[Members] XEP-0001 Changes

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Wed Feb 26 16:28:17 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA512

On 2/26/14, 6:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Folks,
> 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
> 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     1) In some sections, "XMPP Council" has been replaced by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 Body".
> 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,
>     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.
> Discuss!
I think these updates make sense.  It does indeed look to match current
practice from my perspective.

I also notice you've fixed a few grammatical errors, which is nice (-:

- -- 
- - m&m

Matthew A. Miller
< http://goo.gl/LK55L >
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20140226/3c63925a/attachment.html>

More information about the Members mailing list