[Council] process clarification

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Thu Jul 14 06:59:12 UTC 2011


On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Matthew A. Miller
<linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
> 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 (-:

In fact, having read XEP-0001 and realised we've not been practicing
what it preaches anyway, I suggest we go back to the published rules:

"If no member of the XMPP Council objects to publication of the
proposal within fourteen (14) days or at the next meeting of the
Council, the XMPP Extensions Editor shall accept it as a XEP. If
objections are raised by the Council on the Standards list or in its
meeting, the XEP author is encouraged to address the feedback of the
Council and to submit a revised version of the proposal and/or confer
with the XMPP Extensions Editor or objecting Council member(s)
regarding how to proceed."

The maximum time to publication becomes 14 days under this, instead of
9 days under what's discussed above, but it means no process changes,
and is still better that what we do now (which, it seems, we shouldn't
be doing).

Thoughts?

/K


More information about the Council mailing list