On 7 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Jonas Wielicki <jo...@wielicki.name> wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 17:03:16 CET Kevin Smith wrote: >>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:39, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote: >>>> The motivation in xep1 is that the outgoing Council members might have >>>> not given public feedback, due to being on Council, but that they could >>>> have feedback that should be taken into account. For the sake of two >>>> weeks, I’m not sure it’s worth shortcutting giving that opportunity here. >>> >>> I don't think the two weeks matters necessarily but everyone on the >>> council now was previously a member and could have given feedback. If >>> they didn't then, I don't see why being on the council would make a >>> difference. >> >> It’s the opposite case that xep1 is concerned with. A Council member might >> decide not to give feedback on standards@, knowing that they can give such >> feedback when voting, and such when they’re not on Council their >> not-yet-voiced comments might fail to be heard. > > FWIW, in a first and second iteration of thought, I think we should try to > change the relevant passage of XEP-0001. > > It encourages council members (and to say this to begin with: I doubt that > anyone from current or previous council actually did that, at least not with > malicious intent) to delay their feedback until the voting process, at which > point the community has no way to reasonably address that feedback (be it > negative or positive) with remarks which may have been overlooked and taken > for granted (thus not mentioned) by others. > > This could invoke a feeling of "not being heard" in the community, which I > think could be very detrimental. > > So encouraging that behaviour by means of XEP-0001, I think we should not. > > Looking forward to the third iteration of thought :-) (i.e. what you think).
I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces public feedback. Take this case, for instance. I am newly on Council, so I didn’t review this XEP thoroughly as part of the LC, now I have reviewed it more thorougly and I have feedback, so there are two possible outcomes: 1) The LC is reissued and I send out my Council feedback publicly in response to the LC. There’s a clear path to addressing feedback. 2) The LC isn’t reissued, it goes straight to vote and I just -1 in the Council meeting. There’s the additional risk that if the LC isn’t reissued that new Council members feel pressured to just +1 and not do their jobs reviewing XEPs that came up before the previous Council because of a sense of completing previous Council’s work. I’d have thought avoiding the potential for Council to feel pressured to not do their job is worth keeping this text in xep1 for. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
