XMPP Council - 2017-10-25


  1. dwd has left
  2. Zash has left
  3. daniel has left
  4. daniel has joined
  5. Zash has joined
  6. daniel has left
  7. daniel has joined
  8. dwd has joined
  9. dwd has left
  10. ralphm has left
  11. dwd has joined
  12. jayaura has joined
  13. Lance has joined
  14. Lance has left
  15. SouL has joined
  16. Tobias has joined
  17. Tobias has left
  18. SamWhited has left
  19. ralphm has left
  20. dwd has left
  21. dwd has joined
  22. dwd has left
  23. ralphm has left
  24. ralphm has joined
  25. jayaura has joined
  26. ralphm has left
  27. daniel has left
  28. dwd has joined
  29. jcbrand has joined
  30. ralphm has joined
  31. daniel has joined
  32. daniel has left
  33. daniel has joined
  34. jcbrand has left
  35. Kev has left
  36. jcbrand has joined
  37. daniel has left
  38. daniel has joined
  39. Kev has joined
  40. Syndace has left
  41. jcbrand has left
  42. daniel has left
  43. daniel has joined
  44. ralphm has left
  45. Tobias has joined
  46. dwd has left
  47. daniel has left
  48. daniel has joined
  49. dwd has left
  50. dwd has left
  51. dwd has left
  52. dwd has left
  53. dwd has left
  54. ralphm has left
  55. dwd has left
  56. ralphm has left
  57. ralphm has joined
  58. ralphm has left
  59. dwd has left
  60. ralphm has joined
  61. dwd has left
  62. dwd has left
  63. daniel has left
  64. daniel has joined
  65. ralphm has left
  66. ralphm has joined
  67. jcbrand has joined
  68. Tobias has joined
  69. dwd has left
  70. ralphm has joined
  71. Syndace has left
  72. ralphm has left
  73. ralphm has left
  74. Zash has left
  75. Zash has joined
  76. dwd has left
  77. daniel has left
  78. daniel has joined
  79. ralphm has joined
  80. dwd has left
  81. Syndace has left
  82. ralphm has left
  83. ralphm has left
  84. jere has joined
  85. jere has left
  86. jere has joined
  87. daniel has left
  88. jcbrand has left
  89. ralphm has left
  90. daniel has left
  91. ralphm has left
  92. ralphm has left
  93. jonasw has left
  94. jonasw has joined
  95. jere has left
  96. jere has joined
  97. jere has left
  98. jere has joined
  99. ralphm has left
  100. ralphm has joined
  101. Tobias has left
  102. daniel has left
  103. Tobias Hi daniel, dwd, Link Mauve, SamWhited. It's about time
  104. Tobias 1) Roll call
  105. SamWhited Here
  106. daniel Here
  107. jere has left
  108. jere has joined
  109. dwd Whoops. Here.
  110. Tobias 2) Minute taker
  111. Tobias any volunteers?
  112. jcbrand has joined
  113. Tobias jcbrand, maybe you? :)
  114. jcbrand Tobias: I'd be happy to :)
  115. Tobias great
  116. SamWhited Thanks!
  117. Tobias 3) Obsoleting XHTML-IM
  118. Tobias Where are we on this topic?
  119. dwd I think discussing has stalled.
  120. dwd I think discussion has stalled.
  121. Tobias last message 6 days ago, yes
  122. Tobias pretty much cross read everything
  123. SamWhited It seems like most people on list (with a few exceptions of course) were interested in a replacement, and that a large group (unsure if majority) were interested in deprecating before a replacement is ready given the history of security issues with this spec.
  124. dwd SamWhited, I largely agree; however it doesn't feel like we have consensus across the standards participants, and I'm not sure how we could get it.
  125. SamWhited I don't think we can or ever will reach a consensus and it's up to the council to make a decision taking the community feeling into account.
  126. SamWhited Anything this big is impossible to get consensus on, that's why we have a council.
  127. Tobias yeah...there are definitly reasonable opinions on wanting to keep it
  128. SamWhited It did seem to me that most were in favor of a replacement though, and that "go ahead and deprecate" or "push forward on a replacement and wait then deprecate" is the place where there was more contention
  129. SamWhited Or is that just me?
  130. dwd SamWhited, I don't think that's a bad reading. Just that the minority against deprecation were both vocal and reasonable.
