XMPP Council - 2018-05-23

Do we have a meeting now?

You gotta ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky ^W^W have a meeting now?"

Ooops. Yes.

Something like that, yes.

1) Roll Call

I don't think we've got agendums, mind, although I might have missed them in the post-holiday-inbox-landslide

daniel, SamWhited

I'm here.

Kev, No, we don't - I deliberately stalled yesterday knowing there was the GDPR and TOS Proposals coming, but by the time they came I had my evening things to do, and today has been a nightmare.

Um. We may not be having a meeting after all.

Hi!

Hiya.

So it seems to be just the three of us, which is probably my fault for not having done the agenda.

Rather than call it off entirely, the GDPR XEP - do we want to bounce that to Board?

I think this is a Board decision, even if the approving body needs to be Council for process's sake.

(I'm somewhat convinced that's where it should go, process or no process, because of the legal implications).

Council seems entirely unqualified as a body to be assessing legal situations, or the advice we give in response to them.

Ge0rG, If you agree, I'll flag it to Board now and let them "advise" us.

Ah sorry I'm here

I would far far prefer to see an update to XEP1 that allowed us to have an Informational Board XEP here.

I'm very grateful for the work people are putting into this, but I think it'd be irresponsible for Council to be the approving body here.

Kev, I'm inclined to agree.

I'm just going to go ahead and flag this one to Board, and call this meeting a bust.

I'm not quite sure what the board is supposed to be more competent about than we are

Yes. While I'm also glad the information is available I don't think a xep is the right place for this

Ge0rG: Board are responsible for legal matters of the XSF.

Ge0rG, Well, it's their duty to be more competent about it than we are.

Ge0rG: Council are selected for their technical leadership.

I don't think either board or council this the necessary qualifications

But if Board wants to vote it and it's on them

daniel: If Board feel that they don't have the qualifications, and don't want to find someone who has to advise them, that's also 'ok'.

Right

I haven't had the time to read the GDPR XEP yet, does it appear to contain legal advice we don't feel competent about?

Ge0rG, It's trying to avoid being legal advice. But any legal advice might be problematic.

Ge0rG: It doesn't say anything at the moment, which is also a problem.

Because publishing something with legal advice to be filling in later also seems irresponsible.

Whether or not it's _technically_ legal advice I'm not sure a xep is the right place for it. I might even go so far to argue that the xsf in general is the right place. Although if Board has a different opinion that's fine with me

So we are voting now about delegating a XEP to Board that doesn't contain anything and that's supposed to contain advice in the future, with that advice being of apparently legal nature, without actually being of legal nature?

It's certainly advice of a legal nature (it's advice about the GDPR, which is law), but whether it's legal advice is another matter.

But yes, I think we should just kick it up to Board, and they can decide what the appropriate thing to do is.

Meta-question: Does XEP-0001 not have process for XEPs owned by Board? (Feel free to defer until end of meeting.)

Zash: Yes, but only Procedural

Do we need a Legal Council now?

That would be Board.

Who can also get a Legal Counsel should they wish.

Meeting done? SBTSBC? AOB?

I guess so

Council, I’d like to add IBR integration into the ToS ProtoXEP until the next meeting since you didn’t vote on it this time. Is that level of change fine with you?

I don't much care what happens before voting :)

even if I update 10 minutes before the meeting? ;-)

Before it's on the agenda then, perhaps.

I really mean 'before I review it' :)

I guessed that, so I might implicitly asking for your review timeline :)

Once it's on the Agenda.