- ralphm waves
-
Kev
Evening Ralph.
-
waqas
Thanks stpeter :)
-
stpeter
waqas: :)
-
waqas
Hopefully my connection will survive for an hour.
-
waqas
The radar page in the topic is months out of date. Is there an agenda somewhere?
-
Kev
On the Council list.
-
Kev
Hi all, a possible agenda for tonight follows - please read and bash. 1) Roll call 2) Agenda bashing 3) XEP-220 (Dialback) This is Experimental - shall we issue a last call so we can move it up to Draft? 4) XEP-201 (Threads) Last call finished a while back on this. Are we ready to vote up to Draft? 5) Date of next meeting 6) Any other business
-
ralphm
I'm on a train. Let's hope I continue to have a connection.
-
Fritzy
just don't try to vote when you're in a tunnel. :)
-
ralphm
let's make it quick then. There shouldn't be a tunnel in the next half hour
-
Kev
Two minutes yet.
-
Kev
I don't see Matt online.
-
waqas
Haven't seen him today.
-
stpeter
yum, lunch
-
remko
dito, haven't seen him either
-
Kev
Righty, so.
-
Kev
1) Roll call.
-
Fritzy
here
-
Kev
Kev, Ralph, Nathan, Remko here.
-
Kev
2) Agenda bashing.
-
Kev
Anyone?
-
remko
no
-
stpeter
none
-
Fritzy
none..looks like the radar is pretty current
-
stpeter
Fritzy: amazingly
-
Kev
3) XEP-220 (Dialback) This is Experimental - shall we issue a last call so we can move it up to Draft?
-
Fritzy
+1
-
ralphm
+1
-
ralphm
It seems to nicely coincide with me having to fix some issues in Wokkel around that.
-
Kev
Remko?
-
Fritzy
:)
-
stpeter
ralphm: :)
-
remko
kev: i haven't read it :\
-
remko
Kev: i'll reply on list
-
Kev
It's dialback, it used to be in 3920 :)
-
Kev
But ok.
-
Kev
4) XEP-201 (Threads) Last call finished a while back on this. Are we ready to vote up to Draft?
-
ralphm
remko: you can read it during last call!
-
remko
oh ok
-
remko
if it's the same thing, +1 :)
-
Kev
The last thing that happened in the last call feedback on 201 was Peter saying he was going to go research IMAP.
-
Fritzy
I haven't seen much feedback on 201.
-
remko
kev: +1 on the last call for dialback, i misread it as an 'advance to draft'
-
Kev
"It seems that would be RFC 5322: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5256/ Thanks for the pointer, I'll give that a read."
-
Kev
stpeter: did you get anywhere with that?
-
ralphm
XEP-0201 is informational
-
stpeter
Kev: I added a reference to some IMAP specs, but they are not directly applicable
-
Kev
ralphm: Right, not Draft.
-
stpeter
as far as I can see, anyway
-
Kev
stpeter: So you're happy with it as-is?
-
Kev
If so, does anyone object to us scheduling a vote for Active for the next meeting?
-
remko
no
-
Fritzy
No objection. I think it's a good informational spec.
-
ralphm
has 201 been used much?
-
stpeter
Kev: I think it's fine as-is -- we might need to revise it again in the future after more people implement threads
-
stpeter
and do recall that it was connected originally with some Ian-isms like 155 and 116 :)
-
stpeter
but I think we've scrubbed most of that
-
Fritzy
I'm planning on making it the default behavior in a future release of Sleek.
-
ralphm
Fritzy: ah, nice
-
Kev
Ok, let's vote on that next time.
-
ralphm
+7
-
Kev
AOB? I have a query about voting of Council/Board that I was going to bring up on list today, but was busy.
-
Kev
Or, next meeting rather.
-
Kev
Same time next week?
-
remko
wfm
-
Fritzy
same time is ok
-
ralphm
hooray
-
Kev
So, elections.
-
Kev
The current bylaws are that the Council has an upper bound in size set by the members (currently 5), and that Council is made up of those people with the most votes, and an affirmative vote by the majority of voters, up to that limit.
-
ralphm
right
-
stpeter
oh no, voting rules again?!?
- Fritzy ducks.
-
Kev
stpeter: I think the rules are right, but memberbot is incorrect.
-
Kev
I think we changed it so that members shouldn't be limited to voting for five people.
