[Council] process clarification

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Wed Jul 13 18:07:29 UTC 2011


On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:43 , Kevin Smith wrote:

> 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

48 hours is perfectly fine with me (-:

I block out time the evening before to read them, so a shorter time (and the fact our meeting is in the AM for my locale) works out for me.  As long as it's not 1 week before, and not less than 12 hours (-:


- m&m

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2238 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110713/3b952fb3/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the Council mailing list