[Members] XSF @ 10

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Jul 13 11:33:31 UTC 2011

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 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.

To clarify the motivation for this:
At the moment (according to the Bylaws, but not necessarily with how
we really run Council), each member of Council, individually, has two
opportunities to quash Experimental - one to prevent its publication,
and one (with no recourse of resubmission) at the vote to Draft. The
change previously discussed would be that Council would be able to
quash Experimental during the Experimental life, but that it would
require the majority of Council to do so. Meanwhile, a dissenting
member at the vote to Draft stage would simply mean it stays
experimental, rather than being Rejected.

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

Right, I'm fine with this.

> 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.

The usual case should be that this will be max 7 days. It gets
discussed at the following meeting, at which all of Council should,
extenuating circumstances notwithstanding, give their position and
things move on. Council using the two week voting period subsequent to
the meeting /should/ be the exception rather than the rule. This is
not always the case and perhaps this is one area we should try to do

>> 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.

This doesn't sound stupid to me.


More information about the Members mailing list