-
stpeter
ahhhhh
-
ralphm
Revote!
-
Kev
Because with someone needing a affirmative majority, we could well end up without a full Council.
-
stpeter
ralphm: :P
-
Kev
e.g. 8 applicants, 2 people get a vote from all members, the other 6 share the votes just less than equally, and we only have two people on Council.
-
stpeter
seems unlikely, although possible
-
Kev
It's not that infeasible if we had e.g. 3 strong candidates and 5 less strong - not suggesting that we do.
-
Kev
I was wondering what other people thought.
-
stpeter
I'm all in favor of someting re-writing memberbot :)
-
waqas
Are the memberbot sources public by the way?
-
Kev
I don't think this particular change needs a rewrite, although I'm all in favour of someone doing so.
-
stpeter
waqas: they should be -- but in fact it would be better for someone to start fresh because the code is not very good
-
waqas
I have been writing some bots lately (for statistics), and was going to do one for filling forms.
-
Kev
Tobias has written such a thing for gsoc a couple of years ago, and Gislan (I think) wrote a memberbot plugin for sleekbot to replace the current memberbot.
-
stpeter
Kev: what do you suggest?
-
Fritzy
I could find some time to do a rewrite this week, I think.
-
stpeter
I don't think we can rewrite the bot in mid-stream
-
Tobias
Kev: and i even heard back from a single user from australia :P
-
waqas
Mine would be a plugin for Riddim (bot based on Prosody sources)
-
Kev
stpeter: no, I think we'd need to cancel the current votes and redo them.
-
stpeter
erk
-
Kev
waqas: I'm opposed to using Riddim unless someone commits to making it work :)
-
Kev
I run Riddim in a couple of places, and it's great if you're willing to kill it and restart it when it falls over, but that's pretty often.
-
stpeter
Kev: but members still have only 5 votes -- the difference is in how they're counted
-
Kev
stpeter: Why do they only have five votes, though?
-
stpeter
so the problem is that you need to decide for whom you want to vote before you start
-
waqas
Kev: We were planning on making packages, and it'll probably get plugin reload without restart soon, same as Prosody.
-
Kev
This isn't a bylaws thing, justsomething we've traditionally done.
-
stpeter
or, if you don't like how things went, ask Alexander to throw out your votes and start again
-
stpeter
um
-
Kev
The problem isn't memberbot, it's that we're artificially limiting members to five votes.
-
stpeter
well, we're electing 5 people -- why would you get 8 votes?
-
stpeter
we're asking you to affirmatively state that you want these 5 people on the Council
-
remko
which doesn't really happen
-
Kev
Right, but each person must have >50% people voting affirmatively on them.
-
stpeter
if we're going to change the voting system, we might move to preference voting or somesuch
-
remko
why not ask which people you would want on council, be it more or less than 5
-
waqas
Unless the names are randomized for each voter, the first five probably get significantly more votes :/
-
remko
i thought they were randomized these days
-
Kev
They are.
-
stpeter
you look at the list of candidates, decide "I was Alice, Bob, Charlie, David, and Elizabeth" and vote yes for them, no for everyone else
-
stpeter
waqas: they are randomized
-
Kev
stpeter: Yes, I understand how to vote :)
-
ralphm
I always decide before I start voting what my votes will be
-
stpeter
Kev: so what's the problem?
-
ralphm
I don't really see an issue
-
stpeter
I don't see anything to change here
-
stpeter
at least not for this year
-
Kev
Let's say we have 12 people standing next year.
-
Kev
and the votes go something like (making it up, they won't add up right)
-
stpeter
if folks want to have a long debate about voting processes for 2011, I'm all for it
-
Kev
45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20%
-
ralphm
I suggest fixing the voting system when we get into trouble
-
Kev
We end up with no council
-
ralphm
it's not like we can't fix stuff after it breaks down
-
Fritzy
I need to get going.
-
Kev
Or no board, I think, because Board elections have the same 50% requirement in the bylaws iirc.
-
Kev
Anyway, as long as people are convinced there isn't a problem, I'll go sit quietly in the corner.
-
ralphm
:-D
-
stpeter
Kev: I suggest we burn that bridge when we come to it
-
Kev
Ok.
-
Kev
AOAOB?
-
stpeter
I see the concern (now)
-
ralphm
I think the bylaws have a provision for solving unforseen issues by ubermajority
-
stpeter
nod
-
Kev
Ok, no other business then.
