[Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Dec 16 18:48:02 UTC 2014


On 16 December 2014 at 18:24, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Goffi <goffi at goffi.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm curious to see some other opinions on this subject.
>
> While I have not formed a particular opinion with regards to the ProtoXEP
> worthiness to become a XEP or not as I simply have not read it, I am
> generally of the opinion that publication of XEPs as Experimental should
> only rarely be blocked by the council.
>
>
That seems reasonable.


> I think hope that the community might do something “better” is a poor
> reason to block an ProtoXEP.   I would prefer council members only block
> ProtoXEPs where it is at least council consensus that publication will
> actively harm a currently active standardization effort in a manner which
> cannot be mitigated (such as asking for additional text at the top of the
> XEP that offering an alternative to the XEPs of the active standardizations
> efforts).
>
>
Here I disagree. You're welcome to suggest binding text for XEP-0001 and
try to build consensus around that, of course, but something as black and
white as that would reduce most of the Council's efforts in this area to be
rubber-stamping. In addition, you cannot possibly ask individual Council
members to veto only on the basis of Council consensus; that really is
ridiculous.

My personal guideline is whether I feel a publication might harm current or
future standardization. Moreover, a Veto can be (and to some degree, in
this case, is) used to force a hold on the document, until such potential
harm can be properly thought through.


> I would rather the hope for something “better” be exercised by either
> working with the authors of the ProtoXEP to make it “better” or, if that
> doesn’t work, propose an alternative.
>
>
I have tried to describe what I feel would be the "better" solution here;
that is, working toward a single model for access control. I believe this
to be a reasonable goal - though I also doubt we'll suddenly unify MUC
affiliations and roster permissions overnight, either.


> Blocking of XEPs tend to lead to folks simply going elsewhere for their
> publication needs.
>
>
I don't disagree with the hypothesis, but is there evidence for this claim?

Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20141216/722a0e9b/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list