Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On 24 May 2017, at 21:03, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 24 May 2017 at 20:30, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: >> Wed, 24 May 2017 21:24:40 +0200 >> Daniel Gultsch wrote: >> >>> The author is unresponsive and has been ignoring my feedback for over >>> a year. >> >> Like always, hehe :/ > > Sorry, I wasn't aware that this one had got stalled. > > I got hold of Lance and checked - he's obviously missed a couple more > messages than he thought, but he's too busy right now. (He also says > Daniel's feedback was all good). > > Do you (or anyone else) want to take it on? I could if it makes sense, I have an interest in this area now. /K ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On 24 May 2017 at 20:30, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > Wed, 24 May 2017 21:24:40 +0200 > Daniel Gultsch wrote: > >> The author is unresponsive and has been ignoring my feedback for over >> a year. > > Like always, hehe :/ Sorry, I wasn't aware that this one had got stalled. I got hold of Lance and checked - he's obviously missed a couple more messages than he thought, but he's too busy right now. (He also says Daniel's feedback was all good). Do you (or anyone else) want to take it on? Dave. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
Wed, 24 May 2017 21:24:40 +0200 Daniel Gultsch wrote: > The author is unresponsive and has been ignoring my feedback for over > a year. Like always, hehe :/ ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
2017-05-24 21:16 GMT+02:00 Evgeny Khramtsov : > Since we're discussing this: what about XEP-0357 (Push Notifications)? > Is it gonna be deferred? What's its state? The author is unresponsive and has been ignoring my feedback for over a year. Implementation wise it's looking relativity fine. I'm using this successfully on a daily basis. (With my proposed changes) cheers Daniel ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
Wed, 24 May 2017 11:46:59 -0500 Sam Whited wrote: > These should be "automatically" (it's manual, but doesn't require > approval) deferred after however many months (I think it's actually > 12) without an update. I tried to clean up all the ones I saw that > hadn't been deferred in years past recently, but I most likely missed > some and more might have hit the threshold since I haven't been able > to edit. Since we're discussing this: what about XEP-0357 (Push Notifications)? Is it gonna be deferred? What's its state? ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On 24 May 2017 at 18:35, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > Hi, > > 2017-05-24 18:53 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland : >> 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: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
Hi, 2017-05-24 18:53 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland : > 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. In any case since 'author approval' is irrelevant what is you want Council to do about the situation? cheers Daniel ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > I see it as a requirement for the role in Council. Otherwise how can > one judge whether there are outstanding problems? I think it's not terribly difficult to keep an eye on the community and what's going on without having read all the arguments and the details of every issue. If and when the council needs to weigh in on something, then one can catch up and research the specifics. This is how I generally operate when discussions of XEPs that I don't really care about (or just don't have the background knowledge to judge the arguments) are happening. —Sam ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On 24 May 2017 at 17:23, Sam Whited wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> As for Council members not reading the list, I really don't understand >> this attitude. This is, by my count, the tenth thread on the Standards >> list this month, and many of those are Council Minutes threads. This >> is hardly high traffic. It seems remarkable that any Council members >> feel it's acceptable to routinely ignore the list to the degree >> stated. > > Email is a pain, and a not everyone will care about all list content > enough to read it all beyond skimming the titles. I don't see this as > a problem. > I see it as a requirement for the role in Council. Otherwise how can one judge whether there are outstanding problems? Dave. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On 24 May 2017 at 17:36, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > Hi, > > 2017-05-24 18:04 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland : >> I consider any XEP Author unresponsive who fails to respond to >> discussion on this list - the primary discussion venue of the XSF - >> concerning the XEPs they are looking after for the XSF and the >> community it serves. This is a fundamental requirement for being a XEP >> author, and if any current authors are unwilling to subscribe to this >> list and read it frequently, particularly threads concerning their own >> XEPs, they should not be doing the job. > > > Unresponsiveness can be very annoying. I can personally recount > several occasions where I requested minor changes or cleanups on > experimental XEPs and even provided a PR but couldn't get the 'authors > approval'. Unfortunately we don't have any hard set rules on how to > deal with those situations. > Even the process of providing a PR and getting 'author approval' is > more of a convention than an actual rule. > XEP-0001 was written before we considered opening up git at all, let alone moving to github, so it doesn't deal in PRs, but in "feedback", which is assumed to be primarily via the mailing list. Authors didn't need to approve the feedback, they were tacitly expected to write up the conclusions of the community into the XEP. The "authoriness" was in the expression of that consensus, not in deciding what went in. At times, authors might ask for someone else to write a paragraph expressing what the intent was, for particularly knotty problems. 