On Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 02:14, Kevin Smith wrote: > I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces > public feedback.
Again, what feedback would we get now that we wouldn't have gotten last time? > 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. If you had feedback already, you should have sent it out when it was in LC, not waited assuming their would be another one. > 2) The LC isn’t reissued, it goes straight to vote and I just -1 in the > Council meeting. If you find something bad enough that you think it deserves a -1 that's absolutely fair. I was not calling for an immediate vote, obviously council would have had their usual two weeks to vote on it. > 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. I do not understand where this pressure would come from, as I said before, they have their usual time to consider it and vote. Not to mention a week between meetings in this case, so more or less 3 weeks to review and make a decision. —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
