XMPP Council - 2017-12-20

  1. jonasw

    does council monitor PRs to the XEPs repository or do I have to forward that to council?

  2. jonasw

    and if so, what’s the current modus operandi to do that?

  3. Flow

    jonasw, which kind of PRs are we talking about?

  4. jonasw

    anything which needs council 😺

  5. Flow

    So ProtoXEP submissions and Last Calls. But I think for those we have editor sending annoucement mails

  6. jonasw

    I'm talking about changes to Draft+ XEPs

  7. jonasw

    (sorry I'm on mobile. protoxeps can be merged instantly, last calls are issued by editors so they don't need council btw)

  8. Flow

    Ahh, not sure if I ever saw an editor annoucing a proposed change to a draft xep, probably a good idea to establish those though. I wouldn't want council to monitor PRs and such, plus xep1 wants a standards@ discussion of those changes too

  9. daniel

    Maybe even provide a rendered version to the standards list.

  10. daniel

    Then it's easier for the broader community to follow

  11. daniel

    Arguably though it is also kinda the responsibility of who ever created the PR

  12. jonasw

    in this case, me 😺

  13. jonasw

    I suppose it has to wait for next year then 😺

  14. Ge0rG

    What are the criteria for a Council member to decide about the approval of a ProtoXEP? XEP-0001 §5 does not provide any hints except that we need to vote.

  15. Ge0rG

    The only reason I can immediately see to -1 a protoXEP is that it covers a use case that already was addressed by an existing XEP.

  16. SamWhited

    I generally think about whether or not it's implementable in its current form. If it's not I don't want it to end up sitting in experimental in an unusable state forever.

  17. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: I don't like the protoxep limbo we have, where the author has submitted something, and before it has been voted upon there is already a new revision on the author's homepage.

  18. Ge0rG

    So I'd rather tend to accept even very raw things, just to keep the wheels turning

  19. Flow

    Ge0rG, so you would not have accepted MAM?

  20. Ge0rG

    Flow: I don't think it covers the exact same use case as 136

  21. SamWhited

    I don't mind "very raw things", it just needs to be in a state where every other section isn't a TODO.

  22. SamWhited

    But I agree about things that overlap in use case; sometimes things just need a replacement, but we don't need three alternatives to everything.