[Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Tue Dec 16 20:23:03 UTC 2014


> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 December 2014 at 18:24, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com <mailto:kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>> wrote:
> 
> > On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Goffi <goffi at goffi.org <mailto: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 are welcomed to your own preferences.

> You're welcome to suggest binding text for XEP-0001

I have no desire to do such.

>  be rubber-stamping.

I’m not asking for rubber stamping.   I took (and still kind of do take) your action as unilaterally blocking a specification based on your hope that community might offer something “better”.  While certainly that’s an action allowed you, whether your action is reasonable given the situation is debatable (and really what I’m debating).

You have basically asked the authors to sit on their thumb while the others think through greater issues.  You have suggested there is “potential harm" in publishing this as a ProtoXEP yet you haven’t been clear as to what that harm might be.  I hope it more than offering another “fractional solution”.  You have provided no suggestions to the authors of how they might take change the ProtoXEP to address your objections.   I think your action is “simply blocking progress” of this ProtoXEP in hopes for something “better”… and this I think is shitty reason to block a ProtoXEP.

— Kurt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20141216/78e6e560/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list