On 3/14/19 11:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:14, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@mozilla.com > <mailto:stpe...@mozilla.com>> wrote: > > On 3/14/19 5:05 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 21:46, Ralph Meijer <ral...@ik.nu > <mailto:ral...@ik.nu> > > <mailto:ral...@ik.nu <mailto:ral...@ik.nu>>> wrote: > > > > On 13/03/2019 22.16, Kevin Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On 13 Mar 2019, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre > <stpe...@mozilla.com <mailto:stpe...@mozilla.com> > > <mailto:stpe...@mozilla.com <mailto:stpe...@mozilla.com>>> 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. > > Has this ever happened or is it purely hypothetical? > > > It is hypothetical. Hopefully it will remain so. > > > > 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). > > It seems to me that the Board is the appropriate escalation path, > although raising an issue among the membership would also work. > > Personally I don't see the need for every possible eventuality to be > captured in process documents... > > > No, me neither, but I go back and forth over whether we should have some > kind of appeals process for where people think Council actions are > "Wrong" - it'd be painful to have to figure one out on the fly, anyway.
IMHO the Board should be the body to which appeals are directed, and I will write that up for discussion among the membership. Naturally, if the members don't like how the Board has handled something, they have other remedies. Peter _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