  131. Tobias that's also the impression i got
  132. Tobias indeed
  133. SamWhited Cool; obviously I'm biased so I wanted to make sure I didn't misread the temperature of that thread
  134. Kev I think the conversation stalled because some people are watiing to see the alternative.
  135. dwd SamWhited, Don't get me wrong, I'd like to kill XHTML-IM with fire. All the opinion I've got from dedicated web developers is that handling user-entered XHTML is playing with fire.
  136. Kev I thought we were going to see the new spec that wasn't likely to be easy to mis-implement.
  137. SamWhited I think we should push forward with an alternative and would like to volunteer to write a proposal and start a SIG to investigate how it could be done better.
  138. dwd Kev, I've half a snippets XEP, which might address some of the needs for XHTML.
  139. SamWhited A proposal for a SIG, I mean.
  140. dwd SamWhited, I don't really want to spin off a whole SIG if we can avoid it.
  141. Zash has left
  142. SamWhited That also sounds fair, I thought that might be a good way forward but could go either way
  143. SamWhited I volunteer to email the list asking for interest and requirements gathering then :)
  144. daniel Fwiw I still have that im markdown xep on my todo list
  145. daniel I've been traveling for the last couple of weeks though and didn't get around to
  146. Tobias SamWhited, sounds great initating a mail asking for interest/requirements
  147. SamWhited My plan was to ask for formatting use cases, distill requirements and scope from that, and then see if any of the existing proposals fit or call for a new one.
  148. Tobias right, maybe markdown fills those requirements or not, we'll see
  149. SamWhited Sounds good, I'll prepare that email sometime over the next few days.
  150. Tobias SamWhited, so do we want to vote on obsoleting it now or do you withdraw your request to have it obsoleted. Just want to make sure your initial request isn't overlooked.
  151. Zash has left
  152. SamWhited I would like to request that we obsolete XHTML-IM now. As always, this will not result in everyone not supporting it overnight, it just means we don't recommend new implementations. Given its history, I think it would be irresponsible to continue to recommend it.
  153. Tobias arlight..then let's vote on it
  154. Tobias 4) Vote on Obsoleting XEP-0071: XHTML-IM
  155. SamWhited +1
  156. daniel +1
  157. dwd I think a greater match for the community would be to have a replacement for the IM case, so I'll vote -1 (noting that this is presumably a simple majority vote and therefore this is not a veto).
  158. Link Mauve Woops, sorry I didn’t see the time.
  159. Link Mauve I’m here now, let me backlog.
  160. Tobias i'm also -1 until there is an alternative experimental XEP for the IM case. XHTML-IM is currently the only way to exchange formatted messages between XMPP clients
  161. SamWhited I'd like to note that I think always requiring a replacement before we can stop recommending something is one of the faults with our process. It's always the same, and is why we have duplicate specs, old things no one implements that are just confusing, and specs with security issues still around.
  162. SamWhited Also that not recommending it does not mean no one can implement it if they just desperately want compatibility with something else that already has it.
  163. dwd SamWhited, I don't think it *is* part of our process. I just think it matches my sense of the standards list participant's preference better.
  164. SamWhited Yah, "process" might be the wrong word, "culture" maybe.
  165. Link Mauve I’m -1 on obsoleting, as the XEP fills a very much needed feature and there is no alternative currently.
  166. Tobias SamWhited, what do you recommend people wanting formatted messages in their XMPP client and also want to interop with other clients out there right now?
  167. SamWhited And there probably won't be as long as people can use "but we already have a thing" as an excuse. Obsoleting also provides pressure to come up with a replacement.
  168. SamWhited I recommend they don't, but if they really need to then nothing stops them from implementing XHTML-IM anyways.
  169. Tobias SamWhited, that's true.
  170. SamWhited Or I recommend they join the discussion about a replacement; obsoleting also provides pressure towards coming up with a good replacement.
  171. Link Mauve SamWhited, pressure isn’t anything we need imo.
  172. Link Mauve If someone wants to take part into that SIG (even informal), they would do so without any kind of pressure from us.
  173. SamWhited And I will as I mentioned earlier, but that's not the only place where a bit of pressure is helpful.
  174. dwd Actually, I think SamWhited has convinced me to change my vote.
  175. SamWhited Convincing people to contribute is also useful, taking away "but we already have a spec that's draft" as an argument is also helpful.
  176. dwd On balance, deprecating it will at the very least break the stalemate, so I'll change my vote ot +1 to deprecate.
