[Council] process clarification

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Jul 13 17:43:15 UTC 2011


On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> 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.

Unless other Council members find themselves much less busy day to day
than I do, I would imagine it would sometimes be a struggle to review
in much less than 48 hours.

I do not believe the intention here is for Council to stop reviewing
these proposals, so we should try not to make it impossible to do so.

/K


More information about the Council mailing list