[Standards] 2017-11-29 XMPP Council Meeting Minutes

Jonas Wielicki jonas at wielicki.name
Thu Dec 7 08:03:48 UTC 2017

On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 17:03:16 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:39, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> The motivation in xep1 is that the outgoing Council members might have
> >> not given public feedback, due to being on Council, but that they could
> >> have feedback that should be taken into account. For the sake of two
> >> weeks, I’m not sure it’s worth shortcutting giving that opportunity here.
> > 
> > I don't think the two weeks matters necessarily but everyone on the
> > council now was previously a member and could have given feedback. If
> > they didn't then, I don't see why being on the council would make a
> > difference.
> It’s the opposite case that xep1 is concerned with. A Council member might
> decide not to give feedback on standards@, knowing that they can give such
> feedback when voting, and such when they’re not on Council their
> not-yet-voiced comments might fail to be heard.

FWIW, in a first and second iteration of thought, I think we should try to 
change the relevant passage of XEP-0001.

It encourages council members (and to say this to begin with: I doubt that 
anyone from current or previous council actually did that, at least not with 
malicious intent) to delay their feedback until the voting process, at which 
point the community has no way to reasonably address that feedback (be it 
negative or positive) with remarks which may have been overlooked and taken 
for granted (thus not mentioned) by others.

This could invoke a feeling of "not being heard" in the community, which I 
think could be very detrimental.

So encouraging that behaviour by means of XEP-0001, I think we should not.

Looking forward to the third iteration of thought :-) (i.e. what you think).

kind regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20171207/0f3bf954/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list