XSF Editor Team - 2014-02-26

  1. m&m has left

  2. stpeter has joined

  3. stpeter has left

  4. Steffen Larsen has joined

  5. Steffen Larsen has left

  6. Steffen Larsen has joined

  7. Steffen Larsen has left

  8. Steffen Larsen has joined

  9. Lloyd has joined

  10. Kev

    I refer to yesterday's BOSH question :)

  11. Steffen Larsen has left

  12. Steffen Larsen has joined

  13. Steffen Larsen has left

  14. Steffen Larsen has joined

  15. Steffen Larsen has left

  16. Ash has joined

  17. m&m has joined

  18. Dave Cridland

    http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-people/#editor actually says to submit XEPs to Peter directly, still.

  19. m&m


  20. m&m

    we'll have to get that changed

  21. Dave Cridland

    I assume I'm meant to send XEPs to editor@xmpp.org?

  22. m&m


  23. m&m

    someone will need to reconcile that and http://xmpp.org/xmpp-protocols/xmpp-extensions/submitting-a-xep/

  24. m&m

    oh, looks like someone might already have

  25. m&m

    well, at least left the contact details to the first location

  26. m&m

    if you already have suggested text, I can put it in place

  27. m&m

    otherwise the Editorial Team could provide the board something

  28. Dave Cridland

    Given it already has a statement from a previous Board there, I suppose we should sort it.

  29. Dave Cridland

    Made a submission in (I think) the correct form. Awaiting Moderator Approval.

  30. m&m has left

  31. m&m has joined

  32. m&m goes to review the queue

  33. Dave Cridland

    "do you can and will cede rights" - I don't think that's quite right. Beyond the odd phrasing (missing "assert that"?). Our IPR policy is such that we don't ask authors to cede rights, but assign ownership, I think.

  34. m&m

    that is a good point

  35. m&m

    I'll correct my template

  36. Dave Cridland

    (That's WRT the "Thank you for your submission" message I got)

  37. m&m

    I assumed

  38. Dave Cridland

    Also my XEP-0001 changes will affect the second sentence; in fact that's not true today either.

  39. Dave Cridland

    Sorry; will affect if they're accepted.

  40. stpeter has joined

  41. m&m


  42. m&m

    so, assuming the proposed update to XEP-0001 is approved, how does the following look? Thank you for your submission. The Approving Body will decide on whether to accept your proposal within the next 14 days. In accordance with the XSF IPR policy, do you: 1. Acknowledge you own the rights to the content in the submitted proposal? 2. Assign those rights to the XMPP Standards Foundation upon acceptance of the proposal? The IPR policy is available at < http://xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml > XEP Editor

  43. Dave Cridland

    s/will decide/will be polled on/ and you're good.

  44. m&m


  45. m&m

    I'll add it to our work wiki

  46. Dave Cridland

    The decision could (by current Council rules, for instance) take 28 days - 14 before Kev polls, and 14 before the timeout is hit.

  47. Dave Cridland

    I mean, assuming the XEP-0001 changes go in.

  48. Dave Cridland

    The current XEP-0001 does say 14 days to a decision, but in practise it's 14 days after the next Council meeting.

  49. m&m

    better to be long than short then

  50. m&m

    full text once more: Thank you for your submission. The Approving Body will be polled on whether to accept your proposal within the next 28 days. In accordance with the XSF IPR policy, do you: 1. Acknowledge you own the rights to the content in the submitted proposal? 2. Assign those rights to the XMPP Standards Foundation upon acceptance of the proposal? The IPR policy is available at < http://xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml > XEP Editor

  51. Dave Cridland

    Well, if you say 28 days, you can say "decide". "poll" was my choice of weasel words to stipulate a requirement for the question rather than the answer.

  52. m&m


  53. m&m

    I don't like weaseling through things

  54. Dave Cridland

    SO the full requirements including both the new XEP-0001 changes proposed and Kev's current rules for Council (which are ruled out of scope for XEP-0001) are that Council members are formally asked for objections within 14 days, and must respond with objections either in a meeting or on the standards list within (a further) 14 days - otherwise they are deemed to have no objection.

