XMPP Council - 2010-10-18

  1. Tobias has joined
  2. Tobias has left
  3. Kev has joined
  4. julm has joined
  5. julm has left
  6. Tobias has joined
  7. Tobias has left
  8. Tobias has joined
  9. Tobias has left
  10. Tobias has joined
  11. Tobias has left
  12. Tobias has joined
  13. Tobias has left
  14. julm has joined
  15. stpeter has joined
  16. Tobias has joined
  17. Kooda has joined
  18. Kooda has left
  19. ralphm has joined
  20. ralphm waves
  21. Kev Evening Ralph.
  22. waqas has joined
  23. waqas Thanks stpeter :)
  24. bear has joined
  25. stpeter waqas: :)
  26. waqas Hopefully my connection will survive for an hour.
  27. remko has joined
  28. Fritzy has joined
  29. waqas The radar page in the topic is months out of date. Is there an agenda somewhere?
  30. Kev On the Council list.
  31. 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
  32. zanchin has joined
  33. ralphm I'm on a train. Let's hope I continue to have a connection.
  34. Fritzy just don't try to vote when you're in a tunnel. :)
  35. ralphm let's make it quick then. There shouldn't be a tunnel in the next half hour
  36. Kev Two minutes yet.
  37. Kev I don't see Matt online.
  38. waqas Haven't seen him today.
  39. stpeter yum, lunch
  40. remko dito, haven't seen him either
  41. Kev Righty, so.
  42. Kev 1) Roll call.
  43. Fritzy here
  44. Kev Kev, Ralph, Nathan, Remko here.
  45. Kev 2) Agenda bashing.
  46. Kev Anyone?
  47. remko no
  48. stpeter none
  49. Fritzy none..looks like the radar is pretty current
  50. stpeter Fritzy: amazingly
  51. Kev 3) XEP-220 (Dialback) This is Experimental - shall we issue a last call so we can move it up to Draft?
  52. Fritzy +1
  53. ralphm +1
  54. ralphm It seems to nicely coincide with me having to fix some issues in Wokkel around that.
  55. Kev Remko?
  56. Fritzy :)
  57. stpeter ralphm: :)
  58. remko kev: i haven't read it :\
  59. remko Kev: i'll reply on list
  60. Kev It's dialback, it used to be in 3920 :)
  61. Kev But ok.
  62. Kev 4) XEP-201 (Threads) Last call finished a while back on this. Are we ready to vote up to Draft?
  63. ralphm remko: you can read it during last call!
  64. remko oh ok
  65. remko if it's the same thing, +1 :)
  66. Kev The last thing that happened in the last call feedback on 201 was Peter saying he was going to go research IMAP.
  67. Fritzy I haven't seen much feedback on 201.
  68. remko kev: +1 on the last call for dialback, i misread it as an 'advance to draft'
  69. Kev "It seems that would be RFC 5322: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5256/ Thanks for the pointer, I'll give that a read."
  70. Kev stpeter: did you get anywhere with that?
  71. ralphm XEP-0201 is informational
  72. stpeter Kev: I added a reference to some IMAP specs, but they are not directly applicable
  73. Kev ralphm: Right, not Draft.
  74. stpeter as far as I can see, anyway
  75. Kev stpeter: So you're happy with it as-is?
  76. Kev If so, does anyone object to us scheduling a vote for Active for the next meeting?
  77. remko no
  78. Fritzy No objection. I think it's a good informational spec.
  79. ralphm has 201 been used much?
  80. stpeter Kev: I think it's fine as-is -- we might need to revise it again in the future after more people implement threads
  81. stpeter and do recall that it was connected originally with some Ian-isms like 155 and 116 :)
  82. stpeter but I think we've scrubbed most of that
  83. Fritzy I'm planning on making it the default behavior in a future release of Sleek.
  84. ralphm Fritzy: ah, nice
  85. Kev Ok, let's vote on that next time.
  86. ralphm +7
  87. Kooda has joined
  88. Kev AOB? I have a query about voting of Council/Board that I was going to bring up on list today, but was busy.
  89. Kev Or, next meeting rather.
  90. Kev Same time next week?
  91. remko wfm
  92. Fritzy same time is ok
  93. ralphm hooray
  94. Kev So, elections.
  95. 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.
