XMPP Council - 2017-03-22


  1. Lance has left
  2. daniel has left
  3. Lance has joined
  4. ralphm has left
  5. Tobias has left
  6. SamWhited has left
  7. ralphm has left
  8. Lance has left
  9. jayaura has left
  10. Tobias has left
  11. jere has left
  12. jayaura has joined
  13. Tobias has left
  14. ralphm has left
  15. ralphm has left
  16. ralphm has left
  17. jayaura has left
  18. jayaura has joined
  19. Tobias has left
  20. ralphm has left
  21. ralphm has left
  22. ralphm has left
  23. ralphm has left
  24. SouL has left
  25. Zash has joined
  26. ralphm has joined
  27. Tobias has joined
  28. Tobias has left
  29. daniel has left
  30. daniel has joined
  31. Zash has left
  32. Flow has joined
  33. jcbrand has joined
  34. jere has joined
  35. jcbrand has left
  36. Tobias has left
  37. moparisthebest has joined
  38. ralphm has left
  39. moparisthebest has joined
  40. Flow has joined
  41. Kev has left
  42. jere has joined
  43. jere has joined
  44. Flow has joined
  45. ralphm has left
  46. jere has left
  47. Tobias SamWhited, I certainly don't see the council as the driving force of XMPP's IoT strategy..but we should certainly try to help our IoT SIG with the XMPP related parts where we can. don't we?
  48. SamWhited Tobias: Sure, I just wanted to make sure someone was actually going to show up if we were going to call a meeting
  49. Tobias I certainly would show up if i'm awake at that time and there are no other conflicts :)
  50. ralphm has left
  51. Tobias SamWhited, does https://trello.com/c/7Ayqtk9T/177-xep-0334-message-processing-hints mean the author wants us to vote on its advancement?
  52. Tobias or vote on issueing an LC for it
  53. Tobias ?
  54. SamWhited It's currently in LC, I don't think it's going to get more feedback so we should vote on advancement (disclaimer: I'm probably going to -1 it)
  55. Tobias ok..
  56. SamWhited It wasn't really clear to me what to do when the LC was over and feedback had been addressed; I think pointing to a specific version and saying "this one, vote" is correct?
  57. Tobias yeah...
  58. Tobias the council votes on advancing a specific version
  59. Kev Yes, changes can't be made after Council vote and before going to Draft.
  60. jonasw has joined
  61. Tobias wop.
  62. Tobias it's about time
  63. Tobias 1) roll call
  64. Link Mauve Hi. o/
  65. daniel here
  66. SamWhited here
  67. Tobias Dave Cridland, ping
  68. Dave Cridland Sorry, here, distracted for obvious reasons.
  69. Tobias 2) Minute taker
  70. Tobias any volunteers?
  71. Tobias I can write them up again I suppose
  72. jonasw can do it, but I haven’t done it before for council meetings.
  73. jonasw and I’m not sure if I am allowed to do it.
  74. SamWhited jonasw: Yey, thanks!
  75. Tobias jonasw, oh sure...thanks
  76. Dave Cridland jonasw, Not only allowed but encouraged.
  77. jonasw great then!
  78. Tobias 3) https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-February/032328.html
  79. Tobias Link Mauve, any news on this one?
  80. Link Mauve None, I just came back from skiing two days ago and didn’t have any time to act on it.
  81. Tobias ah..ok..so i guess not much to discuss on that point then
  82. Link Mauve Yes, sorry. :/
  83. Tobias 4) IEEE IoT
  84. Tobias I got around replying to Sam's mail and wrote to Rikard so we can setup a XMPP IoT SIG meeting where council members can join and we can together discuss a good IoT strategy for XMPP, on a rather high level
  85. Dave Cridland Sounds good.
  86. Tobias 5) Ge0rG did changes after the last vote started, do we want/need to revote? are these changes major enough? https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436
  87. Tobias https://trello.com/c/wF37u9DJ/169-vote-on-approve-xep-0045-changes-proposed-by-georg is the voting trello card on this
  88. Tobias where nearly everbody voted on, except for Dave Cridland
  89. Dave Cridland I also did.
  90. Tobias great, then it's just not mirrored in the trello
  91. Tobias so i guess no further voting is required on that point, right?
  92. Dave Cridland I voted for (or at least not against).
  93. Tobias good
  94. Dave Cridland I'd note the discussion in the xsf@ room a few days back on adding normative language to existing specs, though.
