XSF logo XMPP Council - 2017-12-20


  1. ralphm has left
  2. ralphm has joined
  3. peter has left
  4. SamWhited has left
  5. SamWhited has left
  6. genofire has left
  7. Tobias has joined
  8. Tobias has joined
  9. Zash has left
  10. SamWhited has left
  11. SamWhited has left
  12. SamWhited has joined
  13. ralphm has left
  14. ralphm has joined
  15. ralphm has joined
  16. Ge0rG has left
  17. Ge0rG has left
  18. Ge0rG has left
  19. ralphm has joined
  20. SouL has left
  21. Ge0rG has left
  22. daniel has left
  23. Ge0rG has left
  24. Ge0rG has left
  25. Ge0rG has left
  26. daniel has left
  27. Ge0rG has joined
  28. daniel has left
  29. jere has joined
  30. ralphm has left
  31. jere has joined
  32. jere has joined
  33. daniel has left
  34. ralphm has left
  35. Ge0rG has left
  36. jere has joined
  37. ralphm has left
  38. jonasw has left
  39. genofire has left
  40. vanitasvitae has left
  41. jonasw does council monitor PRs to the XEPs repository or do I have to forward that to council?
  42. jonasw and if so, what’s the current modus operandi to do that?
  43. daniel has left
  44. ralphm has joined
  45. ralphm has joined
  46. Flow jonasw, which kind of PRs are we talking about?
  47. jonasw anything which needs council 😺
  48. Flow So ProtoXEP submissions and Last Calls. But I think for those we have editor sending annoucement mails
  49. jonasw I'm talking about changes to Draft+ XEPs
  50. jonasw (sorry I'm on mobile. protoxeps can be merged instantly, last calls are issued by editors so they don't need council btw)
  51. Flow Ahh, not sure if I ever saw an editor annoucing a proposed change to a draft xep, probably a good idea to establish those though. I wouldn't want council to monitor PRs and such, plus xep1 wants a standards@ discussion of those changes too
  52. daniel has left
  53. daniel has joined
  54. daniel Maybe even provide a rendered version to the standards list.
  55. daniel Then it's easier for the broader community to follow
  56. daniel Arguably though it is also kinda the responsibility of who ever created the PR
  57. jonasw in this case, me 😺
  58. jonasw I suppose it has to wait for next year then 😺
  59. jere has joined
  60. Syndace has left
  61. daniel has left
  62. daniel has joined
  63. jere has joined
  64. genofire has joined
  65. jcbrand has joined
  66. Ge0rG has left
  67. daniel has left
  68. daniel has joined
  69. vanitasvitae has left
  70. jcbrand has left
  71. jcbrand has left
  72. Kev has left
  73. ralphm has left
  74. ralphm has left
  75. jonasw has joined
  76. daniel has left
  77. daniel has joined
  78. ralphm has left
  79. ralphm has left
  80. daniel has left
  81. daniel has joined
  82. SouL has left
  83. ralphm has joined
  84. SouL has left
  85. jcbrand has left
  86. daniel has left
  87. daniel has joined
  88. ralphm has left
  89. jonasw has left
  90. genofire has left
  91. ralphm has left
  92. ralphm has left
  93. ralphm has joined
  94. SamWhited has joined
  95. Ge0rG What are the criteria for a Council member to decide about the approval of a ProtoXEP? XEP-0001 §5 does not provide any hints except that we need to vote.
  96. Ge0rG The only reason I can immediately see to -1 a protoXEP is that it covers a use case that already was addressed by an existing XEP.
  97. jcbrand has joined
  98. vanitasvitae has left
  99. jcbrand has left
  100. jcbrand has joined
  101. SamWhited I generally think about whether or not it's implementable in its current form. If it's not I don't want it to end up sitting in experimental in an unusable state forever.
  102. Ge0rG SamWhited: I don't like the protoxep limbo we have, where the author has submitted something, and before it has been voted upon there is already a new revision on the author's homepage.
  103. Ge0rG So I'd rather tend to accept even very raw things, just to keep the wheels turning
  104. ralphm has joined
  105. SouL has left
  106. SamWhited has left
  107. Syndace has joined
  108. vanitasvitae has joined
  109. ralphm has joined
  110. Flow Ge0rG, so you would not have accepted MAM?
  111. Ge0rG Flow: I don't think it covers the exact same use case as 136
  112. SamWhited I don't mind "very raw things", it just needs to be in a state where every other section isn't a TODO.
  113. SamWhited But I agree about things that overlap in use case; sometimes things just need a replacement, but we don't need three alternatives to everything.
  114. SamWhited has left
  115. Ge0rG has left
  116. Ge0rG has left
  117. Ge0rG has left
  118. Ge0rG has left
  119. Ge0rG has left
  120. Ge0rG has joined
  121. Lance has joined
  122. ralphm has left
  123. ralphm has joined
  124. ralphm has left
  125. SamWhited has joined
  126. SamWhited has joined
  127. Syndace has left
  128. Syndace has joined
  129. Ge0rG has left
  130. Ge0rG has left
  131. jere has joined
  132. Ge0rG has left
  133. SamWhited has joined
  134. Tobias has joined
  135. Ge0rG has joined
  136. Lance has left
  137. SamWhited has left
  138. SamWhited has joined
  139. SamWhited has joined
  140. jere has joined
  141. daniel has left
  142. jcbrand has left
  143. ralphm has joined
  144. daniel has joined
  145. ralphm has left
  146. SamWhited has left
  147. genofire has left
  148. SamWhited has joined
  149. ralphm has left
  150. daniel has left
  151. ralphm has left
  152. ralphm has joined
  153. ralphm has joined
  154. jere has joined
  155. ralphm has left
  156. ralphm has left
  157. ralphm has left
  158. ralphm has left
  159. jere has left
  160. jere has joined
  161. daniel has left
  162. jere has joined
  163. pep. has left
  164. pep. has left
  165. pep. has joined
  166. pep. has left