On 18 January 2018 at 15:05, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: > In that case I am retracting the compliance suites, we'll never get anything > useful out of these if people keep trying to stall and we can't ever move on > without trying to make them absolutely perfect and have every little thing > that every person wants. >
The process (which, by the way, is just a XEP like any other - we can change it) stipulates that a document that gets a Last Call but fails to advance in one Council restarts the Last Call in the next Council. Whether that's a good idea or not is really immaterial - it is the process we have, and therefore it is the process we follow. (We have had this process for 14 years, incidentally). To suggest that a Council Member voting -1 is stalling is a very serious charge, and suggests that they are deliberately misusing the standards process to the detriment of their position. Therefore I would like to give you the opportunity to retract that accusation. > If someone else wants to start working on them, be my guest, but please do > not simply push through the 2018 ones and then leave them forever, this > doesn't need to just have this PR merged and then be published, it needs > someone who is willing to sheperd them through the process every year (or > possibly the same ones for multiple years since the goal posts keep moving). > > —Sam > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018, at 07:21, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On 18 Jan 2018, at 13:21, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On 18 Jan 2018, at 11:05, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> 7) XEP-0387, Advance to Draft >> >>>> >> >>>> Note this is without addressing Kev's outstanding feedback. >> >>>> >> >>>> Sam, Georg, Daniel +1 >> >>>> >> >>>> Dave 0 (Specifically, felt it was pointless moving forward without >> >>>> addressing or merging Kev's PR, but felt it was Kev's decision to make >> >>>> here). >> >>>> >> >>>> Kev on-list. >> >>> >> >>> I’m +1 once my PR addressing the outstanding list feedback is merged. >> >> >> >> To be clear, that's a -1 with a clear remediation, is that correct? >> > >> > I’d rather we treated it as a pre-emptive +1, conditioned on the merge, to >> > avoid process ensuring we have to drag this out longer than needed, but >> > you could also view it as a -1 for now, with a new vote after the merge. >> >> And yes, the remediation is clear on the -1. >> >> /K >> _______________________________________________ >> Standards mailing list >> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards >> Unsubscribe: [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ > > > -- > Sam Whited > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