  95. Tobias 6) Vote on advancing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0334.html Version 0.2 to Draft
  96. Tobias will vote on list
  97. jonasw Dave Cridland: mind to give a one-line summary I can quo…te in the minutes?
  98. Dave Cridland jonasw, I think you were there, but it's simply that we need to avoid adding normative requirements to existing specifications, and instead negotiate new features (and encourage their use via compliance specs).
  99. jonasw I was there, and I will link the logs. Just wanted to make sure.
  100. Dave Cridland I think I'm +1 on '334. Though I'm curious as to why Sam's thinking of -1'ing it.
  101. SamWhited I've come to the conclusion that these things should be defined in the XEPs that would use them, eg. <no-copy/> should be defined in carbons. Theoretically they're reusable between similar XEPs, but in practice I think it just means we'll end up with <private/> in carbons and <no-copy/> in hints, and no one is quite sure what the difference is or what to do about it.
  102. SamWhited Also, I'm not sure how we'd update this in the future if new requirements need new hints; deprecate the draft XEP and start over?
  103. jere has joined
  104. Link Mauve SamWhited, no-copy isn’t only meant for carbons, and carbons defines both private (for legacy reasons) and no-copy now.
  105. SamWhited Hints most likely need normative language to explain when they should and should not be used and what they mean, so I'm not sure a registry is appropriate (and one doesn't exist anyways)
  106. Link Mauve We voted for that a few weeks ago IIRC.
  107. Link Mauve (In version 0.11.0 fyi.)
  108. SamWhited Link Mauve: Right, and a few weeks ago I was for only having thigns in carbons and not in a separate document.
  109. Link Mauve So, two months ago we vote for making carbons depend on 0334 while keeping its legacy element, and now you are against advancing 0334 because carbons should be the only one using it?
  110. Dave Cridland SamWhited, I thought the idea with hints is that they could not be relied upon; they were advisory only.
  111. SamWhited Dave Cridland: Yah, but we still probably need language defining where and how they're used, and can't anticipate the need for future hints
  112. SamWhited Eg. "This hint MUST only be included on messages addressed to full JIDs and…" from the XEP.
  113. Tobias True...So this thing would never become Final in a sense
  114. Link Mauve SamWhited, wouldn’t that be worth a new XEP in this case?
  115. SamWhited Link Mauve: I don't recall; if I was for that at the time, I have since changed my mind.
  116. Link Mauve I had been wondering whether to add 0380 to 0334 or not when I first designed it, but opted against for that very reason.
  117. SamWhited Link Mauve: So we end up with "hints part 1: final", "hints part 2: experimental", and add more later?
  118. SamWhited then after hints part 2 becomes final we start on hints part 3 if new use cases arise?
  119. Link Mauve New hints will (pretty much always) require discovery, and you don’t want to bump the namespace of previous hints that require no changes, so imo a multi-part set of XEPs (not named that way ofc) would make sense.
  120. SamWhited I think it's the only way to do it *if* we have a hints XEP. If the hints just live where they'd be used (eg. MAM, Carbons), then it doesn't matter as much and you'd track them just like every other XEP that has elements that vaguely act as hints.
