Pulling this to the front...
> This is not a matter of the role of the XMPP Extensions Editor, but a
> matter of me personally.
Well, this is partially a procedural problem.
Feel free to follow-up on the technical side of things at
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-May/024559.html
[...]
1. editing XEPs and adding himself to the list of authors accordingly,
at times without asking permission by the original authors.
May not be the case with the XEP currently in question.
That does not apply to XEP-0220. To which XEPs does it apply?
XEP-0185. As I told you off-list before, I don't really mind that
because you made some good changes in 0.4 and we discussed removing the
section on attacks during LC. But still it is rather uncommon to add
yourself without even asking - I did not notice until some months later.
2. publishing substantial (not necessarily in size but in semantics)
changes to XEPs without consulting the original authors or seeking
permission from them.
When you say "original authors" are you referring to XEP-0220 or to some
other specification(s)?
3. publishing changes that make the XEP dysfunctional and, since there is
no independent Extensions Editor but himself, advanced these changes
for examination by the XSF Council.
XEP-0220 underwent a Last Call. Feedback was received. I was incredibly
busy with finishing the XMPP RFC revision process, and did not process
that feedback until many months had passed.
I tried my best to incorporate the feedback, but perhaps I did not succeed.
The 0.7 change was about the only thing that made sense.
4. ignoring requests by the original author to make changes (fix errors)
to the XEP.
Some "requests" by one of the (not original) authors I did not process
because I disagreed with them. Other requests were not incorporated
because of oversights on my part.
This was specificially about the patch
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-April/024439.html
which you had received the night before via xmpp (and the stanza was not
lost). Next time I will formally submit such things via email to
[email protected] if that is required.
As an editor, it is not your role to disagree with changes made by
authors, especially not if those changes merely are fixing known errors.
Theoretically, what would happen if I submitted my current version to
[email protected]? Would that get published without asking my co-authors?
[...]
See above. This is not a matter of the role of the XMPP Extensions
Editor, but a matter of me personally. I found Philipp's comments to be
Well, you can only publish things without my agreement because you are
the XMPP editor. As such, you have a conflict of interest here. This
should typically be avoided, see #A.6 in
http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/manuscript_tools/journals/pub_guidelines.shtml
Also note #B.8 - you (with your XMPP editor hat on) have known since
May, 18th officially that I do not approve the submissions - as an
author you knew that long before that I had not seen the final versions
before submission.
Publishing further versions is hardly the right thing to do in that
situation. I would not have had to send the email with that snarky tone
if this change had been (not) published under /tmp/.
unnecessarily snarky. That is a matter of common courtesy, not a matter
of XSF rules and regulations.
See above, it is generally considered common courtesy to let your
(active) co-authors review and approve things before publication. You
have been demonstrating the reasons for that...
philipp
