XMPP Council - 2011-02-28

  1. MattJ has left

  2. Tobias has joined

  3. Tobias has left

  4. bear has left

  5. MattJ has joined

  6. Kev has left

  7. Kev has joined

  8. stpeter has joined

  9. stpeter


  10. Kev

    The table columns are screwey for me in that -yours too?

  11. stpeter

    how screwy?

  12. stpeter

    the headers?

  13. Kev


  14. Kev

    I guess there are just too many of them.

  15. stpeter


  16. stpeter

    damn first council

  17. stpeter

    9 members

  18. stpeter


  19. stpeter

    life got better after that

  20. stpeter

    it will look fine when we get to the years with 5 members

  21. stpeter

    no one really cares what happened back then, but it's good to have a complete historical record

  22. Kev

    It's better, yes.

  23. stpeter

    the second council still had 9

  24. stpeter

    and lots of votes, too

  25. Kev

    I know, I know. Us kids today don't know how good we've got it.

  26. stpeter


  27. Kev has left

  28. Kev has joined

  29. Tobias has joined

  30. stpeter

    the tallies for the second council include votes to defer and reject specs -- I see no special reason to include those in the new tallies, given that no other council has ever recorded those (or even completed such votes)

  31. Kev

    Deferrence is something that happens automatically without Council involvement. I see no reason for that to appear.

  32. Kev

    Should rejection be recorded, though?

  33. stpeter

    and the second Council rejected specs only at one meeting, on October 15 2002 :)

  34. Kev

    Should we be recording that RTT was rejected this week, for example?

  35. Kev

    I'd have thought we should, but I'm open to debate :)

  36. stpeter


  37. stpeter

    it can't be rejected if it's not a XEP

  38. stpeter

    it simply wasn't accepted

  39. stpeter

    we do have meeting minutes

  40. Kev

    Ah, you mean state = Rejected :)

  41. stpeter

    the vote tallies are for tracking of specs through the standards process

  42. stpeter


  43. Kev

    Yes, that should certainly be recorded.

  44. stpeter

    gosh, we really need to make XEP-0045 final -- it progressed to Draft on 2002-11-21 (!)

  45. Kev

    It needs some work. I'm happy to commit a bunch of edits to it if you don't mind relinquishing some control :)

  46. stpeter

    I'm in the middle of keying in modifications, can we wait until that's done?

  47. Kev


  48. stpeter


  49. stpeter

    wow, I've been on hold for a full hour here

  50. stpeter

    perhaps it would make sense to call back later

  51. stpeter

    well, I got dropped -- problem solved

  52. Kev


  53. Tobias has left

  54. Tobias has joined

  55. bear has joined

  56. bear has left

  57. Tobias has left

  58. julm has left