[Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-05-09

Tedd Sterr teddsterr at outlook.com
Fri May 11 00:36:18 UTC 2018


http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-05-09/#15:00:03

1) Roll Call - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roll_Call
Present: Dave, Daniel, Sam, Kev
Apologies: Georg

2) I wonder if Tedd Sterr is doing the minutes
(Tedd has already confirmed willingness to do the minutes until further notice.)
Dave would like it noted that he likes Tedd doing the minutes.

3) Adopt Proposed new XEP: XMPP Connections across HTTPS (HACX) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hacx.html
Kev proposes this vote be put off until next week, given the author's intention to update the XEP to address identified issues.
Dave is not convinced any amount of editing will make it acceptable, but is happy to defer voting if others think it worthwhile.
Sam is also happy to defer voting, but has concerns and would like the opportunity to give it further consideration.
Dave makes some mystical hand gestures and ordains this item was never on the agenda; it will conveniently reappear next week.

4) XEPs Stuck In Proposed
Dave mentions the discussions on-list and asks whether there were any specific proposals (i.e. PR to XEP-0001); Kev says he made a specific proposal, but not as a PR. Kev thinks being stuck in Proposed state is a feature; Dave thinks it's symptomatic of a different problem, but agrees the ability to see what's stuck is a feature.
Kev outlines his proposal: at the end of a Last-Call council votes on advancement (Proposed->Draft), if the vote fails then council votes on rejection (Proposed->Rejected), if that vote fails then the XEP reverts to Experimental (Proposed->Experimental); if there are no further updates within the deferral period, it moves to Deferred (Experimental->Deferred).
Dave thinks this is not awful (dislikes the double-vote). Kev suggests this solves the stuck-in-proposed problem, while still keeping the ability to see if something has been forgotten, and allows straightforward deferral if advancement-stopping issues are not addressed. Kev agrees the double-vote is icky, but couldn't think of anything better; Dave at least prefers this solution to the current situation or removing the Proposed state.
Sam thinks this should be something that's discussed each time, and how that's done is less important; though more procedure seems worthless, it's fine if it forces discussion.
Dave is unsure of the utility of the Rejected state, given that it's virtually never used; Kev suggests that sometimes XEPs are accepted into Experimental without really expecting further advancement, but the barrier to Experimental should necessarily be low to allow for experimentation, and failed experiments can be Rejected. Dave agrees, but this has been done virtually never, as XEPs are more often left to whither to Deferred instead and fished out as desired.
Dave takes on the action to write up Kev's proposal as a PR; Kev is gratified.

Sam doesn't think voting to reject is a policy problem; (previously, as an editor) he would revert XEPs back to experimental when he remembered, but often not, due to the manual and laborious editor process.
Kev fears the possibility that somebody could accuse Council of not following the formal process, so process should match what is done; and while rejecting shouldn't really be necessary, it allows protection against a bad actor abusing the XEP process.
Dave suggests an appeals process may be needed to allow people to ask Board to investigate if they think Council isn't following the process; and XEP-0001 should document what Council actually does.
Sam doesn't disagree with documenting what Council is doing anyway, but doesn't expect it will change or solve anything.

5) AOB
Dave hears the sound of one hand clapping.

6) Next Meeting
2018-05-16 1500 UTC

7) Close
Kev takes it upon himself to personally thank each and every one of the meeting's attendees.

Dave apologises for his recent poor performance, but is optimistic about now being able to dedicate more time to XMPP activities, instead of gallivanting about the country and single-handedly financing the British railway.
Peter reminds Dave that performance reviews happen in October, so there is still time to get that approval rating back up.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180511/ca1778e9/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list