then this
would but very close to my vision of incubating ProtoXEPs, with the
allegedly small difference that those experimental XEPs would still get
a number.
However, it is, probably surprisingly for some, crucial that those kinds
of XEPs are *numberless*.
I think a XEP being council approved having a number, and a XEP not
(yet) being council approved *not* having an number, makes a big
difference, as the missing council approval is clearly signaled by the
missing number. And so is the fact the the numberless XEP is potentially
subject to protocol changes without namespace bumps.
I believe we would be able bring back the good old days where new
protocols ideas could be explored and bootstrapped without being bogged
down in process by having such numberless XEPs and by the XSF to provide
the infrastructure to host, develop and publish those XEPs. And
supporting numberless XEPs is trivial with our existing infrastructure.
- Flow
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
