XMPP Council - 2016-06-01


  1. psa

    BTW I'm present. :-)

  2. SamWhited

    I also am present and can take notes.

  3. Tobias

    how much out of date is our trello?

  4. Tobias

    last change somewhere in april

  5. psa

    completely?

  6. Lance

    sorry, was delayed

  7. Lance

    0) Roll call

  8. Tobias

    here

  9. psa

    here

  10. Lance

    Dave Cridland MattJ?

  11. Lance

    1) Recommend Kev for Editor Team

  12. MattJ

    Here

  13. Lance

    I'm +1 for Kev to be an editor

  14. Tobias

    +1

  15. MattJ

    +1

  16. psa

    I'm always +1 to Kev.

  17. Lance

    2) Date of next

  18. Lance

    sbtsbc?

  19. psa

    I can meet next week.

  20. Tobias

    wfm

  21. Lance

    3) AOB?

  22. Tobias

    what needs to be done so https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/184 gets reviewed and we can vote on it? do i need to send a mail to the editor?

  23. SamWhited

    This is marked as "Needs Council" (I haven't looked at it, not sure what it is): https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/106

  24. SamWhited

    Tobias: I need to actually get too it.

  25. SamWhited

    I've been switching teams at work and all sorts of fun stuff; apologies.

  26. Tobias

    ah..ok

  27. Tobias

    just wanted to be sure it's on somebody's list and isn't waiting on me to do anything

  28. Lance

    thanks Tobias

  29. Lance bangs gavel

  30. Lance

    thanks all

  31. Tobias

    thank you

  32. Lance

    ah, sorry SamWhited I just noticed that link you posted was about xep-60 and not xep-300

  33. SamWhited

    Oops, no worries

  34. SamWhited

    I'm late, but this one needs council review too, I think: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/160

  35. SamWhited

    (the change is editorial, but the XEP is draft, so I'm pretty sure that's right?)

  36. Lance

    SamWhited I'm pretty sure we +1'd that already

  37. Lance

    yep, march 23, then peter +1'd in the PR

  38. Lance

    so that's good to merge and publish

  39. SamWhited

    Lance: #160, you mean?

  40. SamWhited

    Oh, yah, nevermind, the one Peter +1ed, right.

  41. Kev

    From the meeting minutes, I don't believe Council were voting on making me a member of the Editor team, they were voting on whether to recommend me to Board. Board gets to choose, but does so based on Council's recommendation.

  42. Kev

    SamWhited: And at this point you really get to complain about the process-for-the-sake-of-it :)

  43. SamWhited

    Kev: I don't have too anymore, you already know what I'm going to say :)

  44. Dave Cridland

    It's slightly silly, but the reasoning is sound - Board have to take responsibility, but Council is in a better position to select.

  45. ralphm

    SamWhited: that change seems fine

  46. ralphm

    Kev: you're so in

  47. ralphm

    I'll tell Arc, too ;-)

  48. Kev

    Heh.

  49. Dave Cridland

    Sure, the Board can, and probably should, rubber-stamp these things. It just has to take responsibility.

  50. Kev

    I understand why it is :)

  51. SamWhited

    I don't; I'm not suggesting that we just let any random person have SSH access and allow them to mess with XEPs, but if a member of the community says they want to help, and we're short handed, I don't understand why they're not allowed to just jump in and help.

  52. SamWhited

    s/member/well known member/

  53. SamWhited

    where member has nothing to do with XSF membership (sorry, that was doubly confusing)

  54. ralphm

    Anyone can contribute for sure

  55. ralphm

    I am in favor having an offical Editor, thougj

  56. ralphm

    (As a team or as a single individual, but surely a member)

  57. Tobias

    it doesn't look like we have enough free time among our members for a single individual editor

  58. ralphm

    Tobias: right, that'd beside my point

  59. ralphm

    This is just the commit-bit equivalent to code projects

  60. ralphm

    And doesn't mean non-editors can't contribute. The can write, review, comment, etc

  61. ralphm

    Just not merge

  62. SamWhited

    Yah, the discussion originally was specifically that Flow and Kev said they'd be willing to help, and I said "sure I'd love help" and then it was brought up that they'd need to go through a process. Same thing happened when I volunteered to help Ash and Peter, I wasn't a member and people made a fuss about it. In my mind, Git is distributed and almost nothing is distructive, so if we know who someone is and reasonably trust them to do the right thing we should just let them help.

  63. ralphm

    How does that conflict with what I said?

  64. SamWhited

    ralphm: I was responding to the "just not merge" bit (which I assumed would also go for sending emails, list updates, publishing, etc.)

  65. Kev

    SamWhited: Given that merging results in code execution on our servers, I think we do want some layer of officialness in there.

  66. Tobias

    yup

  67. ralphm

    That too

  68. SamWhited

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ we know who they are, we trust them, what difference does it make if the board approves or they're officially a member or not?

  69. SamWhited

    I was just talking to Flow and realized there was other AOB I wanted to bring up this morning… I'd like to ask that he be made an Editor too. Can we recommend his name at the board meeting next week as well as Kev's?

  70. SamWhited

    He's offered to help take care of the registry and get XEPs merged and emails sent and what not.

  71. Flow

    Happy to help :)