[Members] XEP-0001 Changes
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Feb 26 13:54:48 UTC 2014
Hi Dave, although I have not yet reviewed the patch in detail, that all
On 2/26/14, 6:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> As those in the xsf at muc.xmpp.org <mailto:xsf at muc.xmpp.org> chatroom will
> know, I've been doing a pass over XEP-0001 to ensure it's describing
> what we actually do. The attached patch is my current set of changes.
> Critically, the intent is not to change current practice, but to
> document it.
> I can assure you all that reading this message, and the changes
> themselves, will be almost as fun as writing them was.
> These can be summarized as:
> 1) In some sections, "XMPP Council" has been replaced by "Approving
> This is a linguistic change to clarify a couple of cases where the
> Approving Body isn't the Council. In some cases, the Council works
> specially, and the Board works a different way; in others any Approving
> Body works the same.
> As an example, this patch will need to be approved by the Board rather
> than Council.
> I actually hate this change in a lot of ways, because it feels like
> legal wording, but it felt useful in a few cases.
> 2) The timeouts for objecting has been removed, and replaced by...
> The current XEP-0001 stipulates that Council members have 14 days, "Or
> at the next meeting", to object. The Council has, for many years now,
> operated on the basis that ProtoXEPs are raised at a meeting, and
> members have 14 days from then to object (in line with Council's
> practises for voting timeouts).
> This removal is aimed at aligning what this XEP says with the actual
> current practice.
> Kev made a reasonable argument that current practise aligns with the
> original text, but it's not clear what a new author can expect from the
> original text.
> 3) A requirement to poll the Approving Body within 14 days
> Because we don't want to allow a ProtoXEP to be ignored forever, either,
> the poll must now happen within 14 days.
> This in effect means that a ProtoXEP will either be accepted or rejected
> within 28 days.
> This is potentially a slight change from practice - current practice has
> been to put the ProtoXEP on the agenda for the next Council meeting,
> whereas this both requires the ProtoXEP to be on a meeting within a
> specific time period and in addition relaxes a possible requirement for
> it to be the next meeting.
> This relaxation means that the Council Chair could, for example, opt to
> put a ProtoXEP on a future agenda if the submission were close to an
> impending meeting, which seems useful.
> Again, it's not clear this was actually prohibited by the existing text,
> but the new text is intended to make this clearer.
> A further slight change is that previously, a "meeting" was stipulated,
> whereas now the Chair can poll by any means. Objections, though, can
> only formally be logged in a meeting or on the Standards list, as
> before. I'd hope that Kev will stick to polling over meetings, though.
> 4) Changed the Approving Body for the Humorous XEPs to the Editor.
> As far as I can recall, the Council has never actually formally accepted
> Humorous submissions; that's been done by the Editor. My personal view
> is that it'd suck all the humour out of these things if we had to have
> them formally approved by Council.
> The actual patch is attached.
More information about the Members