[Council] Votes from 2008-10-15

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Oct 22 06:29:37 CDT 2008


Finally...

2) Can we actually vote? It says <approver>Board</approver>, which  
seems to suggest we can't. (Well, we can, we just can't approve it  
based on such a vote).

I note that the XMPP Registrar doesn't actually make the registration  
while the document is in Experimental state, and I'm mildly concerned  
that this can - in theory - lead to a state where two XEPs in  
Experimental end up with the same namespace, which is a bit silly.

In practise, I assume that we do actually track what namespaces are  
used by Experimental XEPs, so it seems sensible for the XMPP  
Registrar to make a note of these in the same way as any other used  
namespace.

Also, the use of the phrase "[...], or if significant new features  
have been added" I find somewhat misleading - it suggests that  
there's a case where the "new" protocol is entirely backwards  
compatible with the "old" - ie, there is no loss of interoperability  
- but we still want to change the namespace to break said  
interoperability. I'm not clear what case this is.

So, if my vote meant anything, I'd vote -1. But we're very close. :-)

3) I don't know of any reason not to press on with those.

4) There's a significant amount of small cleanup work here. It'd be  
useful to have these seperated out.

However, I've gone through it all and I'll vote +1 to both the  
changed XEP-0124 and bosh-script.

5) No idea, so I'll go through the mailing list as see if I can get a  
handle on the change.

6) +1

7) I still think USer Mood is very silly, but ours not to reason why.  
+1.

8) I think this is approaching silliness, too, but +1.

9/10) +1 to Last Call, however I'd like us to watch these carefully  
to ensure we are actually getting feedback.

11/12) In both cases I'm not convinced the motivation matches the  
design at all. I've a very different view of how chaining might work  
- this design seems to fit aggregation better than chaining - and I'm  
not convinced that PubSub and Queueing fit naturally into the same  
model.

I think I need, in both cases, to have a chat with the authors to get  
a better handle on what exactly is required.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade


More information about the Council mailing list