  177. ralphm has left
  178. dwd Sorry for the confusion.
  179. SamWhited Thanks Dave, I appreciate it. Obviously I feel strongly about it
  180. Tobias XEP-0001 doesn't mention whether disapproving XEPs requires a majority vote or all council members being in agreement. But I'd assume it's majority as it's the same for the approval case
  181. SamWhited > A majority of Council members must vote +1 in order for a XEP to advance.
  182. SamWhited I assume that's advancing to any state, including obsolete
  183. Tobias right
  184. SamWhited But I'm not sure. Board question?
  185. Tobias SamWhited, according to the flow chart it would be an advancement
  186. dwd Tobias, I believe that if Council folk were allowed to veto it would be mentioned.
  187. Tobias So with 3 (+1) votes and 2 (-1) votes, we decide to change the state of XEP-0071: XHTML-IM to Obsolete
  188. Tobias 5) Date of next
  189. Tobias Same time next week
  190. Tobias ?
  191. SamWhited WFM
  192. Tobias I can't do that but happily read the mails
  193. dwd Tobias, Erm, Deprecated, surely, not Obsolete?
  194. Tobias so someone else would need to run it
  195. Tobias dwd, didn't we have the discussion once, whether to vote twice to Deprecate and then again to Obsolete it or to vote on directly Obsoleting it
  196. Tobias or am I misremembering things?
  197. daniel Wfm
  198. SamWhited I probably screwed up the terminology, I always mix them up. I could see it being either deprecated or obsolete.
  199. Link Mauve Tobias, we did, but dwd said deprecating in this discussion, not obsoleting.
  200. Link Mauve But we are totally ok with advancing twice in a same vote.
  201. Link Mauve I’m still -1 even to deprecating, it’s very much not a sensible direction imo.
  202. SamWhited Shall we just say deprecated since it should technically happen first and then we can discuss if obsoleting makes more sense next time?
  203. Tobias alright..then let's make it Deprecated
  204. Tobias i honestly don't care much as I can't see the difference between the two states
  205. Tobias 6) AOB
  206. SamWhited yah, I doubt anyone makes much of a distinction
  207. daniel I think the people who voted +1 are happy with obsolete as well
  208. daniel And it wouldn't change the minds of the -1
  209. Tobias daniel, yeah...as there's no difference between the two states
  210. Link Mauve Ah right, an AOB, about the pending votes.
  211. Link Mauve Just a reminder.
  212. SamWhited I could go either way also, so we could just say that dwd gets to decide since he's the only unvoiced opinion?
  213. Tobias right, people please vote. Sam and I did today. Someone should takes those votes into trello and move things to editor column if all votes are in
  214. Tobias dwd, do you care much whether it's Deprecated or Obsolete?
  215. dwd I think I'd be more comfortable with Deprecated ("new implementations are no longer encouraged") as compared with Obsolete ("should no longer be [...] deployed").
  216. ralphm has joined
  217. Tobias Alright
  218. Tobias So with 3 (+1) votes and 2 (-1) votes, we decide to change the state of XEP-0071: XHTML-IM to Deprecated
  219. daniel has left
  220. Tobias no other AOB? great
  221. SamWhited Sorry for the terminology confusion
  222. Tobias bangs the gavel
  223. Tobias thanks everybody
  224. Tobias jcbrand, thanks for writing the minutes
  225. SamWhited Thanks all; sorry for the big contentious topic, I knew that would divisive when I first sent a mail to the list about it.
  226. Kev FWIW, Final XEPs have to have a replacement before they can be Deprecated. I don't believe that's true of Draft.
  227. jcbrand You're welcome
  228. Kev And any -1 prevents a XEP from advancing.
  229. Kev No?
  230. SamWhited Kev: no, 0001 says that advancement requires a simple majority
  231. Tobias > A majority of Council members must vote +1 in order for a XEP to advance.
  232. Kev I think you're wrong.
  233. Kev Let me check.
  234. Kev Yes, the sentence before the one you quote "A XEP shall not be advanced to the next stage in the approval process so long as any Council Member continues to vote -1"
  235. Link Mauve SamWhited, it also says it requires “rough consensus” on standards@, which it is far from imo.
  236. Kev It requires a majority to be +1, with no -1s.
  237. dwd Kev, I don't think Final has to be replaced to be Deprecated. It just says that if it is replaced, it'll become Deprecated.
