More Boring! * Added Goffi's excellent advice that non-editorial changes don't need Author permission. * New PR against XEP-0143: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1412 (Aside: Why is the Approving Body Council here?) * Again, many thanks to Goffi for pointing out the website needs a change too: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/1466
I believe these are "complete" at this point. However, I'd prefer community feedback before formally submitting them to the Approving Bodies. Dave. On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 at 14:57, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey hey, > > Boring incoming: > > https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1407 > > This is draft to avoid the XSF Board accidentally approving it before the > community has had a chance to discuss. > > The main change is the paragraph added in Section 6 (Discussion Process), > covering changes to the XEP during Experimental: > > The XEP author incorporates the feedback by creating source control >> patches (such as Pull Requests), in line with the preferred method in >> &xep0143;. Direct changes to an Experimental XEP, such as a contributor >> providing a patch (or Pull Request on GitHub), are still the responsibility >> of the XEP author, and are only applied if the XEP author agrees. If a XEP >> has multiple authors, while agreement is sought from all authors, only >> those opinions from responsive authors are considered. If the Approving >> Body feels that the XEP author is not responsive, another author may be >> added unilaterally by the Approving Body. > > > This is trying to do two things: > > 1) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed, > whereby changes to Experimental XEPs need "agreement" (PR approval, or > similar) from the XEP Author. > > 2) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed. > whereby if a XEP Author isn't responsive (ie, doesn't respond to emails, > etc) the XMPP Council can add a new XEP Author. > > 3) Document the *new practice* that if a contribution isn't a PR, it's > the XEP Author who is responsible to turn it into one. > > The rest of the changes surface and restate existing process/policy/URLs > and aren't that interesting (well, even less interesting). > > There is one additional possible process deviation we should document (or > call the Process Police out, or something). Submission of a XEP, as per > XEP-0143, occurs via email tot he Editor. Is this really still the case? Or > are these now by PR? That'll need changing in XEP-0143, which I'm happy to > do if that's the case. It'd be nice to have a non-PR variant of the process > (post here?) > > Dave. > >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
