On 24 May 2017 at 18:35, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > 2017-05-24 18:53 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >> Authors didn't need to approve the feedback > >> Because authors now get PRs written for them as routine, we seem to >> have drifted somewhat, so that the authors now hold some control over >> what goes in. Approving PRs seems fine, but really only if this is >> approval in terms of consensus calls - not a matter of personal >> agreement or otherwise. > > I did not know that. > > 'Consensus' seems to me like a very slippery slope especially when it > comes to controversial changes. >
Well, we have historically operated on the IETF-style "rough consensus" rather than a strict agreement between every possible party. That has worked well enough for the past 50 years in the IETF. See, for example, RFC 7282: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 > In any case since 'author approval' is irrelevant what is you want > Council to do about the situation? For the specific case of OMEMO, my concern is that there are multiple examples of issues raised on this mailing list (see XEP-0001 Section 6) which have neither been incorporated by the author nor acknowledged, let alone actually discussed. >From what I can see on this list, and even taking the PR discussion into account, it seems there's a rough consensus in favour of at least the majority of Remko's suggestions - though his is not the only feedback going unresponded. But it's not clear to me exactly what suggestions are uncontroversial. I would expect an active author to have a better view. Dave. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
