On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 21:46, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/03/2019 22.16, Kevin Smith wrote: > > > > > >> On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> I can help, but I would not object to adding a more active co-author > >> (preferably an implementor of the spec). > > > > Do you want to request a last call? Under the new rules Council aren’t > allowed to trigger an LC any more unless either the authors request it or > the authors abandon the XEP. > > Kev, > > I think this is a very narrow reading of the new text, and I don't agree > that this says the Approving Body cannot issue (=/= trigger) a Last > Call, via the Editor, if it so sees fit. What the changed text is meant > to ensure is that once a Last Call is issued, there's somebody, either > an author or document shepherd, to process feedback of that Last Call > and during the approval process of the Approving Body. And that there's > a defined way to propose advancement by authors, or others in case it > appears that the authors are no longer interested in such advancement. > > If you think this new wording suggests that the Approving Body (in this > case Council) is no longer in full control of the process, then please > propose changes so this can be rectified.
I think the way that XEP-0001 is currently written suggests that if the Council triggered a Last Call without the author(s) involved, the Author(s) could complain on the grounds that we have not followed XEP-0001 as written. Since we do not have a complaints procedure, what happens then is anyone's guess. (I think they need to complain to the Board, and if that fails to achieve a resolution, to the Members - but that's a suggestion and is in no way supported by any of our process documents). Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
