XMPP Council - 2017-11-08


  1. Tobias has joined
  2. vanitasvitae has left
  3. daniel has left
  4. Tobias has joined
  5. Tobias has joined
  6. Tobias has left
  7. daniel has left
  8. daniel has left
  9. Tobias has joined
  10. daniel has left
  11. daniel has joined
  12. daniel has left
  13. daniel has joined
  14. daniel has left
  15. daniel has joined
  16. jere has left
  17. daniel has left
  18. daniel has joined
  19. daniel has left
  20. jere has joined
  21. daniel has joined
  22. jere has left
  23. daniel has left
  24. daniel has joined
  25. SamWhited has left
  26. daniel has left
  27. daniel has joined
  28. daniel has left
  29. daniel has joined
  30. daniel has left
  31. daniel has joined
  32. daniel has left
  33. daniel has joined
  34. daniel has left
  35. daniel has joined
  36. daniel has left
  37. daniel has joined
  38. genofire has joined
  39. ralphm has left
  40. daniel has left
  41. daniel has joined
  42. ralphm has left
  43. SamWhited has left
  44. daniel has left
  45. daniel has joined
  46. daniel has left
  47. daniel has joined
  48. daniel has left
  49. daniel has joined
  50. ralphm has left
  51. daniel has left
  52. daniel has joined
  53. jcbrand has joined
  54. daniel has left
  55. daniel has joined
  56. ralphm has joined
  57. Tobias has joined
  58. daniel has left
  59. daniel has joined
  60. Tobias has joined
  61. daniel has left
  62. daniel has joined
  63. ralphm has left
  64. jcbrand has left
  65. ralphm has left
  66. Kev has joined
  67. jcbrand has joined
  68. ralphm has left
  69. Zash has left
  70. Zash has left
  71. Zash has left
  72. Zash has left
  73. Zash has left
  74. Zash has left
  75. Zash has left
  76. daniel has left
  77. ralphm has left
  78. Syndace has left
  79. daniel has left
  80. Zash has left
  81. Ge0rG has joined
  82. daniel has left
  83. daniel has left
  84. daniel has left
  85. ralphm has left
  86. ralphm has joined
  87. jonasw I’d like to add "Revisit BMH in the context of Styling" on the Councils agenda for today, but I don’t want to abuse my editor powers to do so, so I’ll just drop this here.
  88. daniel when (and by whom) was this vetod upon? I can't find the minutes for that
  89. jonasw Link Mauve
  90. jonasw 2017-10-18
  91. jonasw and SamWhited
  92. jonasw but I don’t see rationales
  93. Zash Does that mean it was actually accepted?
  94. Ge0rG No, -1 is a veto
  95. Zash I'm trying to figure out if a rationale is required :)
  96. Ge0rG I'd be surprised if not.
  97. Kev It is required that anyone vetoing provides a rationale, but a rationale isn't required to veto :)
  98. Kev I believe.
  99. jonasw I am confused, Kev.
  100. Zash I can barely parse that sentence. I blame the coffee.
  101. Ge0rG Me neither. And I've got enough coffee to rule out that source of confusion.
  102. Zash The word "veto" isn't in XEP 1
  103. Zash "object" it says
  104. Ge0rG "confusion" can also result if you remove a substring of "coffeine infusion"
  105. jcbrand Ge0rG: unfortunately in English it's caffeine
  106. Ge0rG "confusion" can also result if you remove a substring of "coffee/? infusion"
  107. Zash > If objections are raised by the Approving Body on the Standards list or in its meeting, the XEP author is encouraged to address the feedback of the Council and to submit a revised version of the proposal and/or confer with the XMPP Extensions Editor or objecting Approving Body member(s) regarding how to proceed.
  108. Ge0rG s/coffeine/coffee
  109. jcbrand :)
  110. Ge0rG Sigh.
  111. Zash caffeine?
  112. jcbrand yes please
  113. Ge0rG LMC with regex fail
  114. jcbrand Coffee contains caffeine. Kaffee beinhalted Koffein (funny mirroring there)
  115. jonasw indeed
  116. jonasw Kev, can you clarify your statement?
  117. genofire has left
  118. Kev Anyone vetoing a protoXEP needs to provide a rationale, but that doesn't mean that failing to do so magically accepts the XEP.