-
stpeter
Kev: I suggest you hold your breath, then bring this up after the current round of elections :)
-
Kev
In that case, Thanks all, see you next week.
-
remko
thanks
-
Kev
I'll do some minutes tomorrow morning probably.
- Kev bangs the gavel.
-
stpeter
somehow I had not seen the possibility of this :(
-
stpeter
anyway, for Council we'll issue a Last Call for comments on XEP-0220 and expect some more votes on XEP-0201
-
Kev
stpeter: Well, we'll LC on 220, and Council will vote on 201 next week.
-
stpeter
ah
-
stpeter
WFM
-
stpeter
won't next week's meeting be the last one of this term?
-
Kev
Probably, I've not looked at dates.
- stpeter looks for the XSF member meeting on the calendar and doesn't find it
-
ralphm
ah, so it the 25th
-
stpeter
yes
-
ralphm
an hour after council meeting starts
-
stpeter
I just asked for clarification about the time
-
stpeter
19:00 UTC?
-
Kev
For Council or Members?
-
Kev
Council is 18:00 UTC next week.
-
stpeter
Members
-
ralphm
it says so in the announcment
-
stpeter
I missed the announcement :P
-
Kev
I never received an announcement.
-
Kev
I only knew voting had started because memberbot appeared online.
-
stpeter
there were some emails on the list
-
Kev
I had the initial meeting announcement back on Sept 20th
-
Kev
But not one to say proxy voting had started.
-
Kev
The initial announcement said 1900
-
ralphm
it was sent on sept 9
-
ralphm
eh, 8
-
Kev
ralphm: What was?
-
Kev
Ah, that mail.
-
ralphm
the meeting notice
-
Kev
Yes.
-
Kev
Not the voting announcement :)
-
stpeter
ok
-
stpeter
calendar updated
-
Kev
Thanks.
-
ralphm
it also noticed voting
-
ralphm
starting at oct. 1
-
Kev
Yep. Which didn't happen, as far as I know.
-
stpeter
Kev: I'd prefer to debate voting procedures after this round -- the scenario you raise becomes more likely as we have more candidates, but there is also the possibility that we have 5 candidates for 5 positions and one of them is deeply unpopular (receives only 20% of the vote or whatever) and then the person would be voted in despite receiving all those no votes
-
Kev
I'm not proposing changing the bylaws, which I think are right.
-
Kev
I think it's right that if 90% of membership think someone is unsuitable that they won't get in.
-
stpeter
I thought perhaps you were suggesting that we remove "with the proviso that no individual receiving less than a majority of votes cast shall be elected"
-
Kev
The problem I see is that membership aren't given the chance to say whether each candidate is suitable or not :)
-
Kev
No, I believe that is absolutely right to have.
-
Kev
Membership are able to express up to five people who they think are suitable, but in the current voting system (not the bylaws, just how we count votes) it says nothing about their opinion of the other X people standing.
-
stpeter
ah
-
stpeter
sure
-
stpeter
so we need preference voting :)
-
stpeter
rank them all from 1 to 8 or whatever
-
stpeter
I mean, all of these folks would be qualified
-
ralphm
or 'abstain' per candidate, next to yes and no
-
Kev
I don't think that's even true.
-
stpeter
it's hard to vote "no" on any of them
-
Kev
I think ideally we have a two vote system.
-
Kev
Or two-track, rather.
- waqas is curious if HAL would get any votes if he stood
-
stpeter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
-
ralphm
Time's up. Eindhoven
-
Kev
One track for voting for each member if they're suitable or not (this should be >50% for any member of Council), and one track for expressing preference.
-
stpeter
ralphm: tot ziens!
-
stpeter
too complicated
-
Kev
And no, I've frequently believed people have stood for Board/Council who weren't qualified :)
-
stpeter
well sure :)
-
Kev
So simply the X most popular isn't a reasonable metric, because that could pick people who everyone unanimously believes are unqualified, given a scarcity of competent candidates.
-
Kev
This is terribly unlikely to be the case this year.
-
stpeter
so we either live with the consequences and hope for better candidates next time, or modify the voting process
-
Kev
But then next year, when only 5 people stand, one of whom joined the XSF because it was cool and hasn't ever read or understood a XEP...
-
stpeter
heh
-
stpeter
brb
- stpeter goes back to completing his AD review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie/