[Council] consistency of review periods

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Mar 9 07:05:14 CST 2010

On 3/8/10 9:09 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 8 March 2010 16:05, Kevin Smith <kevin at kismith.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>>>> As we've said elsewhere, I'm happy for the Council Chair to start
>>>> sending out mails where voting periods start (and weren't completed
>>>> within the meeting).
>>> I have a slight preference for an email to the list whose subject is
>>> something like "VOTE: XEP-0060 v1.13" because the email can be dated and
>>> I don't pay much attention to something unless it's pushed to me. But I
>>> suppose we could vote via Jira and have it send a message to the list.
>> The former is fine by me. The latter sounds like a technology seeking
>> an application.
> +1. +1 to the voting period clarifications also.

I think we might also need to specify objection periods. For example:
you have two weeks to vote on a XEP and if you vote -1 you have two
weeks after the end of the voting period to clearly specify your
objections, preferably with suggested fixes. If you don't do that within
two weeks, your vote is automatically changed to 0. Currently, a -1 vote
can be used as a permanent block, and that's just wrong.


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100309/df08c73b/attachment.bin>

More information about the Council mailing list