On 1/14/10 7:49 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 1/14/10 5:27 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > >> On Thu Jan 14 04:16:05 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> * Clarified that the Editor is the canonical target for all >>> submissions, not necessarily all questions related to the XSF's >>> standards process. >> >> We should have a body who is the arbiter of XEP-0001, though. This could >> be the Board. > > Sure.
The Board is the approving body for XEP-0001. We could define an appeals process but I'd rather not do that in this round of (small) revisions. >>> * Clarified that only changes in Draft and Final XEPs that could >>> reasonably be construed as material must be reviewed and voted on by the >>> XMPP Council, thus exempting correction of typographical errors, minor >>> clarifications, and other such errata. >> >> With the proviso I mentioned last night, that is, Council may (and may >> be requested to) demand the reversal of the modifications. This in turn >> suggests Council should be notified, but that's trivial to do given that >> the commit mailing list does just that. > > Sure, the Council has final authority. And I assume that all Council > members already subscribe to the xmpp-commits list. :) I've added this proviso in two places: Section 8.1... Ultimate authority for Draft XEPs rests with the XMPP Council, which can at its discretion demand the reversal of any changes made by the XMPP Extensions Editor or the XEP author while the XEP is in the Draft state. Section 10... Ultimate authority for Final and Active XEPs rests with the XMPP Council, which can at its discretion demand the reversal of any changes made by the XMPP Extensions Editor or the XEP author while the XEP is in the Final or Active state. If there are no further comments, I'll take this up with the XSF Board in the near future. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