  119. jonasw Kev, that makes more sense, thanks.
  120. Ge0rG So SamWhited is currently in violation of XEP-0001...
  121. jonasw (so is Link Mauve, I think, at least on the list record I can’t easily find a rationale)
  122. jere has joined
  123. Kev has left
  124. Kev has joined
  125. Ge0rG Damn, so I've violated 0001 as well.
  126. Ge0rG jonasw: <Link Mauve> I’ve already read it yesterday evening, and I’m very much -1 on it due to the concept of waiving any format support, forcing implementations to support multiple formats and making it impossible for a message to carry more than one (think MUC for example).
  127. jonasw Ge0rG, that’s not on-list unfortunately, but good to have
  128. Ge0rG jonasw: it's in the logs.
  129. daniel has left
  130. jere has left
  131. jere has joined
  132. daniel has left
  133. daniel has joined
  134. Kev has left
  135. Kev has joined
  136. Kev has left
  137. jere has left
  138. jere has joined
  139. Kev has joined
  140. genofire has joined
  141. ralphm has left
  142. Syndace has left
  143. ralphm has left
  144. Flow has left
  145. Flow has joined
  146. Tokodomo has joined
  147. daniel has left
  148. daniel has left
  149. daniel has left
  150. jere has left
  151. jere has joined
  152. daniel has left
  153. jonasw has left
  154. daniel has left
  155. ralphm has joined
  156. Tobias has left
  157. ralphm has left
  158. ralphm has left
  159. Ge0rG has left
  160. Ge0rG has joined
  161. Ge0rG has left
  162. Ge0rG has joined
  163. Ge0rG has left
  164. Ge0rG has joined
  165. Syndace has joined
  166. genofire has joined
  167. georg has joined
  168. georg has left
  169. Ge0rG has left
  170. Ge0rG has left
  171. daniel has left
  172. Link Mauve Hi, it’s time.
  173. daniel I'm here
  174. Link Mauve Ping Tobias, SamWhited, dwd.
  175. Tobias pong
  176. Tobias Link Mauve, you want to run the meeting?
  177. Link Mauve I can do that yeah. :)
  178. SamWhited oops, I am still confused and thought it was in an hour. I also am here though.
  179. dwd Pang?
  180. Tobias go ahead :)
  181. Link Mauve So 1) roll call.
  182. Link Mauve Everyone’s here.
  183. Tobias here
  184. Link Mauve 2) any minute taker?
  185. jcbrand I'm available
  186. dwd \o/
  187. Tobias great, thanks
  188. jere has joined
  189. SamWhited Tobias: grooming Link Mauve for command I see!
  190. Tobias SamWhited, :)
  191. Link Mauve 3) Styling it seems.
  192. daniel has left
  193. Link Mauve So, we have two proposals.
  194. Link Mauve Which is great!
  195. Tobias https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/styling.html
  196. dwd And also, which is great?
  197. Link Mauve And https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/markup.html
  198. Tobias trello just mentions one of them
  199. Link Mauve Oh?
  200. Link Mauve jonasw sent the second one yesterday, maybe we forgot to add it.
  201. dwd This is the next meeting for both, so we should properly consider them now.
  202. Link Mauve It has had a proper announce email anyway.
  203. Tobias Link Mauve, but we probably want to vote on each individually, not?
  204. Link Mauve With these proposals, I’m finally happy with deprecating XHTML-IM, it seems jonasw took into account every criticism I’ve seen on the mailing list in all threads that have been talking about it recently.
  205. Link Mauve Tobias, sure, but we will vote on them next week.
  206. Tobias ah..ok
  207. dwd Link Mauve, I don't follow - vote on what next week?
  208. SamWhited Don't we normally vote in the first meeting after a submission (or on list, of course)?
  209. Link Mauve (IIRC we have two weeks to vote on accepting a ProtoXEP, I can start the vote right away if you prefer.)
  210. dwd Link Mauve, Two weeks to vote, starting at the next meeting.
  211. dwd This being the next meeting.
  212. Link Mauve Ok.
  213. Link Mauve So let’s start.
  214. Link Mauve 4) Vote on styling.html
  215. dwd +1.
