XSF Discussion - 2021-08-24

  1. flow

    you like that, or you want something like that?

  2. flow

    MattJ, ↑

  3. MattJ

    I don't really care what the new term is, as long as it's more clear. "Stable" seems fine to me. I think there have been other good suggestions in the past.

  4. jonas’

    stable seems really fine to me

  5. jonas’

    sounds like something for the next board meeting ;)

  6. MattJ

    But didn't someone already have a draft patch/PR for XEP-0001?

  7. Ge0rG

    +1 for s/draft/stable/

  8. jonas’

    not for that I think

  9. flow

    I do wonder if there is a better term than 'stable', 'approved'?

  10. flow

    but likely most alternatives are better than 'draft'

  11. flow

    otoh, I really don't want this to be delayed or even killed by a discussion around the term and our incapability to perform nice polls to get an idea what the community favors

  12. MattJ

    Well, "experimental" has similar problems as well, and if we're going to change them we might as well review them all at the same time

  13. flow

    that also sounds like a potential pitfal resulting in an indefinite delay

  14. MattJ

    Well I guess we're unable to make any progress on this issue then :)

  15. MattJ

    Congratulations everyone

  16. flow

    Not sure if baby steps can be called no progress

  17. jonas’

    why not s/Draft/Stable/ and discuss about experimental in a separate step

  18. flow


  19. Ge0rG


  20. theTedd

    +1 for renaming Draft to Stable ("if it's good enough for the IETF…" argument isn't sufficient, compared to the misinterpretation of the meaning of 'Draft' by almost everyone)

  21. theTedd

    is there an issue with Experimental, given the supposed low bar for entry?

  22. MattJ

    Only when things stay there that are widely implemented

  23. Zash

    Things get implemented because they are needed or wanted, not because the XEP is finished.

  24. theTedd

    renaming Experimental wouldn't change that

  25. Zash

    If anything, it could be renamed to something like "In Progress" or something that suggest a work in progress

  26. theTedd

    or "Not Yet Ready for Implementations"

  27. theTedd

    maybe WIP would be more explicit though

  28. Zash

    "Request For Comments" → "Request For Implementations" → XEP

  29. moparisthebest

    "why not s/Draft/Stable/ and discuss about experimental in a separate step" +1 to this, what to do about experimental seems much more likely to end in a bikeshed with nothing done

  30. theTedd

    people will implement things on a needs basis, and that's not a bad thing - Experimental is open for _experiments_, precisely to see what works and what doesn't

  31. Zash

    But it does get awkward when experimental things get deployed to production

  32. Sam

    🚢 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1100

  33. Sam

    (left alone existing XEPs and just changed the text that was output, we can change them later as they get updated or all at once if someone wants to automate that)

  34. Zash

    Also tooling...

  35. theTedd

    it does, but mandating "you can't deploy this in public" probably won't work; people will do it anyway because they want those features _now_, not in 2 years when the XEP is ready for Draft

  36. Sam

    Yah, Experimental isn't a problem with the name, it's a problem with how quickly we move beyond that even when features are working well and widely implemented.

  37. theTedd

    a related issue is that Experimental contains both incomplete and ready-for-exploratory-implementations XEPs

  38. Zash

    And that's basically the big problem with open standards development 🙂

  39. Zash

    Pacing development of the standards and of implementations while maintaining interoperability ...

  40. theTedd

    there's an easy argument of "if you deploy an Experimental feature and it gets broken, you were warned" (it's not ideal, but that's the reality)

  41. jonas’

    Sam, why did you add Stable instead of s/Draft/Stable/?

  42. Sam

    jonas’: so that I don't have to update every single other XEP

  43. Sam

    Just let "Draft" render as "Stable" in the XEPs for now, we can update later as XEPs get updated and not have a massive diff for no reason.

  44. jonas’

    I'd rather have a massive diff than two enum values which mean the same

  45. Sam

    I disagree, but I also don't really care. I'll drop all the changes except the 0001 ones if you prefer to mess with changing XEPs.

