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

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Thu Dec 7 15:03:37 UTC 2017


On Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 02:14, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces
> public feedback.

Again, what feedback would we get now that we wouldn't have gotten last
time?

> Take this case, for instance. I am newly on Council, so I didn’t review
> this XEP thoroughly as part of the LC, now I have reviewed it more
> thorougly and I have feedback, so there are two possible outcomes:
> 
> 1) The LC is reissued and I send out my Council feedback publicly in
> response to the LC. There’s a clear path to addressing feedback.

If you had feedback already, you should have sent it out when it was in
LC, not waited assuming their would be another one.

> 2) The LC isn’t reissued, it goes straight to vote and I just -1 in the
> Council meeting.

If you find something bad enough that you think it deserves a -1 that's
absolutely fair. I was not calling for an immediate vote, obviously
council would have had their usual two weeks to vote on it.

> There’s the additional risk that if the LC isn’t reissued that new
> Council members feel pressured to just +1 and not do their jobs reviewing
> XEPs that came up before the previous Council because of a sense of
> completing previous Council’s work. I’d have thought avoiding the
> potential for Council to feel pressured to not do their job is worth
> keeping this text in xep1 for.

I do not understand where this pressure would come from, as I said
before, they have their usual time to consider it and vote. Not to
mention a week between meetings in this case, so more or less 3 weeks to
review and make a decision.

—Sam


More information about the Standards mailing list