  216. daniel +1
  217. Link Mauve On list.
  218. SamWhited +1, naturally
  219. Tobias +1
  220. Link Mauve Perfect.
  221. Link Mauve 5) Vote on markup.html
  222. Link Mauve +1
  223. dwd SamWhited, You say naturally but XEP authors have voted against their own XEPs in Council before, you know.
  224. Tobias on list, haven't read that one yet
  225. Ge0rG has left
  226. daniel +1
  227. SamWhited dwd: I'd love to hear the story there
  228. SamWhited On list.
  229. dwd I'm +1 on this too. I don't think I want both, ultimately, and would prefer the other, but I'm not going to die on this hill if I can avoid it.
  230. Link Mauve The other one has seen a lot of criticism, before and after the proposal (it basically ignored most of the arguments against this approach), this one has only the downside of OTR and such not playing well with it; arguably OTR already has its own styling mechanism (it carries HTML).
  231. Tobias yeah. I think we shouldn't let restrict us by ancient OTR
  232. dwd Link Mauve, It is possible to take notice of arguments without agreeing with them, you know.
  233. moparisthebest has joined
  234. SamWhited Alternative take: most of the critisism was addressed and the responses were ignored, but maybe this isn't the time and the place to be throwing statements like that around.
  235. Link Mauve dwd, of course, but it ignored all of the arguments against Markdown not to name it.
  236. Link Mauve Anyway, let’s move on.
  237. Link Mauve 6) 0146 obsoletion.
  238. Link Mauve This has happened since last week, so I just archived the card.
  239. SamWhited Sorry for the delay on that
  240. dwd Link Mauve, No, I'm not comfortable moving on when you're accusing others of *ignoring* arguments raised.
  241. Link Mauve Sorry, 5) again.
  242. dwd Link Mauve, That's a very different accusation then asserting that the author has chosen not to agree with, or address, the arguments in the spec.
  243. SamWhited dwd, Link Mauve: this is the second time something like this has been brought up recently. I certainly don't think I ignored the arguments, just disagree and addressed why I disagreed, but since obviously multiple people feel that I ignored them I can try to address it on the list again if you want.
  244. jonasw dwd, I think if arguments are heard, they should be in a rationale in the XEP, which Styling may or may not have done.
  245. Link Mauve dwd, reading both the XEP, the mailing list, and xsf@, I haven’t seen most arguments addressed.
  246. SamWhited However, it would be more helpful if I had a list of specific things that you feel were ignored and then I'd be happy to address them (either in the XEP or on list)
  247. jonasw (I added a sectino "Design Considerations" to my XEP-0392, which I think is a good way to do that)
  248. Link Mauve I think both XEPs should contain a strong rationale about why they are designed that way.
  249. Link Mauve SamWhited, I can make such a list, I’ll add that to my TODO list.
  250. Link Mauve There were already somewhat-summaries on the mailing list, I’ll use these.
  251. Kev jonasw: I think addressing every on-list discussion in a Rationale section's a jolly bad idea, FWIW.
  252. dwd Link Mauve, FWIW, I do not wish to set any kind of precedence that every argument raised against a XEP has to be documented in the XEP.
  253. Kev Yes, this would be horrendous.
  254. Kev Else I want every XEP to document that the protocol isn't pink enough :)
  255. dwd Link Mauve, And having raised this argument, but those rules you'd have to document it in every XEP.
  256. jonasw sure, but if arguments are brought up multiple times and are well reasoned, I don’t see why not.
  257. jonasw I’m fine if people say my arguments aren’t well reasoned, I’d like to know why though :-)
  258. daniel message styling actually addressed a lot of critisms. for example we agreed on leaving the keywords in. get rid of the disco feature and so on
  259. Link Mauve dwd, indeed, that sounds like a bad idea, but it would be useful to have a short list of alternative approaches and why they weren’t taken.
  260. Link Mauve daniel, oh? Did it change since I last read it? I remember it letting the receiving client do whatever it wanted with the rendering.
  261. SamWhited I made promises to change it, I didn't want to merge until it was accepted
  262. jonasw Link Mauve, the ProtoXEP wasn’t updated, but people agreed to change it
  263. Kev Which is the right thing to do, incidentally.
  264. SamWhited (unless of course one of those changes is blocking acceptance)
  265. Link Mauve Ok.
  266. Kev We shouldn't be mandating rendering :)
  267. Link Mauve Which confirms my “on list” vote for 4). :)
  268. daniel has left
  269. Kev FWIW, I would recommend that if one of these two XEPs are temporarily blocked, both should be :)
  270. Kev Because they seem to be a pair of competing proposals that should be considered together.
  271. Link Mauve Sounds fair, they both are as of now.
  272. jonasw Kev, I personally am not seeing it that way (anymore).
