[Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed May 24 16:04:10 UTC 2017

On 24 May 2017 at 16:41, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> Dave asked whether the Council would do something here, and said he
> considered the author unresponsive at this point. Sam noted the author
> has not yet been "pinged". Tobias said if he had not been "officially
> pinged" he could not be considered unresponsive. Dave noted he was
> surely on the mailing lists. Sam and Tobias both stated that not
> everybody reads every mail. Dave countered that the author should be
> seeing "OMEMO" in the subject line and responding. Sam said he wasn't
> sure if the author was even on the list, and it was unfair to make
> that requirement.

Because this has my hackles raised:

Firstly, section 6 of XEP-0001 clearly states that the Author's job is
to gather and incorporate feedback from the community during the
lifetime of the XEP. It also clearly states that the XEP author should
be subscribed to this mailing list. Therefore, I argue that it is
entirely reasonable to make that requirement on an Author. I
appreciate that the move to PRs on Github means that some discussions
end up balkanized onto Github, and I can understand a PR, therefore,
going unnoticed by an author - we do not require them to watch the

Secondly, "Officially pinged" really annoys me. We have no such
procedure within the XMPP Standards Foundation. Authors are required
to gather and incorporate feedback - it's not for Council, or the
Editors, or anyone else to point them to the feedback.

I consider any XEP Author unresponsive who fails to respond to
discussion on this list - the primary discussion venue of the XSF -
concerning the XEPs they are looking after for the XSF and the
community it serves. This is a fundamental requirement for being a XEP
author, and if any current authors are unwilling to subscribe to this
list and read it frequently, particularly threads concerning their own
XEPs, they should not be doing the job.

As for Council members not reading the list, I really don't understand
this attitude. This is, by my count, the tenth thread on the Standards
list this month, and many of those are Council Minutes threads. This
is hardly high traffic. It seems remarkable that any Council members
feel it's acceptable to routinely ignore the list to the degree


More information about the Standards mailing list