XSF logo XMPP Council - 2011-02-28


  1. MattJ has left
  2. Tobias has joined
  3. Tobias has left
  4. bear has left
  5. MattJ has joined
  6. Kev has left
  7. Kev has joined
  8. stpeter has joined
  9. stpeter http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/first-council/
  10. Kev The table columns are screwey for me in that -yours too?
  11. stpeter how screwy?
  12. stpeter the headers?
  13. Kev Yeah.
  14. Kev I guess there are just too many of them.
  15. stpeter right
  16. stpeter damn first council
  17. stpeter 9 members
  18. stpeter insanity
  19. stpeter life got better after that
  20. stpeter it will look fine when we get to the years with 5 members
  21. stpeter no one really cares what happened back then, but it's good to have a complete historical record
  22. Kev It's better, yes.
  23. stpeter the second council still had 9
  24. stpeter and lots of votes, too
  25. Kev I know, I know. Us kids today don't know how good we've got it.
  26. stpeter :P
  27. Kev has left
  28. Kev has joined
  29. Tobias has joined
  30. stpeter the tallies for the second council include votes to defer and reject specs -- I see no special reason to include those in the new tallies, given that no other council has ever recorded those (or even completed such votes)
  31. Kev Deferrence is something that happens automatically without Council involvement. I see no reason for that to appear.
  32. Kev Should rejection be recorded, though?
  33. stpeter and the second Council rejected specs only at one meeting, on October 15 2002 :)
  34. Kev Should we be recording that RTT was rejected this week, for example?
  35. Kev I'd have thought we should, but I'm open to debate :)
  36. stpeter well
  37. stpeter it can't be rejected if it's not a XEP
  38. stpeter it simply wasn't accepted
  39. stpeter we do have meeting minutes
  40. Kev Ah, you mean state = Rejected :)
  41. stpeter the vote tallies are for tracking of specs through the standards process
  42. stpeter right
  43. Kev Yes, that should certainly be recorded.
  44. stpeter gosh, we really need to make XEP-0045 final -- it progressed to Draft on 2002-11-21 (!)
  45. Kev It needs some work. I'm happy to commit a bunch of edits to it if you don't mind relinquishing some control :)
  46. stpeter I'm in the middle of keying in modifications, can we wait until that's done?
  47. Kev Natch.
  48. stpeter :)
  49. stpeter wow, I've been on hold for a full hour here
  50. stpeter perhaps it would make sense to call back later
  51. stpeter well, I got dropped -- problem solved
  52. Kev \o/
  53. Tobias has left
  54. Tobias has joined
  55. bear has joined
  56. bear has left
  57. Tobias has left
  58. julm has left