XSF Discussion - 2019-01-12

“13:52:50 MattJ> Ge0rG, I'm 100% fine with that approach, I don't want to burden Council (though perhaps some one-off initiative to skim and clean up a backlog of deferred XEPs may be warranted)”, we don’t have a process for the parenthesis part yet, I’ll send an email to standards@ tomorrow about it.

This is about https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/727 too.

I’d like to have a good discussion about deferred, it’s not an appropriate status to our resources and current processing speed imo, and I want to fix that the correct way.

Link Mauve, my suggestion is that I (in whatever role) draw a random Deferred XEP each week for council to look at and decide what to do with. This is in line with my hope that we get a more active council.

normally, we could tie this discussion to the actual deferral of XEPs, but due to the large backlog, I think this might be a more reasonable course of action

Link Mauve: which status do you think a XEP that got abandoned before proposal should end in?

https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/bylaws.html Section 8.1 > The XMPP Council shall act upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Council voting, although the negative vote of any one member of the Council shall function as a veto. A quorum of the XMPP Council shall be a majority of the members of the Council.

I’m trying to understand the exact meaning of this. I have an intuitive understanding about how votes in council work, but I’m trying to get it formal in my head.

assuming we have a council of five members. currently, council members vote either -1, ±0, or +1. If there is a poll and three members vote ±0, while the other two vote +1, does the vote pass? from my reading, it does not (it fails without an explicit veto) ✏

(which makes ±0 equivalent to not voting at all, except that the result is clear sooner)

It won't pass, it needs at least three positive votes, with no veto

good, then it works as I assumed

Though the first sentence is interesting. "a majority of the members voting"

that might imply that if 3 people vote (quorum) it is sufficient if 2 people vote +1 (as long as the third one doesn’t vote -1)

jonas’: yeah, that would make sense for my reading of it. I'm not sure whether it is actually happening that way though

I'd like to add another item to the Board agenda: the Q1 2019 membership is overdue for almost two weeks