[Members] XSF @ 10

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Thu Jul 14 08:17:25 UTC 2011

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 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> wrote:
>> >> At the moment (according to the Bylaws, but not necessarily with how
>> >> 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 in.
>> 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 to
>> 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 requiring
>> 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?

No. The raw data are there, but scraping them doesn't sound much fun.

> Would imposing a shorter voting timeout on these items make
> a significant difference?

Anecdotally, yes in some cases.

In the case where Council plan to skip a week (or even two - I don't
think we've ever planned to skip more) because people are going to be
away or whatever there's currently possibly two weeks prior to the
meeting, and then two weeks subsequent. My suggestion (which I think
is what xep1 wanted anyway) is just to make this a static fortnight,
or until all no-objections are in, from the time of submission, except
in the very unlikely case where no meeting takes place in that period.
Realistically this is going to do no better than halving the time, and
often wouldn't do that (because often there'll be no objections at the
meeting, which is within a week, so it goes straight out). It does
open the door for Council expressing their lack of objections
pre-meeting as well, which could mean (if Council were excessively
keen) that we could start publishing the submissions even before
there's been a meeting. It's not group-breaking, but it seems a
sensible optimisation to me.


More information about the Members mailing list