[Members] XSF @ 10
dave at cridland.net
Thu Jul 14 08:10:06 UTC 2011
On Thu Jul 14 08:27:59 2011, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>
> >> At the moment (according to the Bylaws, but not necessarily with
> >> we really run Council),
> > This is a parenthesis begging expansion. :-)
> > Also - and here I'll go all anal and procedural - that
> conversation you're
> > having on the Council list is all very good, and I'm largely in
> support of
> > it, but I think it needs to happen here, so the members can chip
> Right - as discussed in the room after the meeting, we're going to
> wait until membership discussion of the perceived issues has died
> down, come up with some proposals and bring them for discussion.
> The summary of the discussion on Council (of which people are free
> read the backlog, of course) is that we're looking at reducing the
> time needed to accept a XEP or to issue a Last Call without
> changes to process defined in Bylaws or XEP-0001, by not granting
> absent Council members an extra fortnight to vote after the meeting.
> Feel free to discuss!
You could reduce the fortnight to 48 hours when a simple majority is
achieved on any vote, of course, although that does require Council
members to explicitly cast a "No objection" vote, which technically
speaking doesn't really happen - in practise it does, of course, and
just as well, otherwise all votes would hit the timeout.
Do we actually have any statistics on how long adoptions and last
calls take, currently? Would imposing a shorter voting timeout on
these items make a significant difference?
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Members