MattJBut I haven't travelled anywhere since the last summit
Tobiasi'm +1 for accept
Lance+1, but it will likely need some more work as the sdp stuff for it gets hammered out
fippoi'm +1 for accepting this. it needs more work, but that is because the datachannels are still somewhat in flux
KevI need to give it a better glance before not objecting, but I'm anticipating it being fine to publish.
KevI'll post on list once I've done so.
KevI think, if i read xep1 correctly, we don't need to vote on an LC for this, and it's automatically given one because of the Council change.
Kevstpeter (if you're paying attention, but I see you're on a call so maybe not), that sound about right?
stpeterjust finished the call
KevThe new Editor-Team can sort that out, then :)
Kev(Assuming Board are about to ratify that)
Kev4) Date of next.
ralphmI'm sure it's on the agenda.
stpeterI need to write up a charter for the Editor Team
Peter Waherevent logging and dynamic forms?
KevThe reason I used to have to move it from 16:00 to 16:10 isn't an issue any more, so we could move back to 16:00, if people like.
KevOr we can keep it as the current 20mins, which is usually fine but sometimes tight.
stpeterPeter Waher: I think the objections periods for those have ended, so I think they can be published now
ralphm+1 on 16:00
ralphmso that we can start board at 16:30
Tobias+1 on the time change too
MattJ+1 for 16:10
fippo16:00 works for me.
Peter WaherI've updated them and answered to all objections. Should be fine.
Dave CridlandI would prefer to have a short gap before the board meeting, anyway. There's often a few minutes of interesting chatter after the council.
MattJI didn't mean that!
MattJ+1 for 16:00
ralphmMattJ: I call Jetlag.
MattJMeetings before breakfast
KevOk, so 16:00 next Wed, then?
Kev5) Any other business?
Dave CridlandKev, Yeah.
KevI immediately regret asking :)
Dave CridlandKev, In a discussion I had recently, the subject of the late and lamented tech review work team was mentioned.
Dave CridlandKev, Would the Council like an effort to reinstantiate that?
Peter Waheryou agree to publish the event logging and dynamic forms XEPs, latest revisions?
KevPeter Waher: My understanding was that those had passed Council. I can double-check later.
Peter Waherthey're not published yet
KevPeter Waher: See the ongoing discussion about the XEP Editor being overworked.
KevDave Cridland: I'm not desperate to start a new work team unless there's actually a bunch of people who would want to be on it.
KevDave Cridland: If it's one person who wants to do some reviews, I don't see any problem with an informal arrangement.
KevIf there /are/ a group of people who want to be reviewing stuff ~formally, then I'm not strictly opposed to reinstating it.
ralphmKev: in that case, the team is basically standards@ subscribers
KevIt's a fine idea to have one.
Kevralphm: That's a nice idea, but I'm pretty sure most of standards@ subscribers aren't reviewing stuff muc.
KevHeh, Freudian slip. *much*
KevDave Cridland: Do you think there's general interest in a formal team for doing reviews?
ralphmKev: I think we are in agreement
Kevralphm: An excellent place to be.
Dave CridlandI don't know. I am vaguely under the impression there's a certain degree of interest members in doing *something*, and capitalizing on that might yield a work team.
ralphmIt might even be better to ask (to volunteer) specific people for specific documents
MattJWhat does a review team add over the council?
KevMattJ: The Council is a last resort.
Dave CridlandBut even the formation of such a team would involve effort, so I'm wondering if the Council see that as a laudable goal or not.
KevMattJ: It would be much better for document authors to have feedback earlier than "No, we're not letting this go to Draft".
Dave CridlandMattJ, More eyeballs.
KevDave Cridland: I'm not opposed. If it happened and worked it would be a Fine Thing. I'd be inclined to start by asking if there are actually people who want to participate in such a thing, rather than trying to formalise the flagpole and then see if anyone salutes.
Dave CridlandKev, Meaning COuncil needn't always be the Bad Guys.
KevThere is that, although it's not really my concern in this.
Dave CridlandKev, It's not entirely clear to me if we already have the work team, with nobody actually doing anything with it. That is, the formal aspects might actually be done already.
KevBut, for Experimental XEPs, for example. Council generally let stuff through that is fine to start, but they know is a long way off Draft quality. A review team could help with the interim.
Dave CridlandBut anyway, I'm good with the advice I have from Council.
KevDave Cridland: I don't much care about the formality. If there are people wanting to do this, it'd be great for it to happen.
KevAnyone with anything else for anything else?
fippoi just noted that peter requested 0279 as another agenda item