XSF Editor Team - 2014-03-18

T -10 minutes

Have to leave in T -5 min :-(

boo! )-:

good meeting & CU!

meeting?

wasn't it now?

yep

ohhh ok

:-)

in 2 minutes

16:00 UTC

ding ding ding!

we're missing Winfried with apologies, everyone else here?

peter?

ding dong

Hello all!

just pinged him

Hi Ash

well, I think we have quorum

jup

I should have pushed out an agenda earlier

0) Roll Call

already have that determined

1) Status on Automation Options

Lloyd or Ash?

hi

I think Lloyd was looking at that

Hi Stefan

hey ho :)

Hi StPeter

forgot to log into this account

(-:

Lloyd: any updates yet on automation options

?

With apologies, I haven't made much progress, I have scribbled notes but nothing worth sharing yet. Its our very busy time at Surevine and I've been snowed under with other projects too.

Lloyd: completely understand

Lloyd: if I can give a hand.. just reach out with your ideas

It's coming up to the end of the financial year in the UK, so we're always busy around this time!

I might send along some of my personal musings for you all to ridicule and marginalize (-:

Basic plan is/has been to outline what we can automate, suitable methods of automation. I plan on sharing notes with Steffen Larsen and getting something together properly.

super

awesome

Intend to share early and build upon it rather than get something concrete first.

is it worthwhile to pester you next week about it?

m&m: would be great to have as well.

fail first is best. :-)

I'm good at failing first.

(-:

he he

m&m please keep pestering, I can always ignore you :)

hehe

ok, since there's nothing else on automation ...

2) outstanding work

I think I've gotten all of the requests for ProtoXEPs and Experimental updates out last week, plus BOSH

anyone see anything else come in?

\o/ :)

yes, good work m&m!

I'm trying! (-:

:D

noo I dont think so. But somethines its hard to seperate stuff on the editor list. But great work m&m!

BTW I have been adding XEP authors to the "accepts" list in mailman - makes it easier to sort through all the spam in the queue

/nod

thanks for that, stpeter

super

and I'm relying on those with list admin privs to help sort the other wheat from chaff

I think that includes Winfried and Steffan?

did you guys get admin access to at least editor@ yet?

need to create key!

er, Stefan

any requirements for the ssh key?

one "f", not two

(-:

I think it's only me, m&m, and zeank who have list admin privs

right

maybe stupid question but why would it be so hard to put a spamfilter in between?

I think Winfried volunteered to help with moderating there, too

zeank@jwchat.org: yes, we're thinking about that too :-)

and that's a task for the i-team to work on, with whatever approvals they need from the Board

I suppose we could do that just for the editor@ address instead of for the entire mailman install? not sure

they are aware of the issues, though

stpeter: possibly, since this list is the one with the most impact

all the other lists require subscription in order to post

right

this is the only one that wants looser posting privs

AFAIK

yes

alright, since there's nothing else on actual editor work outstanding ...

3) Next Meeting

I personally find a short weekly meeting worthwhile, so lets assume we have something next week

+1

same time, or do we want earlier?

hhmm I need to get home from work

16:00 UTC is now 10:00 my time

so 16UTC is fine for me :-)

I know it switches in a couple of weeks for the rest of you

although not for too much longer I suppose

jup

well, let's plan on 16:00 UTC for next week, and discuss a possible change when Daylight Savings hits (most of) the rest of the world

ok

Add that to next week's agenda

WFM

will do

Will probably affect the council and board too

sounds good

4) Any Other Business

I assumed everything else was stuff we talked about last week, so wasn't a surprise for the unannounced agenda (-:

I have an AOB

go for it

When it comes to accepting patches

one request came from a non-author, and one came without an actual patch file

for the non-author, I asked the listed authors if it was ok to accept the patches (and it was)

I think that's a reasonable requirement, but it's not documented anywhere that I could see

There are some interesting potential issues with that. What if we can't contact any xep authors?

side topic: if the person sent large patches, why not make that person an author?

so, my question on this one is — should we update -0143 to be clearer on this?

stpeter: I asked the original author that, and he was reluctant

heh difficult question

it is

m&m: I had the same experience before with that spec or a related one, and it strikes me as odd

I figured

on one hand, adding this person as an author would streamline our process and ease my ethical compass

and the owner of the work is the XSF, not the author

on the other, I don't want to scare serious contributors off by making (seemingly) arbitrary changes

