On 7 Oct 2020, at 12:38, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > Can we put Reactions on the agenda for adoption
I think the previous stance of Council - that it shouldn’t go around accepting previously rejected XEPs just because the originally objecting Council member is no longer on Council unless the presented objections have also been addressed (or some other state change causes there to be a materially different consideration) is sound, and should be followed. In the case of Reactions, I was the originally objecting Council member so with my currently somewhat tatty Old Council hat on suggest that people with their shiny Current Council hats reconsider the submission. I don’t actually think that the situation has materially changed other than that a way forward has been presented in terms of Fastening and MAM-FC to address the concerns, but not adopted, and so my original objections still stand, but it would be worth Council having a consider of whether they agree with them sufficiently to persist the block themselves, rather than just because I did. That is “please consider my vote, which I don’t have, to be -0 with significant objections but no veto”. Ideally without calling me dumb. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