  273. Kev (Although this is counter to my desire to get stuff published ASAP so it's under XSFness, so ... yeah)
  274. Kev jonasw: You might be in the minority :)
  275. jonasw I think both can serve a very useful but distinct purpose each. And I think that we need BMH back.
  276. jonasw but I guess that discussion has to wait until next week if not everyone has caught up on the list yet
  277. jere has joined
  278. jonasw I proposed to add reconsidering BMH to the agenda for today, not sure if that was seen?
  279. daniel so wait just to be clear and that we don't end up dead locking here. Link Mauve you want SamWhited to make those changes before you +1?
  280. Link Mauve I would be totally happy with revisiting my vote on BMH with compelling arguments, fyi.
  281. daniel because if SamWhited waites until this is approved this will dead lock
  282. Kev If already-promised changes are the only thing blocking, I think just taking it on Sam's word that he'll update would be fair. Personally.
  283. Link Mauve daniel, no, I haven’t fully caught up with the mailing list, I’m only based on my first reading of his XEP.
  284. Link Mauve Of course I wouldn’t block anything due to changes not having been pushed yet.
  285. jcbrand Just to be clear concerning the minutes, BMH was a previously proposed protoXEP that wasn't accepted right?
  286. Ge0rG has left
  287. daniel jcbrand, yes
  288. Kev Yes.
  289. jcbrand tx
  290. Link Mauve Yes, Flow’s one, about annotating which markup the body is formatted with.
  291. daniel https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bmh.html
  292. SamWhited Can we hold off on revisiting that one until next week since it just got brought up?
  293. SamWhited I haven't had a chance to think about how that would interact with either of the new proposals
  294. Tobias sounds sensible
  295. dwd (I think, having been rejected, that it would need resubmitting for IPR purposes).
  296. Link Mauve Of course, your ProtoXEP changes how it could interact with the ecosystem.
  297. Link Mauve (That’s a detail, I’m sure Flow would be happy to do so. :))
  298. jonasw SamWhited, to be clear, I’d argue that Styling should get a BMH hint-namespace-thing
  299. daniel fwiw i don't think we need bmh for the opt-in approach to message styling that jonasw proposed
  300. Link Mauve I haven’t read that part yet, so I’ll abstain for now.
  301. jonasw I agree with daniel, but I see merit in the general idea of BMH, following the argument Flow gave when proposing it
  302. daniel has left
  303. jonasw but moving this to next week until everybody has had time to consider all the XEPs seems very reasonable to me (not that I’d have any say in that)
  304. Kev I think what we actually need is an opt-out, but I need to have time to reply sensibly, and this is team appraisals week.
  305. SamWhited I think I agree with what Kev said, but I'm not 100% sure yet about the idea of hints in the styling xep.
  306. daniel yeah maybe opt-out is more sensible
  307. Kev I think what you want is <this-was-pasted/> for lots of thinsg.
  308. daniel i can live with both though
  309. Kev And that applies both to styling and to emoticons.
  310. dwd Kev, Auto-```?
  311. Link Mauve Kev, oh yes, sounds great.
  312. jonasw I still think we shouldn’t impose this on clients which don’t want that.
  313. dwd jonasw, That would be *terrible*.
  314. SamWhited Is this something people feel they need to make decisions on voting right now? If not, can we discuss specific details after the meeting? I want to make sure we get to everything before I need to leave for standup
  315. Link Mauve It still breaks existing simple clients, such as bots.
  316. Kev Usually when people disagree with me it's because they're clearly idiots, but I think in this discussion there are reasonable arguments on multiple sides.
  317. SamWhited Kev: I disagree.
  318. SamWhited (sorry, couldn't resist)
  319. Link Mauve SamWhited, we can discuss on list/in xsf@.
  320. Kev SamWhited: That would be one of the other cases.
  321. Kev :p
  322. Link Mauve So, 7) AOB?
  323. dwd Link Mauve, You don't want to obsolete '146 anymore?