FWIW, I don't think the Editor team is the right group to make decisions about the author list of XEPs.

true

Kev: I agree, and in this case, I told them I would bring it to the Council

Ash: we have had authors disappear in the past, and what we do is try to contact them - if that's unsuccessful and someone else wants to become a maintainer, we add the new person

agree with Kev, we're just update monkies :)

after posting to the standards@ list and all

I just think we ought to have this better documented, possibly in a XEP

but yes, some of this might need to be added to XEP-0001 or XEP-0143 or something

+1 to m&m

Also FWIW, I think there's a difference betwe 'own' in the legal sense and 'own' in the maintenance sense.

Kev: right

yes

I think it's within the purview of the editor to make a best effort for maintenance owners

can you as an owner give your XEP to others for further maintainance ?

(I also think it'd be good to have a process for adding authors without the existing authors documented)

Steffen Larsen: yes, and that has happened in the past

ok

ok, so I think I see consensus for formalizing a process

Would be good to get some of this down and in front of council

for now, let's try to think of our arguments, and put them into a XEP format

(or board in this case?)

My initial thinking is this is a Board matter, but can be readily persuaded in other directions

Fuzzy line for me, I'd go along with either.

I think it comes down to whether it's most appropriate for this to go into XEP-0001, go into XEP-0143, or go into something new

I can bring it up with the council and board tomorrow

143 doesn't seem right, to me.

Kev: me neither

This feels like a 0001 thing to me

it feels like a change to 1

right

yeah, me too (at the moment)

how about we approach the board and council for input before we go too much further

Either 1 or a How Editors work XEP.

Both/either seem appropriate.

I could also see it go into an Editorial Team Procedures document

me, too

the non-patch instance was mostly annoying to me, and I think is best handled with an update to XEP-0143 and/or this new "How to Editor" XEP

I think XEP-0143 ought to be updated to 2119 mandate an actual patch file

so what is the action to be taken from all this discussion

Depends how we want to accept patches. A gitorious merge request would count (although I suppose that;s just a fancy patch)

"send patches" is a fine policy to me!

I do want to be flexible, but we can't be expected to go hunting around

yep

it took me almost an hour to suss out what the real changes were for the non-patchfile case

well, an hour including the disruptions

m&m can we get the main points from this and add them to the agenda next week?

m&m auch

Ash: I want to see if there's something actionable now first

isn't there any requirements for updates of xeps?

Steffen Larsen: 143 provides woefully little requirements on this front

and I'm not aware of any others still in existence

so actions

143 has a whole section about generating patch files

m&m that should be further specified.. that would ease the workload ALOT!

Ash: reading

Section 4

Although it uses the term "prefers"

Ash: yes, but I think this is inadequate, and assumes a specific work flow

I'm happy to work on an update to this to be more forceful on the patchfile requirements

cool

so that's one action (-:

would be good

ha ha yes

how about others? Should we approach Council and Board with anything right now?

Guys.. I need to get out of here and get some food

or should we draft a new XEP? Or a proposed update to -0001?

Steffen Larsen: I'm trying to end this quickly (-:

propose an update for 0001 would be great

ok.. waiting 1 min more. ;-)

Update to 0001 makes most sense to me

anyone else?

ok, that's two for an update to 0001

alright, so by next week we should think about who's willing to work on said patch

ok. bye guys

s/think about/decide on/

later!

:)

cheers and see you next week

:-)

I think that's it, unless you y'all have something else?

er … s/you//

I can't think what to make for dinner. Does that count?

heh

lol

I'm going to rule that one out of scope (-:

ok, so that's it

thanks everyone

m&m have they taken your gavel away?

bye bye

Bye everyone!

Ash: I like to change things up

:)

maybe next week it'll be a schrödinger observation (-:

oops, I wandered off because I thought we were done :-)

we are now (-:

yeah yeah yeah

I've got a start on updates to xep-README on my gitorius fork

all of it is breaking out the "login to webserver, and" steps into separate <li/>'s

since I keep skipping things in those lists!

yeah I threw those together quickly before the first editor team meeting

I knew they needed to be broken out separately

m&m: shall I add anyone else as list admins?

I think winfried offered to help with moderation

Steffan, Lloyd, and Ash were concentrating on automation

yep

I'll add winfried then

spread the joy :-)