-
Link Mauve
“13:52:50 MattJ> Ge0rG, I'm 100% fine with that approach, I don't want to burden Council (though perhaps some one-off initiative to skim and clean up a backlog of deferred XEPs may be warranted)”, we don’t have a process for the parenthesis part yet, I’ll send an email to standards@ tomorrow about it.
-
Link Mauve
This is about https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/727 too.
-
Link Mauve
I’d like to have a good discussion about deferred, it’s not an appropriate status to our resources and current processing speed imo, and I want to fix that the correct way.
-
jonas’
Link Mauve, my suggestion is that I (in whatever role) draw a random Deferred XEP each week for council to look at and decide what to do with. This is in line with my hope that we get a more active council.
-
jonas’
normally, we could tie this discussion to the actual deferral of XEPs, but due to the large backlog, I think this might be a more reasonable course of action
-
Ge0rG
Link Mauve: which status do you think a XEP that got abandoned before proposal should end in?
-
jonas’
https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/bylaws.html Section 8.1 > The XMPP Council shall act upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Council voting, although the negative vote of any one member of the Council shall function as a veto. A quorum of the XMPP Council shall be a majority of the members of the Council.
-
jonas’
I’m trying to understand the exact meaning of this. I have an intuitive understanding about how votes in council work, but I’m trying to get it formal in my head.
-
jonas’
assuming we have a council of five members. currently, council members vote either -1, ±0, or +1. If there is a poll and three members vote ±0, whiel the other two vote +1, does the vote pass? from my reading, it does not (it fails without an explicit veto)✎ -
jonas’
assuming we have a council of five members. currently, council members vote either -1, ±0, or +1. If there is a poll and three members vote ±0, while the other two vote +1, does the vote pass? from my reading, it does not (it fails without an explicit veto) ✏
-
jonas’
(which makes ±0 equivalent to not voting at all, except that the result is clear sooner)
-
Ge0rG
It won't pass, it needs at least three positive votes, with no veto
-
jonas’
good, then it works as I assumed
-
Ge0rG
Though the first sentence is interesting. "a majority of the members voting"
-
jonas’
that might imply that if 3 people vote (quorum) it is sufficient if 2 people vote +1 (as long as the third one doesn’t vote -1)
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: yeah, that would make sense for my reading of it. I'm not sure whether it is actually happening that way though
-
Ge0rG
I'd like to add another item to the Board agenda: the Q1 2019 membership is overdue for almost two weeks