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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Dec 7 17:41:37 UTC 2017

On 12/7/17 1:14 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:

> I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces public feedback.
> 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.
> 2) The LC isn’t reissued, it goes straight to vote and I just -1 in the Council meeting.
> 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.

When I was on the IESG, there was always a mad dash to complete work on
Internet-Drafts before the end of the term, and those documents got
done. I'd suggest that it's the responsibility of the Council to
complete its tasks and of the authors to make the necessary changes.
Although XEP-0001 talks about restarting Last Calls and such, that's a
bit strange. But in any case, we should follow our rules here - and, if
we don't like the rules we've set, have a separate conversation about that.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 873 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20171207/174324b2/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list