The table columns are screwey for me in that -yours too?
stpeter
how screwy?
stpeter
the headers?
Kev
Yeah.
Kev
I guess there are just too many of them.
stpeter
right
stpeter
damn first council
stpeter
9 members
stpeter
insanity
stpeter
life got better after that
stpeter
it will look fine when we get to the years with 5 members
stpeter
no one really cares what happened back then, but it's good to have a complete historical record
Kev
It's better, yes.
stpeter
the second council still had 9
stpeter
and lots of votes, too
Kev
I know, I know. Us kids today don't know how good we've got it.
stpeter
:P
Kevhas left
Kevhas joined
Tobiashas joined
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)
Kev
Deferrence is something that happens automatically without Council involvement. I see no reason for that to appear.
Kev
Should rejection be recorded, though?
stpeter
and the second Council rejected specs only at one meeting, on October 15 2002 :)
Kev
Should we be recording that RTT was rejected this week, for example?
Kev
I'd have thought we should, but I'm open to debate :)
stpeter
well
stpeter
it can't be rejected if it's not a XEP
stpeter
it simply wasn't accepted
stpeter
we do have meeting minutes
Kev
Ah, you mean state = Rejected :)
stpeter
the vote tallies are for tracking of specs through the standards process
stpeter
right
Kev
Yes, that should certainly be recorded.
stpeter
gosh, we really need to make XEP-0045 final -- it progressed to Draft on 2002-11-21 (!)
Kev
It needs some work. I'm happy to commit a bunch of edits to it if you don't mind relinquishing some control :)
stpeter
I'm in the middle of keying in modifications, can we wait until that's done?