[Members] Council Veto Guidelines and Rules

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Wed Dec 17 12:21:45 UTC 2014

> On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:40 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> I'm moving this portion of the discussion to this list, since it's an internal matter and the discussion isn't specific to this case at all.

> On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com <mailto:kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>> wrote:
> > While I would not have issue if you. independent of consideration of this ProtoXEP 
> > opened a discussion about how to model XMPP authorization services and what 
> > terminology should be used, I think it inappropriate to put this ProtoXEP on “hold” 
> > pending such discussions.  As you note in your OP, such an effort might not pan out.
> Please, if you think there should be specific constraints on how I should use the veto write them up as a XEP (or patch to XEP-0001).

I don’t think so.  It seem you object to me voicing my concerns to your veto.  As a member of the XSF, I think it’s my responsibility to speak up when I feel the action taken by a council member is inappropriate and not well justified.   And, to extent that other XSF members think I’m off-base here, I welcome them telling me so.  That’s all part of the checks and balances of any open standards organization.

> If you believe there are constraints I'm in violation of, campaign to have me removed as an XSF member, which would terminate my Council appointment. My membership reapplication is this quarter; or you can gain the requisite number of signatures from the membership if you're in a rush.

If I felt that was appropriate and necessary, I would.  I don’t currently.

> In the absence of that, I look forward to you standing for Council next year so you can do Council your way.

I don’t have different way for council to run.   Council members take actions, they are held accountable for their actions.

What I am doing is exactly the same I would hope any XSF member would do if they saw a council action take place that they felt was inappropriate and not well justified: raise concerns on the standards list.

> For the record, I will continue to veto submitted proposals for architectural reasons, both as a simple rejection and as a holding action. In fact, the only other reason I can think of would be if a proposal was so unreadable I couldn't understand it; I'd hope that would be a "holding" veto until I could work with the author to address that.

And I’ll continue to hold all council members accountable for their actions as I see fit.

> Other Council members probably have different views and opinions, and that's why we have more than one Council member. If all of them disagree with my actions, they can in extremis vote me off.

I don’t think we really have a different view on process.  Or maybe you think all you actions should go unchallenged by the XSF membership.

> All of this is not to say my views are so inflexible I wouldn't change them; but your arguments so far amount to:
> 1) Council members should only veto with the consensus of Council.
> This is explicitly not the case; Council operates on a voting system defined in the Bylaws and XEP-0001, and it's not really a "veto" if it's a consensus Council decision.

I don’t have a problem with well justified, appropriate vetos.   I have a problem with poorly justified, inappropriate vetos.

Obviously, council members have to use their best judgement.   And XSF members have to exercise their best judgement in how to respond to actions taken by council members and by other XSF members.

My language in my OP really missed the point I was trying to make.   In short, while a council member can (procedurally) veto a ProtoXEP for any reason… I think they should take care in how they exercise veto they cast, especially ones which give the authors no reasonable means to correct the council members objections.  There’s lots of things a council member probably should consider before casting an uncorrectable veto.

> For this argument to be convincing you need to actively change both documents, not merely add to.

Again, as I noted in the original thread, I don’t care to change XEP 0001. 

— Kurt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20141217/5c9dd1dd/attachment.html>

More information about the Members mailing list