[Council] consistency of review periods
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Mar 9 22:46:04 CST 2010
On 3/9/10 7:38 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Since I'm still subscribed (which is a good thing, incidentally), I
> thought I'd chip in on this one. I'm assuming I can't post, though I've
> copied in the list as a simple way of getting the comments back there if
> deemed useful.
Hey, how did this interloper get on the list? ;-)
> On Tue Mar 9 13:05:14 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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.
> I think there's an onus present on the document author, too - if the
> author can't work up the energy to contact the council member to clarify
> the problems, that doesn't suggest there's much energy to fix whatever
> problems there are, either.
That happens, too. However, I think the Council member needs to at least
describe the objection in a post to the standards@ list. Voting -1 and
never explaining why is bad form.
> This reminds me that there was a discussion about encouraging (or
> requiring) document authors to be present in the Council meetings - I'm
> still very much in favour of that, and it'd hopefully mean that the veto
> usage is better understood and resolved.
That is indeed a good idea.
> Finally, I'd note that not all problems *can* be resolved - indeed,
> these are the problems that really ought to be handled by Council in
> Council, rather than handled beforehand by discussion on the lists.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Council