Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Philipp Hancke
Am 09.06.2017 um 16:58 schrieb Sam Whited: On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: I'm considering advising Board that we should address this by instituting a policy whereby changes to XEPs result in all listed authors being notified (a PR will do, I imagine),

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 6/9/17 8:58 AM, Sam Whited wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> I'm considering advising Board that we should address this by >> instituting a policy whereby changes to XEPs result in all listed >> authors being notified (a PR will do, I imagine),

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Sam Whited
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > I'm considering advising Board that we should address this by > instituting a policy whereby changes to XEPs result in all listed > authors being notified (a PR will do, I imagine), and those who do not > respond within a

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 6/9/17 8:13 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 9 June 2017 at 14:35, Kevin Smith wrote: >> I like the contributors idea. It avoids the “Someone submitting a one-off >> significant patch, so should be added do Authors even though they’ll never >> do anything again” issue

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Dave Cridland
On 9 June 2017 at 14:35, Kevin Smith wrote: > I like the contributors idea. It avoids the “Someone submitting a one-off > significant patch, so should be added do Authors even though they’ll never do > anything again” issue that we sometimes see. I also like

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Kevin Smith
On 9 Jun 2017, at 14:08, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > On 6/9/17 5:37 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >>> However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. We have lots >>> of documents for which one of the "Authors" hasn't made any input for >>> several revisions. >> >>

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 6/9/17 5:37 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. We have lots >> of documents for which one of the "Authors" hasn't made any input for >> several revisions. > > See the Jingle XEPs for example. I doubt the Google folks listed as > authors have

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Philipp Hancke
However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. We have lots of documents for which one of the "Authors" hasn't made any input for several revisions. See the Jingle XEPs for example. I doubt the Google folks listed as authors have looked at this spec in a _decade_ (and at least one

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Guus der Kinderen
I'm not dead set against defining "previous authors". The only disadvantage that I see is introducing more complexity to the editorial process. If that is needed to resolve issues, legal or otherwise, we should accept that. On 9 June 2017 at 12:41, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 9

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Kevin Smith
On 9 Jun 2017, at 11:41, Dave Cridland wrote: > However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. > I see, on the other hand, no advantage to *not* having a Previous > Authors section This seems like a sensible change to me, whether driven by Dave’s non-lawyerness or

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Dave Cridland
On 9 June 2017 at 08:49, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > You're making sense to me (which appears to be a habit of yours *hattip*). > > Dave's original question was if he should propose a policy change to the > Board. Although Dave certainly has a keen perspective of

Re: [Standards] XEP Authors

2017-06-09 Thread Guus der Kinderen
You're making sense to me (which appears to be a habit of yours *hattip*). Dave's original question was if he should propose a policy change to the Board. Although Dave certainly has a keen perspective of things, I think he falls in the "engineer" category, more than in the "legal counsel"