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. And the discussion leading to that consensus must be public, and archived. I dislike discussion occurring only on PRs, because there's a serious risk that not everyone is aware of it. Equally I'm well aware that mailing lists are not the ideal solution, but it's what we have. Finally, an author not being responsive is not the end of the world, and shouldn't result in that author being immediately dropped. This is a volunteer activity, and I appreciate people have other commitments, a personal life, and so on. But months without any response seems much too much. > Correct me if I'm wrong but currently the only way to deal with 'an > unresponsive' author is to defer the XEP with the 6 months of > inactivity rule and create a new XEP. Which of course might not always > be the best approach. FWIW, "undeferring" a XEP is as simple as publishing a new version. It's a thoroughly reversible process. > If we as the XSF want to re-assign authors we should discuss and write > down explicit rules for that process in XEP-0001. > Side note: We also have *a lot* of XEPs which are inactive for way > more than 6 month where there is no activity whatsoever. No questions, > no discussions, no implementations. Are we just going to defer them? > Or is the 6 month of inactivity timer only invoked after the first > feedback? It was pointed out to me that it's been 12 months for several years... But in any case, yes - Experimental XEPs not being developed should be deferred. As I say above, moving them back is trivial. It'd be nice - though not essential - if we (Council) reviewed those XEPs at risk of deferment regularly to see which can be advanced as-is, or which we could generate a discussion around. > > cheers > Daniel > ___ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > ___ ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > Side note: We also have *a lot* of XEPs which are inactive for way > more than 6 month where there is no activity whatsoever. No questions, > no discussions, no implementations. Are we just going to defer them? > Or is the 6 month of inactivity timer only invoked after the first > feedback? These should be "automatically" (it's manual, but doesn't require approval) deferred after however many months (I think it's actually 12) without an update. I tried to clean up all the ones I saw that hadn't been deferred in years past recently, but I most likely missed some and more might have hit the threshold since I haven't been able to edit. Deferred isn't a bad thing necessarily; it just means it's time to be cleaned up because there hasn't been any adoption, or it's time for the council to consider moving it forward because it's adopted and changes aren't needed. —Sam ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
Hi, 2017-05-24 18:04 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland : > I consider any XEP Author unresponsive who fails to respond to > discussion on this list - the primary discussion venue of the XSF - > concerning the XEPs they are looking after for the XSF and the > community it serves. This is a fundamental requirement for being a XEP > author, and if any current authors are unwilling to subscribe to this > list and read it frequently, particularly threads concerning their own > XEPs, they should not be doing the job. Unresponsiveness can be very annoying. I can personally recount several occasions where I requested minor changes or cleanups on experimental XEPs and even provided a PR but couldn't get the 'authors approval'. Unfortunately we don't have any hard set rules on how to deal with those situations. Even the process of providing a PR and getting 'author approval' is more of a convention than an actual rule. Correct me if I'm wrong but currently the only way to deal with 'an unresponsive' author is to defer the XEP with the 6 months of inactivity rule and create a new XEP. Which of course might not always be the best approach. If we as the XSF want to re-assign authors we should discuss and write down explicit rules for that process in XEP-0001. Side note: We also have *a lot* of XEPs which are inactive for way more than 6 month where there is no activity whatsoever. No questions, no discussions, no implementations. Are we just going to defer them? Or is the 6 month of inactivity timer only invoked after the first feedback? cheers Daniel ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Firstly, section 6 of XEP-0001 clearly states that the Author's job is > to gather and incorporate feedback from the community during the > lifetime of the XEP. It also clearly states that the XEP author should > be subscribed to this mailing list. Therefore, I argue that it is > entirely reasonable to make that requirement on an Author. Fair enough, FWIW, I have no idea if the author in question does these things, me saying that I wasn't sure shouldn't lead people to think the author has been neglecting their duties. There are many other reasons not to reply; their position maynot have changed since this was originally brought up, or they may just want to see the discussion unfold more before weighing in and possibly influencing it. > As for Council members not reading the list, I really don't understand > this attitude. This is, by my count, the tenth thread on the Standards > list this month, and many of those are Council Minutes threads. This > is hardly high traffic. It seems remarkable that any Council members > feel it's acceptable to routinely ignore the list to the degree > stated. Email is a pain, and a not everyone will care about all list content enough to read it all beyond skimming the titles. I don't see this as a problem. —Sam ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2017-05-24
On 24 May 2017 at 16:41, Dave Cridland wrote: > Dave asked whether the Council would do something here, and said he > considered the author unresponsive at this point. Sam noted the author > has not yet been "pinged". Tobias said if he had not been "officially > pinged" he could not be considered unresponsive. Dave noted he was > surely on the mailing lists. Sam and Tobias both stated that not > everybody reads every mail. Dave countered that the author should be > seeing "OMEMO" in the subject line and responding. Sam said he wasn't > sure if the author was even on the list, and it was unfair to make > that requirement. Because this has my hackles raised: Firstly, section 6 of XEP-0001 clearly states that the Author's job is to gather and incorporate feedback from the community during the lifetime of the XEP. It also clearly states that the XEP author should be subscribed to this mailing list. Therefore, I argue that it is entirely reasonable to make that requirement on an Author. I appreciate that the move to PRs on Github means that some discussions end up balkanized onto Github, and I can understand a PR, therefore, going unnoticed by an author - we do not require them to watch the repository. Secondly, "Officially pinged" really annoys me. We have no such procedure within the XMPP Standards Foundation. Authors are required to gather and incorporate feedback - it's not for Council, or the Editors, or anyone else to point them to the feedback. I consider any XEP Author unresponsive who fails to respond to discussion on this list - the primary discussion venue of the XSF - concerning the XEPs they are looking after for the XSF and the community it serves. This is a fundamental requirement for being a XEP author, and if any current authors are unwilling to subscribe to this list and read it frequently, particularly threads concerning their own XEPs, they should not be doing the job. As for Council members not reading the list, I really don't understand this attitude. This is, by my count, the tenth thread on the Standards list this month, and many of those are Council Minutes threads. This is hardly high traffic. It seems remarkable that any Council members feel it's acceptable to routinely ignore the list to the degree stated. Dave. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
