[Spec] Spec (un)freezes and the spec's future

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 11:52:18PM -0700,
 Alex // nytpu <alex at nytpu.com> wrote 
 a message of 113 lines which said:

> On what changes should actually be made, in my opinion the only
> changes that should be made at this point should be to fix glaring
> problems in the spec. I guess that creates another problem, because
> people can't even agree what a "glaring problem" is!

The lack of any mention of IDN and IRI in the spec (and how to handle
them) is certainly a glaring problem. We are in 2020, we start a
completely new system, internationalization should not be an option.

> Solderpunk's been pretty reasonable, so I'll leave it up to them to
> actually decide what's a problem and what's not,

The way, I understand it, Gemini's governance is basically "Solderpunk
decides". This has good properties (it allows to keep the spec
consistent, and it avoids the committee effect) and bad ones, too
(when Solderpunk is busy with his relocation). But I agree that there
is no obvious alternative.

> As a second rule of thumb, I'd say no breaking changes, even if they
> do fix a problem in the spec. Backwards compatibility is painful,

I disagree here. I don't think that backward compatibility should be a
goal.


strengths of Gemini, when compared to, say, HTTP).


changes.


not be too complicated.

> the 100% inclusive approach of creating a dedicated RFC listing.

This approach seems reasonable. This is what the christian church did,
after all, write a canon, a list of approved texts
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon>.

---

Previous in thread (1 of 25): 🗣️ Alex // nytpu (alex (a) nytpu.com)

Next in thread (3 of 25): 🗣️ Sean Conner (sean (a) conman.org)

View entire thread.