  55. Kev

    And assuming there are meetings within the next 14 days.

  56. Kev

    e.g. this isn't necessarily true over Christmas or such if we skip two meetings.

  57. Dave Cridland

    What made it complicated to explain in XEP-0001 is that the second 14-day period (starting when the Council members are asked), is regulated by Kev as Council Chair, and not by XEP-0001.

  58. Dave Cridland

    Kev, Ah, which? The objection timeout of the poll timeout? If we need exceptions for the poll timeout that means I need to tweak that text.

  59. Kev

    I would be inclined to keep the current text, almost.

  60. Kev

    But to instead of say 'decide' say 'Council will start an objection period within...' or such.

  61. Kev

    Wordsmithing without the current text in front of me's probably a bad idea.

  62. Kev

    But that's the intention, as I see it.

  63. Kev

    Council will start a voting period on their next meeting, usually, or the one after that if it's submitting close to the line.

  64. Kev

    Then that will last however long current Council procedures are for it to take.

  65. Kev

    I think that as long as xep1 isn't misleading, it doesn't need to tie us down completely.

  66. Kev

    (That is - a reading author should not be misled as to how long it'll take)

  67. Dave Cridland

    Kev, Right. My changes to XEP-0001 are exactly that, modulo that it requires a poll to be made (though not a meeting as such) within 14 days.

  68. Kev

    I only read the summary - only just back after being out all afternoon. Will read the changes proper at some point.

  69. Dave Cridland

    Kev, Whereas the old one required any objections be logged within 14 days, which isn't - quite - how you work.

  70. Kev

    It certainly gave that impression. You know my alternative interpretation, but I agree that reading it one would expect an answer within 14 days (or next meeting).

  71. Dave Cridland

    Yes; as I say I'm more concerned with changing XEP-0001 to reflect reality than insisting you guys change.

  72. Lloyd

    was it buddycloud#owner ?

  73. Lloyd

    window fail, sorry.

  74. m&m


  75. stpeter


  76. m&m

    http://jabber.org/protocol/muc no longer redirects somewhere useful

  77. stpeter

    it would not surprise me if we lost all the redirects in a webserver change at some point

  78. m&m

    that looks to be the case

  79. m&m

    before it was Apache httpd? Now it's nginx

  80. stpeter

    it was lighttpd for quite a while

  81. m&m

    ah that's right

  82. stpeter

    surely Apache in the ancient days

  83. m&m

    in any case, redirects are server specific, so any change would very likely cause losss

  84. Lloyd has left

  85. m&m has left

  86. m&m has joined

  87. Dave Cridland

    Thanks for processing that submission. Sorry it was such a pain. :-)

  88. m&m

    we're working out the kinks (-:

  89. stpeter


  90. stpeter

    process improvements have occurred already!

  91. m&m

    I'm tempted to write a Makefile to deal with various pieces

  92. m&m

    see if we can do it without someone actually being *on* the webserver all the time

  93. stpeter


  94. Kev

    Presumably you could do everything with a git hook if you wanted.

  95. Kev

    Only push to master stuff you want published, etc.

  96. m&m


  97. Kev

    With my infrastructure hat on, I would rather we didn't have many people trying to do things with shell on the machine.

  98. m&m

    well, maybe not

  99. m&m

    I completely understand

  100. m&m

    I'll have to think about how we could use git pushes to do this

  101. Kev

    I'll give out shell to everyone if we need to.

  102. Kev

    If we can avoid it, I'd find it preferable.

  103. m&m

    the differences in some cases are very subtle

  104. m&m


  105. Neustradamus has left

  106. Neustradamus has joined

  107. Neustradamus has left

  108. Neustradamus has left

  109. Neustradamus has left

  110. Neustradamus has joined

  111. Ash has left

  112. Dave Cridland has joined

  113. stpeter has left

  114. stpeter has joined