[Council] process clarification

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jul 13 17:30:18 UTC 2011


On 7/13/11 11:16 AM, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> 
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:02 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> On 7/13/11 10:33 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> 2) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012.html 
>>> Accept as XEP?
>>> 
>>> No objections from those present, Nathan has a fortnight to
>>> object.
>>> 
>>> 3) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/commenting.html Accept as
>>> XEP?
>>> 
>>> No objections from those present, Nathan has a fortnight to
>>> object.
>>> 
>>> 4) Issue last call on XEP-0296?
>>> 
>>> Agreement to do so.
>> 
>> After the meeting today, Kev and I had a discussion about Council 
>> policies and procedures:
>> 
>> http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/council/110713/#15:25:15
>> 
>> My feeling is that the Council could take action on acceptance of
>> XEPs and issuance of Last Calls by a simple majority of +1 and no
>> -1 votes, *without* the need to wait two weeks for absent Council
>> members to possibly object on the list. My primary rationale is
>> that Council members could always vote -1 on any advancement
>> decisions resulting from acceptance of a XEP or issuance of a Last
>> Call. My secondary rationale is that waiting two weeks just to get
>> a XEP in the system or to issue a Last Call makes our processes
>> seem slower than they need to be.
>> 
>> However, if we're going to take this approach then we need to have
>> a cut-off date for requesting these actions (as Kev noted, we don't
>> want to put something in the inbox 5 minutes before a meeting and
>> then accept it for publication).
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
> 
> This makes a sense to me.
> 
> However, does "simple majority" mean "simple majority of council
> members present at the quorum-achived meeting" or "simple majority of
> all council members"? 

Quorum rules would still apply, so the former.

> It would move faster if we go with the former,
> but could mean an overall minority approval still keeps things
> moving.  I don't really see a problem with that (-:
> 
> As for the time limit, I think a 24 hour cutoff (before next meeting)
> seems reasonable, although we could probably live with 12 hours.

I was going to suggest 48.

/psa




More information about the Council mailing list