On Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:18:57 CET Dave Cridland wrote: > Let's just issue another LC, then. While I agree it'd be lovely to get the > XEP done this year, it's not the end of the world and I don't see that > arguing about it will solve anything (especially if XEP-0001 has this in > the process).
FWIW, I am in the process of re-issuing the LC right now. The push is through, I just wait for the build and then we’ll get the emails. First, because the text in XEP-0001 is pretty clear on this (and if you don’t agree, we have to change XEP-0001), and second, because Kevins argument in response to my questioning of the XEP-0001 rule has convinced me personally. (Third, if we draw this argument even longer, it will only make is less likely that the XEP can pass this year.) The LC will end on 2017-12-21. This is unfortunate, and I think we might want to modify XEP-0001 to allow for 12 day periods in the case of a re-issuance, because this neatly aligns with council meetings, with a day buffer for editors to do their work. 14 day periods will almost always cost a week of voting time for Council. If the council makes up their mind during the LC and can vote immediately on a possibly very short meeting on the 27th, we could still push this through this year. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
