On Mon, 11 May 2026 at 16:14, Stephen Paul Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I agree that finished specs as submitted and accepted by the XSF should > be > >> covered by the IPR. > > > >OK, so you're not accepting any ProtoXEP unless it is "finished"? As in, > >what, Stable quality or Final? > > > >I'd like to understand what it'll take to get something published. > > In general my guiding principle is to avoid things we've seen in the past > like MIX, COIN, JinglePub, Inbox, XEP-0284, etc where the spec is > published > (and in some cases lots of work goes into the spec or multiple other specs > end up notionally depending on it) but it never actually goes anywhere. > Especially in this case I hope we can agree that a repeat of the MIX > process > is not likely to get us to a better (for the ecosystem) result. > > There is an irony here in that I'm using an Inbox implementation every day... But I accept that Inbox is tricky to do unless you either ignore MUC, or have some kind of bare jid based occupancy. Gosh, if only there were a spec for that, eh? But Inbox works absolutely fine with muclight or muc-sub. > So what does "finished" mean? Does it mean ready for Final? Certainly > not. > But I'd hope it means that the primary design considerations and latent > ambiguities have been squeezed out and that there is some reason to > believe > that adoption by (some non-trivial part of) the ecosystem is going to > happen. > > Isn't that Stable? If not, what's the purpose of Experimental? We explicitly ask about implementation intention in the Last Call, for example, and not before. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