  46. jonas’

    well, the text template should be there, too, I guess that'll be part of what board needs to decide on

  47. jonas’

    the tooling would have to be taught about it anyway

  48. jonas’


  49. jonas’

    Sam, maybe it makes most sense to *just* adapt the public wording and leave the internal "Draft" identifier the same?

  50. jonas’

    then we have to neither touch all the XEPs nor the tooling

  51. Sam

    That's just confusing for authors for no reason.

  52. jonas’

    how's that more confusing than having Draft and Stable which both render to the same?

  53. Sam

    That is not confusing. You copy a template and whether you remember that it's stable or not now it just works.

  54. jonas’

    author's don't deal with Draft anyway

  55. jonas’

    that's editors

  56. Sam

    If you know you want stable and you enter <status>Stable</status> or whatever and it complains that Stable doesn't exist, that's confusing.

  57. Sam

    Great, it's confusing for editors then. You may be the only editor right now and be happy with it, but in a few years that may or may not be the same.

  58. jonas’

    better than confusing for authors (which I think the duality would be)

  59. jonas’

    and there's no reason not to update the files in a chore action later to use Stable internally,too

  60. jonas’

    and there's no reason not to update the files in a chore action later to use Stable internally, too

  61. Sam

    How would it be confusing for authors? They don't even have to know about it, whatever they put in there will just work.

  62. jonas’

    right, maybe not for authors either

  63. Zash

    Would it affect tooling? Also external e.g. like DOAP tools?

  64. jonas’

    still, introducing an alias is going to cause pain and the other tooling won't be happy about it.

  65. jonas’

    so the sanest way forward to achieve the goal as I understand it ("use stable in [public] communication because it is less confusing than draft") is to just change all the public facing text and let the internal identifier be Draft until we can assess what the impact would be of changing it

  66. Zash

    Hide it, fiddle with the "warning" text at the top, ???, PROFIT!

  67. jonas’

    pretty much

  68. jonas’

    may also need to do some string substitution in the XSL in the document lifecycle stuff but I assume you did that already anyway

  69. Sam

    The XSF office hours are in 1.25 hours. There is nothing scheduled, but we could use the call to discuss how to do this if people want to hash it out.

  70. jonas’

    MattJ, poke: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1099

  71. jonas’

    Sam, as you correctly pointed out that it doesn't affect authors and only editors, I don't think there's much need for discussion. A duplicate enum value is a pointlessly confusing thing, let's just change the frontend texts and leave the enum value alone.

  72. Sam

    It is not in any way confusing, but sure, as long as someone else is willing to go mess with all the other things that need messing with I'll change my commit to only include the changes to 0001

  73. Sam


  74. jonas’

    XEP-0001 also has the enum stuff and didn't you have updates to the XSL? those make sense to keep…

  75. flow

    fwiw, I think a 'stable' xep that in status 'draft' is more confusing

  76. jonas’

    flow, where does anyone see the XML source code, which would be the only place referring to `Draft`?

  77. jonas’

    but sure, if anyone is interested in forklifting the entire tooling right away, be my guest.

  78. flow

    i'd imagine that fixing the tooling is mostly also doing something similar to what sam did in his PR

  79. flow

    but given that you are the only active editor, I think it's fine if it's your call

  80. jonas’

    also the tooling outside of the XSF?

  81. jonas’

    (think DOAP

  82. jonas’

    (think DOAP stuff)

  83. flow


  84. flow

    if anything, it indicates to that tooling that the xep state was renamed and that they should act on it

  85. flow

    otherwise tooling will continue to label this state as 'draft'

  86. Sam

    Either way, if anyone's bored and wants to hang out, I figured I'd start the room.

  87. Sam

    Maybe someone will want to do some live programming or just doodle on the shared whiteboard or something since there are no office hours today: https://socialcoop.meet.coop/sam-pku-dud-niv

  88. emus

    I also think we should support finding more editors to support jonas' at core XSF work. I'm happy to propagate through the media stuff we have if thats intended.

  89. Zash

    Moar hats

  90. emus

    I also think we should support finding more editors to support jonas' at core XSF work. I'm happy to propagate through the media stuff we have if thats intended.