[Members] XSF @ 10

[Dave Cridland]

Just to clear up misunderstandings:

On Wed Jul 13 11:43:55 2011, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Changing process to Experimental being granted automatically, but  
> with
> Council able to kill it on the vine, would have had a different
> outcome, but I *think* that, in this one case, even the changes you
> suggest here would have led to 301 being being rejected initially.
> On the other hand, the sensors document would have gone through, as  
> I
> believe it should have.
> 
> > *Some* vetting seems sensible - nobody wants XEP-4597 on  
> colouring toenails,
> > it's a waste of time and effort. But I think we'd benefit from a  
> low bar.
> > Something that the Council could usefully add to the vetting  
> process would
> > be to decide on what track to place the XEP on, and basically  
> handle the
> > paperworkish decisions.
> 
> A change, as previously discussed, such that Council can reject
> Experimentals when they're on the vine might change things.
> We might change, in that case, the Council such that instead of  
> having
> to accept something before it's published, it will review the ones
> that have been recently published. I vaguely feel that this gives  
> more
> scope for "Seeing how this goes" (which would have probably been  
> good
> for 301), while still allowing 4597, colouring toenails, to have a
> very short life.
> 
> 
I'm uncomfortable with automatic Experimental, and I'm very  
uncomfortable with Council being able to quash Experimental. The risk  
is that an author would have to keep the Council happy continuously  
until they got their XEP to Draft.

I'd rather just lower the bar for Experimental, and streamline  
submission and editing.


> > Moreover, I'd go so far as to suggest that Council members can  
> veto on or
> > before the meeting following the submission, and not have the  
> (now) usual
> > 10-day limit; I think Council members are perfectly able to form  
> objections
> > on such simple grounds quickly, and any borderline cases are safe  
> to let
> > through at this stage anyway.
> 
> It would need to be the meeting following the meeting following, in
> this case (otherwise you have 30 seconds to review if it's submitted
> just prior to a meeting), but I'm not opposed to changing the  
> windows.
> 
> 
Fair point. I'm just aware that having some nameless body debate your  
new XEP for the best part of a month is frustrating, but it may be  
that that's the price we pay for any vetting at all by Council.

> > It also occurs to me that - with Signed-off-by validation in  
> place - XSF
> > members could all be given commit rights to the XSF's XEP  
> repository. I'd be
> > OK with that, if a little nervous because that's not what we  
> voted members
> > on for. (Obviously the commit rights would be limited to  
> Experimental -
> > Draft/Final commit rights would be for the XEP Editor,  
> Signed-off-by
> > council at xmpp.org, I imagine).
> 
> If you're proposing that any member can edit any Experimental XEP, I
> think I'm not in favour of this - at least for those XEPs with an
> active author.

I'm not. Any XEP changes would need signoff from all active authors  
(who become editors, by inference). We'd need some mechanism to  
change the active authors, perhaps that's sign-off from Council.

But members would be the only ones able to do the push of those  
signed-off-by commits.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade