[Standards] [Council] Minutes 2015-07-22

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Thu Jul 23 09:22:39 UTC 2015


> On Jul 23, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 July 2015 at 08:43, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com <mailto:kevin.smith at isode.com>> wrote:
> FYI
> 
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Kevin Smith
> > Subject: [Council] Minutes 2015-07-22
> > Date: 23 July 2015 08:41:27 BST
> > To: XMPP Council
> >
> > Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2015-07-22/ <http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2015-07-22/>
> >
> > 1) Roll call
> > Kev, Dave, Lance, Fippo, MattJ present
> >
> > 2) XEP-0327 Move to Draft?
> > http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0327/diff/0.6/vs/0.7 <http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0327/diff/0.6/vs/0.7>
> >
> > Dave abstains, Fippo, Kev, Lance, Matt to vote on list.
> >
> 
> For the record, I didn't abstain.
> 
> Advancement requires a majority vote, and Council members also have a veto. I didn't vote for it, but didn't veto it  - I just voted. You could describe it as a vote against (but not a veto). If three of my colleagues vote the same way, it won't pass, lacking the required majority.

Dave,

Isn’t “neutral” the correct (per XEP 001) term for your vote?

Though XEP 001 doesn’t use the term “against”, it would seem to me that this would be equivalent to a negative/disapproval vote.

— Kurt

> 
> My reasoning is that it's not clear to me that there exists any demand within the community for an interoperable protocol here. I've no objection (in fact, I quite like) Experimental XEPs of this nature, but it's not clear we want or need a Draft Standard which is based solely on the experience and intent of a single actor within the community.
> 
> However, that is not to suggest there is anything *wrong* with the XEP.
> 
> The only alarm bell which did cause me to consider an actual veto was that because few members of the community and/or industry as a whole seem interested in the protocol, I worry that it lacks the required review and sufficiently broad perspective required to make a quality, fully interoperable, specification - however, I lack any evidence that this has been the case.
>  
> > 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mobile-concerns.html <http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mobile-concerns.html>
> > Accept as Experimental?
> >
> > All -1 for a new XEP, in favour of it being submitted as an update to XEP-0286.
> >
> > 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/raft.html <http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/raft.html>
> > Accept as Experimental.
> >
> > Dave, Matt +1. Fippo, Kev, Lance to vote onlist
> >
> > 5) Date of next meeting
> >
> > 2015-08-05 15:00Z. Kev sends potential apologies (not sure if I’ll be about or not).
> >
> > 6) Any other business
> >
> > Kev started a discussion about Council’s role in review of XEPs vs ensuring adequate review is done - sometimes adequate review is done by a small number of people (or even one) if most of Council are too busy in the two-week period. Everyone to think about it before the next meeting to discuss whether it’s a problem, and how to improve it.
> > (More discussion in the logs)
> >
> 
> This, of course, ties in closely to XEP-0327. I suspect only Kev and Fippo gave it the kinds of review needed, and it's not clear it's had review outside of Council either.
>  
> > Fini.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150723/bd91e3a7/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list