Hi Kevin,
On 2018-01-19 14:01, Kevin Smith wrote:
I've read through this thread, though I, too, did not track the
process around updating the compliance suite.
I think not having tracked what’s gone on here may paint a somewhat
different picture from having been involved.
I'm not sure yet if this is a good or a bad thing. ;)
This the implication here isn’t right. Council are obliged to do a
review of XEPs before voting on them, which they did.
That's the rational part.
While the
previous Council failed to get this to vote despite a long period of
Sam trying,
In my view, this is the key reason for being in the current situation.
Was this failure to get the vote in time addressed or taken into
account? Did somebody apologize for delaying the vote or making Sam miss
the end-of-2017-deadline?
the current Council had all their feedback addressed other
than me, whose feedback was also addressed in a pending PR, and it was
all set to advance this week.
Yes, you are right. Everybody is and most answers can be boiled down to
one or another form if "but I am right".
Sadly, the current course of action isn’t Council’s, but Sam’s.
So the council has no leadership role in the XSF?
In the general case, it is very dangerous for Council members to feel
that they are not able to give feedback, or expect it to be addressed
- in a discussion a little while ago on-list, Sam agreed here that
Council should give their feedback.
But this is not a general case. Previous Council failed a process (by
not voting in time) and current Council tries to heal this by pressing
on with the correct process.
Sam has chosen to step back from the suites, and there’s not a lot we
can do to force him to continue with them (nor should we), although
for my part I’d be very happy if he changed his mind.
There was a window of opportunity to resolve the issues and motivate him
to continue.
(Again, my view.)
I have been trying for some weeks. I now realise that all the
discussions trying to resolve this have happened in the Council MUC
(the logs for which are available, but I doubt anyone has any
inclination to sift through them), which makes it seem to anyone not
following the events that this has come out of the blue, but it would
be a mistake to believe that to be the case.
I take from this answer that any further analysis would indeed need
somebody to sift through the protocol.
I've just been provided with this pointer:
https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-December/034002.html
(This mail alone is not enough, though I see a deadline mid November
which was missed?)
Again: The whole thing has become a strategic question. If the Council
comes to the conclusion that sticking to the process is better than
resolving the issue in Sam's favour (there are good arguments for both),
than that's part of XSF's culture. I don't see a formal right or wrong
here.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion, taken from a leadership view. I am not
trying to force any specific resolution and questions are mainly to
refine my understanding or as an anchor to specify certain issues.
Greetings,
Stefan
--
Netz39 e.V. - Real World Virtuality http://www.netz39.de
Stefan Haun [email protected]
E-Mail: [email protected]
Vertretungsberechtigter Vorstand: Benjamin Hatscher, Franz Kuntke
Inhaltlich verantwortlich gemäß §55 (2) RStV: Benjamin Hatscher
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stendal
Registernummer: VR 3169
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