  121. Tobias can we take the rest of those discussion to the list?
  122. SamWhited Good plan; I'll vote on list before next meeting. In the mean time, feel free to convince me to not -1 :)
  123. Tobias so I suppose the rest will vote on list
  124. Tobias 7) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: ISR-SASL2 https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/isr-sasl2.html as experimental
  125. Tobias I'll vote on list
  126. daniel me too
  127. Link Mauve Will also vote on list.
  128. Dave Cridland Needs Section 6 removing, which Flow has agreed to do (I think).
  129. Dave Cridland I also note the namespaced attributes.
  130. Dave Cridland So I'm -1 for *now*, but I think we'll resolve those quickly.
  131. SamWhited I would like to see Flow's rework based on the discussion that happened on list before voting. In its current form, I am not comfortable advocating for even experimental implementations, so -1
  132. SamWhited (long winded way of saying "What Dave said")
  133. Tobias 4) Date of next
  134. jonasw question: what’s the time limit for votes on ProtoXEPs?
  135. Tobias suggestions? I think there'll be a DST change in between for EU people
  136. Tobias jonasw, 2 weeks
  137. jonasw I think ecaps2 is still pending a vote and has reached its 2 weeks time limit
  138. Link Mauve Tobias, haven’t we always been in UTC?
  139. SamWhited adds a trello due date… he just discovered (and really likes) Trello due dates.
  140. Link Mauve It was 16Z all along.
  141. daniel 1600Z works for me. and if there is a timezone thing i'll just figure it out when the time comes
  142. Tobias right...then lthat would be 2017-03-29 16:00:00 Z
  143. Tobias *that
  144. Link Mauve WFM.
  145. Tobias er...that 4) should have been 8)
  146. Tobias 9) AOB
  147. jonasw ecaps2?
  148. SamWhited Reminder of pending Votes; there's at least one missing from the clarify CSI/Carbons thing I think
  149. SamWhited Also ecaps2, which expires today
  150. SamWhited The due date is "before I get around to publishing it this after noon"
  151. Link Mauve SamWhited, CSI/Carbons was already vetoed, so no need to wait for the last one imo.
  152. SamWhited oh, right… nevermind.
  153. SamWhited Maybe Tobias really wants to convince us to change ourmind, or just express his support for it? :)
  154. Tobias also dave's vote on georg's change seems to be missing in trello
  155. Tobias SamWhited, huh?
  156. Tobias have I missed something?
  157. SamWhited Tobias: You're the missing vote on CSI/Carbons, but as Link Mauve said, everyone else -1'ed, so it doesn't really matter
  158. Tobias will vote +0 on that, but it doesn't matter as you ssay
  159. Tobias *say
  160. Tobias bangs the gavel
  161. Tobias thanks everybody
  162. SamWhited Thanks!
  163. Tobias jonasw, thanks for writing up the minutes
  164. Tobias send them to counci@ and standards@ please
  165. Link Mauve Thank you. :)
  166. jonasw does anyone want to proof-read?
  167. Tobias jonasw, sure
  168. jonasw https://sotecware.net/files/noindex/xsf-council-notes
  169. Tobias looks good to me
  170. jonasw sent
  171. Tobias ta
  172. daniel has left
  173. SamWhited has joined
  174. Holger has left
  175. Zash has joined
  176. Tobias has joined
  177. SamWhited has left
  178. moparisthebest has left
  179. daniel has left
  180. daniel has joined
  181. ralphm has left
  182. Flow has left
  183. moparisthebest has left
  184. moparisthebest has left
  185. jonasw has left
  186. Lance has joined
  187. Zash has left
  188. Lance has left
  189. Lance has joined
  190. jonas has joined
  191. jonas has left
  192. Tobias has left
  193. Tobias has left
  194. moparisthebest has left
  195. SamWhited has left
  196. daniel has left
  197. daniel has joined
  198. daniel has left
  199. daniel has joined
  200. moparisthebest has left
  201. moparisthebest has left
  202. ralphm has left
  203. jere has joined
  204. SamWhited has left
  205. moparisthebest has joined
  206. moparisthebest has left
  207. moparisthebest has joined
  208. SouL has joined