[Council] final voting reminder!
stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Oct 24 17:54:36 CDT 2008
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Fri Oct 24 22:51:57 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Dave Cridland: XEP-0053,
> Hmmm - I *did* register my vote, and it's even counted on the tally. I'm
> assuming this 10 days rule doesn't really mean "10 days to vote yes". ;-)
I wanted to get clarification from you about whether version 1.4rc2
addressed your concerns.
> I'd think issuing a new version requires restarting the counter, and, I
> suspect it may more votes from all members, too. Just because I was the
> only dissenter for 1.4rc1 does not mean everyone else will automatically
> agree with 1.4rc2...
So would it have been OK if I had addressed your concerns without
changing the interim version from 1.4rc1 to 1.4rc2?
At some point this gets silly. You expressed a concern. No one else
expressed that concern, but they seemed to think that clarifying this
was a good idea (at least no one objected to further clarification
during the meeting). This is why we have meetings. If Council members
are not paying attention, or if they don't go to the meetings, or if
they don't track the xmpp-commits list, or if they just don't care about
a particular issue, that is their problem, and their concerns will not
be addressed. Tough luck.
> However, the changes in the current 1.4 look fine to me. But I'd like to
> know that other folk are still okay.
So "in future" (as you Brits say), shall we double check with Council
members for every concern that is addressed? And if so will we ever
finish any voting, given that a completely new vote will be required for
each minor revision? And what modifications require a revote?
Wordsmithing? Typo fixes? Changing a "may" to a "MAY"? Adding a missing
'id' attribute? But perhaps we need a Procedural XEP defining all this.
If we can ever vote it to Active.
> And yes, I do seem to be becoming very picky about procedure, don't I?
I think you're a DoS sent from the IETF. :P
> While I'm being so picky, perhaps the right thing for the tally is
> a) As Date, the date when the vote was officially commenced. I'd think
> this ought to be the first meeting for which the document is placed on
> the agenda, or when the new revision were submitted.
> b) Each new revision, post-rejection, should create a new line. So in
> this case, we'd have:
> XEP-0053 -1 . +1 +1 +1 2008/10/15
> XEP-0053 +1 . . . . 2008/10/22
> c) I suspect that we still need a 10 day timeout for those "re-votes",
> but rather than DNV they should default. This effectively means you've
> 10 days to review the changes.
> I have to admit, I'd like to see vetos recorded.
More work. Is it worth it? People can look at the list archives, the
meeting logs, the SVN check-ins, etc., for interim discussion. We log
all that stuff for a reason.
Now, we *do* follow this kind of procedure for major changes. If we have
a vote on advancing (say) XEP-0166 from Experimental to Draft and
serious objections that are raised, thus requiring that we issue a new
version (currently that would be a change from 0.32 to 0.33), we would
revote. But for minor stuff like essentially removing one clause from a
sentence and clarifying an existing practice that is already familiar to
... well, I really don't think that level of voting detail is worth all
the time and effort. At that rate we'll never get anything done.
We need to balance the need for accuracy with the need to get things
done. I think the foregoing procedure puts us out of balance, but other
Council members may disagree.
> Reading through BOSH I noticed other stuff that needs a bit of work -
> nothing major, just oddities.
> body MUST be empty - good.
> server SHOULD ignore - fine.
> server MAY send - wrong - this is not truly optional behaviour.
> "[...] SHOULD ignore it. Some implementation are known to send that
> stanza when [...]" is prefereable, to avoid the implication that sending
> the stanza is actually okay.
> Assuming you fix this, I'm +1, but as things stand that's a -1.
Great! I love -1 votes. It means that someone is paying attention.
I'll investigate the text you refer to here.
> I voted +1 already, honest! (On the list, with absolutely no commentry,
> just "6) +1").
I must have missed that, sorry.
More information about the Council