KevThe table columns are screwey for me in that -yours too?
KevI guess there are just too many of them.
stpeterdamn first council
stpeterlife got better after that
stpeterit will look fine when we get to the years with 5 members
stpeterno one really cares what happened back then, but it's good to have a complete historical record
KevIt's better, yes.
stpeterthe second council still had 9
stpeterand lots of votes, too
KevI know, I know. Us kids today don't know how good we've got it.
stpeterthe 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)
KevDeferrence is something that happens automatically without Council involvement. I see no reason for that to appear.
KevShould rejection be recorded, though?
stpeterand the second Council rejected specs only at one meeting, on October 15 2002 :)
KevShould we be recording that RTT was rejected this week, for example?
KevI'd have thought we should, but I'm open to debate :)
stpeterit can't be rejected if it's not a XEP
stpeterit simply wasn't accepted
stpeterwe do have meeting minutes
KevAh, you mean state = Rejected :)
stpeterthe vote tallies are for tracking of specs through the standards process
KevYes, that should certainly be recorded.
stpetergosh, we really need to make XEP-0045 final -- it progressed to Draft on 2002-11-21 (!)
KevIt needs some work. I'm happy to commit a bunch of edits to it if you don't mind relinquishing some control :)
stpeterI'm in the middle of keying in modifications, can we wait until that's done?
stpeterwow, I've been on hold for a full hour here
stpeterperhaps it would make sense to call back later