  96. ralphm right
  97. stpeter oh no, voting rules again?!?
  98. Fritzy ducks.
  99. Kev stpeter: I think the rules are right, but memberbot is incorrect.
  100. Kev I think we changed it so that members shouldn't be limited to voting for five people.
  101. stpeter ahhhhh
  102. ralphm Revote!
  103. Kev Because with someone needing a affirmative majority, we could well end up without a full Council.
  104. stpeter ralphm: :P
  105. 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.
  106. stpeter seems unlikely, although possible
  107. Kev It's not that infeasible if we had e.g. 3 strong candidates and 5 less strong - not suggesting that we do.
  108. Kev I was wondering what other people thought.
  109. stpeter I'm all in favor of someting re-writing memberbot :)
  110. waqas Are the memberbot sources public by the way?
  111. Kev I don't think this particular change needs a rewrite, although I'm all in favour of someone doing so.
  112. stpeter waqas: they should be -- but in fact it would be better for someone to start fresh because the code is not very good
  113. waqas I have been writing some bots lately (for statistics), and was going to do one for filling forms.
  114. 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.
  115. ralphm has left
  116. stpeter Kev: what do you suggest?
  117. Fritzy I could find some time to do a rewrite this week, I think.
  118. ralphm has joined
  119. stpeter I don't think we can rewrite the bot in mid-stream
  120. Tobias Kev: and i even heard back from a single user from australia :P
  121. waqas Mine would be a plugin for Riddim (bot based on Prosody sources)
  122. Kev stpeter: no, I think we'd need to cancel the current votes and redo them.
  123. stpeter erk
  124. Kev waqas: I'm opposed to using Riddim unless someone commits to making it work :)
  125. 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.
  126. stpeter Kev: but members still have only 5 votes -- the difference is in how they're counted
  127. Kev stpeter: Why do they only have five votes, though?
  128. stpeter so the problem is that you need to decide for whom you want to vote before you start
  129. waqas Kev: We were planning on making packages, and it'll probably get plugin reload without restart soon, same as Prosody.
  130. Kev This isn't a bylaws thing, justsomething we've traditionally done.
  131. stpeter or, if you don't like how things went, ask Alexander to throw out your votes and start again
  132. stpeter um
  133. Kev The problem isn't memberbot, it's that we're artificially limiting members to five votes.
  134. stpeter well, we're electing 5 people -- why would you get 8 votes?
  135. stpeter we're asking you to affirmatively state that you want these 5 people on the Council
  136. remko which doesn't really happen
  137. Kev Right, but each person must have >50% people voting affirmatively on them.
  138. stpeter if we're going to change the voting system, we might move to preference voting or somesuch
  139. remko why not ask which people you would want on council, be it more or less than 5
  140. waqas Unless the names are randomized for each voter, the first five probably get significantly more votes :/
  141. remko i thought they were randomized these days
  142. Kev They are.
  143. 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
  144. stpeter waqas: they are randomized
  145. Kev stpeter: Yes, I understand how to vote :)
  146. ralphm I always decide before I start voting what my votes will be
  147. stpeter Kev: so what's the problem?
  148. ralphm I don't really see an issue
  149. stpeter I don't see anything to change here
  150. stpeter at least not for this year
  151. Kev Let's say we have 12 people standing next year.
  152. Kev and the votes go something like (making it up, they won't add up right)
  153. stpeter if folks want to have a long debate about voting processes for 2011, I'm all for it
