[Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed May 24 19:06:52 UTC 2017


On 24 May 2017 at 18:35, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2017-05-24 18:53 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>> Authors didn't need to approve the feedback
>
>> Because authors now get PRs written for them as routine, we seem to
>> have drifted somewhat, so that the authors now hold some control over
>> what goes in. Approving PRs seems fine, but really only if this is
>> approval in terms of consensus calls - not a matter of personal
>> agreement or otherwise.
>
> I did not know that.
>
> 'Consensus' seems to me like a very slippery slope especially when it
> comes to controversial changes.
>

Well, we have historically operated on the IETF-style "rough
consensus" rather than a strict agreement between every possible
party. That has worked well enough for the past 50 years in the IETF.
See, for example, RFC 7282:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

> In any case since 'author approval' is irrelevant what is you want
> Council to do about the situation?

For the specific case of OMEMO, my concern is that there are multiple
examples of issues raised on this mailing list (see XEP-0001 Section
6) which have neither been incorporated by the author nor
acknowledged, let alone actually discussed.

>From what I can see on this list, and even taking the PR discussion
into account, it seems there's a rough consensus in favour of at least
the majority of Remko's suggestions - though his is not the only
feedback going unresponded. But it's not clear to me exactly what
suggestions are uncontroversial. I would expect an active author to
have a better view.

Dave.


More information about the Standards mailing list