On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:43:03PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Your complaint is not about the role of the XMPP Extensions Editor, but > with me personally.
No. Why are you trying to take it personally? I didn't even say I'm complaining. I am always willing to accept that this is the way we do things at XSF. I've seen the council decide upon proposed XEPs without even reading/ understanding them, so I wouldn't be surprised about other atypical habits. > I also serve in these roles: > > - Executive Director > - list admin of this list > - hostmaster of xmpp.org > - etc. Anybody who is in all of these roles and does things the way you do would have received those questions from me. > You could just as well say you want clarification about the role of the > XSF's Executive Director. Correct. If this person has special rights editing other people's protocols without prior discussion and agreement, then that's exactly what has been missing in my understanding of such actions. Is this expected behaviour for an XSF-ED? > Further, your concern is about a particular specification (XEP-0220), No, it's not just about 0220. I inquired about the procedure in any such case. >> 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 AFAIR >> 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)? Oh okay, Philipp is not the "original author" of 0220, then it's about modifying parts of what Philipp wrote in there up to a point that the original semantics is no longer kept and keeping quiet about your changes, as if he was no longer involved. I warned you that I wasn't sure if these points even apply. Philipp has gone into details about several of the other points. -- _// Carlo v. Loesch