  238. Kev dwd: I guess you could reasonably read it that way, yes.
  239. Tobias Kev, true
  240. SamWhited I am now even more confused about the process. In that case, what are the reasons for -1s? Just that there is no other formatting XEP? What would make those concerns "addressed"? Discussion started? A SIG started? An experimental XEP submitted? Or does something have to get all the way to Final?
  241. SamWhited s/Final/Draft/
  242. Tobias SamWhited, no.for me it would be enough to have an alternative experimental XEP
  243. Tobias then we can say to people do that instead
  244. Link Mauve Yes, same for me.
  245. Link Mauve Something which could provide roughly as much interoperability as what we have currently.
  246. SamWhited So saying "don't do formatting in new implementations until something new is on the table" is not an acceptable recommendation for either of you?
  247. Link Mauve (So not BMH, for which it’s explicitly a non-goal.)
  248. ralphm has joined
  249. Tobias i'll reply to the minutes that it's not actually deprecated
  250. Link Mauve SamWhited, implementations do want formatting, and saying there is no way to do any kind of formatting atm is misleading at best, and harmful in general.
  251. SamWhited I disagree
  252. Link Mauve I know. :)
  253. SamWhited But anyways, I'll start gathering use cases like I said in the beginning and we can keep this on the table. Although it sounds like it will be for the next council to finish again
  254. SamWhited Given that we're so close to the end of term
  255. Link Mauve Thanks SamWhited.
  256. Tobias jcbrand, will you cc standards too?
  257. Tobias jcbrand, ta
  258. jere has left
  259. jere has joined
  260. jcbrand Tobias: I always do, however I need to send from different mail accounts since I'm subscribed with different accounts. Who could I ask to change the email address with which I'm subscribed to council@xmpp.org?
  261. Tobias Phew. Mailman admin?
  262. Tobias don't know who that is though
  263. dwd has left
  264. dwd has left
  265. Zash has left
  266. dwd has left
  267. dwd has left
  268. dwd has left
  269. dwd has left
  270. Link Mauve I just reported my votes and Tobias’s on the trello.
  271. Tobias ta
  272. Zash has left
  273. Zash has joined
  274. Zash has left
  275. Zash has left
  276. Zash has left
  277. Zash has left
  278. Zash has left
  279. Zash has left
  280. Zash has left
  281. Zash has left
  282. Zash has left
  283. Zash has left
  284. Zash has left
  285. Zash has left
  286. Zash has left
  287. Zash has left
  288. Zash has left
  289. Zash has left
  290. Zash has left
  291. Zash has left
  292. Zash has left
  293. Zash has left
  294. Zash has left
  295. daniel has left
  296. Zash has left
  297. Zash has joined
  298. Tobias has joined
  299. ralphm has left
  300. Kev has left
  301. dwd has left
  302. dwd has left
  303. dwd has left
  304. jcbrand has left
  305. ralphm has joined
  306. dwd has left
  307. dwd has left
  308. dwd has left
  309. jere has left
  310. jere has joined
  311. vanitasvitae has left
  312. ralphm has left
  313. ralphm has joined
  314. Zash has left
  315. ralphm has left
  316. ralphm has joined
  317. Zash has left
  318. SouL has left
  319. ralphm has left
  320. Zash has left
  321. Zash has left
  322. Zash has left
  323. Zash has left
  324. Zash has left
  325. Zash has left
  326. Zash has left
  327. Zash has joined
  328. dwd has left
  329. dwd has left
  330. dwd has left
  331. dwd has left
  332. dwd has left
  333. ralphm has joined
  334. dwd has left
  335. dwd has left
  336. dwd has left
  337. ralphm has left
  338. dwd has left
  339. vanitasvitae has left
  340. Tobias has left
  341. Tobias has joined
  342. daniel has left
  343. jere has left
  344. jere has joined
  345. dwd has left
  346. dwd has left
  347. ralphm has joined
  348. dwd has left
  349. dwd has left
  350. dwd has left
  351. jonasw has left
  352. dwd has left
  353. dwd has left
  354. dwd has left
  355. dwd has left
  356. dwd has left
  357. Zash has left
  358. SamWhited has left
  359. dwd has left
  360. dwd has left
  361. jere has left
  362. jere has joined
  363. dwd has left
  364. dwd has left
  365. dwd has left
  366. dwd has left
  367. jere has left
  368. jere has joined
  369. jere has left
  370. jere has joined
  371. dwd has left