[Council] 2016-11-16 Council Meeting Minutes
ralphm at ik.nu
Thu Nov 17 11:06:08 UTC 2016
On 16-11-16 17:57, Sam Whited wrote:
> ### Select IoT SIG Council Liaison
> - Link Mauve suggests Peter Wahler who ran for council on an IoT based platform.
> - Dave notes that Peter wrote the existing IoT XEPs (which might be a source
> of bias, or might mean he's already heavily involved and would be a good
> - Dave suggests Florian Schmaus
> - Sam suggests that we let the IoT SIG nominate someone and the council could
> ratify it.
> - Kev suggests that it would be best to have it be someone on council, or
> intimately tied to council (eg. PSA)
> - PSA notes that the IoT SIG charter was never published as an XEP.
To complete the story here, Board has discussed the IoT SIG a couple of
times, including a vote in favor. However, according to XEP-0002, it is
Council's discretion to approve a SIG. The SIG leaders (XSF Members),
are determined by the SIG, in consultation with Council. This means that
the proto-XEP for this at least needs the Approving Body in Appendix A
changed to Council.
Personally, I'm not sure how the SIG would determine its leaders, per
se, as SIGs are open to anyone (not just Members), and we don't have any
procedures for consensus in this respect. I'd much rather see Council
appointing SIG leaders from candidates suggested by the SIG. Maybe we
should amend XEP-0002 on this point.
The only thing I want to add is that during one of the Board meetings, I
suggested one of these to be a Council member. I think there was general
agreement on this.
One of the reasons is that I'd like the specifications to be like the
other building blocks in XMPP, and not their own little island.
Hopefully, having one Council member having special focus on IoT, would
benefit that goal. But as Kev says, someone intimately tied to Council
(like PSA, or Kev himself) could fill that role, too. But, again,
ultimately, this is up to Council.
More information about the Council