  154. Kev 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20%
  155. ralphm I suggest fixing the voting system when we get into trouble
  156. Kev We end up with no council
  157. ralphm it's not like we can't fix stuff after it breaks down
  158. Fritzy I need to get going.
  159. Kev Or no board, I think, because Board elections have the same 50% requirement in the bylaws iirc.
  160. Kev Anyway, as long as people are convinced there isn't a problem, I'll go sit quietly in the corner.
  161. ralphm :-D
  162. stpeter Kev: I suggest we burn that bridge when we come to it
  163. Kev Ok.
  164. Kev AOAOB?
  165. stpeter I see the concern (now)
  166. ralphm I think the bylaws have a provision for solving unforseen issues by ubermajority
  167. remko has left
  168. remko has joined
  169. stpeter nod
  170. Kev Ok, no other business then.
  171. stpeter Kev: I suggest you hold your breath, then bring this up after the current round of elections :)
  172. Kev In that case, Thanks all, see you next week.
  173. remko thanks
  174. Kev I'll do some minutes tomorrow morning probably.
  175. Kev bangs the gavel.
  176. stpeter somehow I had not seen the possibility of this :(
  177. Fritzy has left
  178. stpeter anyway, for Council we'll issue a Last Call for comments on XEP-0220 and expect some more votes on XEP-0201
  179. Kev stpeter: Well, we'll LC on 220, and Council will vote on 201 next week.
  180. stpeter ah
  181. stpeter WFM
  182. stpeter won't next week's meeting be the last one of this term?
  183. Kev Probably, I've not looked at dates.
  184. stpeter looks for the XSF member meeting on the calendar and doesn't find it
  185. ralphm ah, so it the 25th
  186. stpeter yes
  187. ralphm an hour after council meeting starts
  188. stpeter I just asked for clarification about the time
  189. stpeter 19:00 UTC?
  190. Kev For Council or Members?
  191. Kev Council is 18:00 UTC next week.
  192. stpeter Members
  193. ralphm it says so in the announcment
  194. stpeter I missed the announcement :P
  195. Kev I never received an announcement.
  196. Kev I only knew voting had started because memberbot appeared online.
  197. stpeter there were some emails on the list
  198. Kev I had the initial meeting announcement back on Sept 20th
  199. Kev But not one to say proxy voting had started.
  200. Kev The initial announcement said 1900
  201. ralphm it was sent on sept 9
  202. ralphm eh, 8
  203. Kev ralphm: What was?
  204. Kev Ah, that mail.
  205. ralphm the meeting notice
  206. Kev Yes.
  207. Kev Not the voting announcement :)
  208. stpeter ok
  209. stpeter calendar updated
  210. Kev Thanks.
  211. ralphm it also noticed voting
  212. ralphm starting at oct. 1
  213. Kev Yep. Which didn't happen, as far as I know.
  214. ralphm has left
  215. 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
  216. ralphm has joined
  217. Kev I'm not proposing changing the bylaws, which I think are right.
  218. Kev I think it's right that if 90% of membership think someone is unsuitable that they won't get in.
  219. 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"
  220. Kev The problem I see is that membership aren't given the chance to say whether each candidate is suitable or not :)
  221. Kev No, I believe that is absolutely right to have.
  222. 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.
  223. stpeter ah
  224. stpeter sure
  225. stpeter so we need preference voting :)
  226. stpeter rank them all from 1 to 8 or whatever
  227. stpeter I mean, all of these folks would be qualified
  228. ralphm or 'abstain' per candidate, next to yes and no
  229. Kev I don't think that's even true.
  230. stpeter it's hard to vote "no" on any of them
  231. Kev I think ideally we have a two vote system.
  232. Kev Or two-track, rather.
  233. waqas is curious if HAL would get any votes if he stood
  234. stpeter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
  235. ralphm Time's up. Eindhoven
  236. 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.
  237. stpeter ralphm: tot ziens!
  238. stpeter too complicated
  239. Kev And no, I've frequently believed people have stood for Board/Council who weren't qualified :)
  240. stpeter well sure :)
  241. 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.
  242. Kev This is terribly unlikely to be the case this year.
  243. stpeter so we either live with the consequences and hope for better candidates next time, or modify the voting process
  244. 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...
  245. stpeter heh
  246. stpeter brb
  247. Gam has joined
  248. lightoze has joined
  249. stpeter goes back to completing his AD review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie/
  250. ralphm has left
  251. lightoze has left
  252. bear has left
  253. Gam has left
  254. stpeter has left
  255. remko has left
  256. Zash has joined
  257. Zash has left
  258. zanchin has left
  259. Kooda has left
  260. Tobias has left