On 7/9/11 5:18 AM, Carlo v. Loesch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 11:21:22AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It was published without Jeremie's approval as a co-author, too. :P
As far as I could tell, the Extensions Editor has been
Your complaint is not about the role of the XMPP Extensions Editor, but
with me personally.
I also serve in these roles:
- Executive Director
- list admin of this list
- hostmaster of xmpp.org
- etc.
You could just as well say you want clarification about the role of the
XSF's Executive Director.
Further, your concern is about a particular specification (XEP-0220),
not about all specifications. So you have a complaint about me as a XEP
author, not as XMPP Extensions Editor.
Now that we've cleared up that little question of scope...
1. editing XEPs and adding himself to the list of authors accordingly,
at times without asking permission by the original authors.
May not be the case with the XEP currently in question.
That does not apply to XEP-0220. To which XEPs does it apply?
2. publishing substantial (not necessarily in size but in semantics)
changes to XEPs without consulting the original authors or seeking
permission from them.
When you say "original authors" are you referring to XEP-0220 or to some
other specification(s)?
3. publishing changes that make the XEP dysfunctional and, since there is
no independent Extensions Editor but himself, advanced these changes
for examination by the XSF Council.
XEP-0220 underwent a Last Call. Feedback was received. I was incredibly
busy with finishing the XMPP RFC revision process, and did not process
that feedback until many months had passed. I tried my best to
incorporate the feedback, but perhaps I did not succeed.
4. ignoring requests by the original author to make changes (fix errors)
to the XEP.
Some "requests" by one of the (not original) authors I did not process
because I disagreed with them. Other requests were not incorporated
because of oversights on my part.
I may be wrong, this is just the impression I got from the distance
since I don't have all that much time to devote to XMPP.
I also am not sure if there is anything wrong with these 4 behaviors,
so let us look up the XSF documentation on the Editor's job:
Neither in http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html nor in
http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-people/#extensions do I see a
description of the job of the Extensions Editor sufficiently specific
to make it clear if the behaviors described above are either legitimate
or inappropriate according to XSF regulations.
One passage of "Appendix C: Legal Notices" might at best be applicable,
but I don't know exactly how:
"Unless separate permission is granted, modified works that are redistributed
shall not contain misleading information regarding the authors, title, number, or
publisher of the Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by
the authors, any organization or project to which the authors belong, or the XMPP
Standards Foundation."
So I would kindly like to ask if the 4 behaviors described above are
expected legitimate behavior of the XSF Extensions Editor according
to the regulations of the XSF.
If this is the case, I would recommend Philipp to apologize to Peter
for the snarkiness.
See above. This is not a matter of the role of the XMPP Extensions
Editor, but a matter of me personally. I found Philipp's comments to be
unnecessarily snarky. That is a matter of common courtesy, not a matter
of XSF rules and regulations.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