  324. Link Mauve dwd, it’s obsolete already.
  325. Link Mauve 6) was super quick. :)
  326. dwd Oh, misread.
  327. dwd No AOB from me then.
  328. Tobias next meeting?
  329. Link Mauve 8) Date of next.
  330. Link Mauve +1W?
  331. SamWhited WFM
  332. Tobias wfm
  333. dwd WFM2. How many more meetings do we have? Two?
  334. Link Mauve Two yes.
  335. Link Mauve bangs gravel.
  336. Link Mauve Thanks everyone!
  337. Link Mauve Btw, thanks dwd for sending chat states, it really helps to know who is going to speak next.
  338. Link Mauve I wish every other council member would do the same.
  339. Tobias thanks Link Mauve for running the meeting, thanks jcbrand for the minutes
  340. Tobias Link Mauve, my client doesn't support that
  341. SamWhited Whew, we survived the styling meeting :) thanks all!
  342. Kev SamWhited: Are you *sure*?
  343. dwd Link Mauve, Well, here's the thing. Gajim sends them, but doesn't render them.
  344. Link Mauve Tobias, I know, you should push for that then, it’s extremely useful during a meeting.
  345. moparisthebest so far, I'm still waiting for the xmpp fork of 2017 due to styling
  346. daniel has left
  347. Kev Link Mauve: No-one's going to push back on it.
  348. SamWhited Mcabber doesn't support anything… but it does do Vim style keybindings, which is really all I want in a client.
  349. dwd moparisthebest, You'll *never* be able to read messages again.
  350. Kev I've been saying I'd like this for ages, we've just not done it yet.
  351. Link Mauve dwd, ah yeah, I provided the patch to send them, I don’t know if any other contributor wants to display them yet.
  352. Link Mauve Kev, maybe I could contribute that then. :)
  353. dwd Kev, Our new client does, but I'm not using it yet (it's a little simplistic). Probably good enough for MUC meetings, though.
  354. Link Mauve As of today I’m now unemployed, I should have more time to fix the world!
  355. daniel has left
  356. Kev Link Mauve: If you want to send in a patch for send/render CSI in MUCs, it would be gratefully received (subject to normal patch things).
  357. Link Mauve (Of course.)
  358. Ge0rG has left
  359. SamWhited Link Mauve: Unemployed, or Funemployed?
  360. jonasw (where’s the difference?)
  361. Link Mauve SamWhited, heh, doing things for myself, with myself as the drive, and myself as the client. :)
  362. SamWhited Nice, I'm jealous
  363. moparisthebest dwd, hmm gajim colored your whole message to me red and bolded the whole thing, hence, I have no idea what your intention was
  364. daniel has left
  365. daniel i should write a gajim plugin that always randomizes the color in the xhtml variant of the message
  366. Ge0rG daniel: randomizes the color of each letter in the message.
  367. Link Mauve /load rainbow
  368. daniel its called syntax highlighting
  369. daniel nouns red, verbs blue, adjectives green and so on
  370. jonasw daniel, looking forward to a piece of software which gets this right!
  371. dwd jonasw, Stanford released some OSS code to do that in Java a while back.
  372. daniel has left
  373. jcbrand has left
  374. SamWhited An extension to replace all messages with the results of <messagebody> | cowsay | lolcat
  375. jonasw aww, lolcat doesn’t install
  376. Link Mauve __ _ / / (_) | _| | (_) | \_\
  377. Link Mauve Hey, just like Yaxim and Conversations display single emoji bigger, poezio could do so with figlet!
  378. daniel has left
  379. jonasw figlet fails at utf8.
  380. Link Mauve I know. :(
  381. SamWhited https://i.imgur.com/mhEqyAK.png
  382. SamWhited I can see that working well for all messages in Gajim.
  383. jonasw SamWhited, | figlet!
  384. SamWhited cowsay and figlet don't play well together
  385. jonasw they do
  386. jonasw also, that’s kindof the point
  387. SamWhited not on my machine; maybe there are options
  388. jonasw it looks weird for sure, but it produces sensible output
  389. jonasw ah ok, it breaks with long messages
  390. daniel has left
  391. Syndace has left
  392. Syndace has joined
  393. daniel has left
  394. Ge0rG has left
  395. daniel has left
  396. daniel has left
  397. daniel has left
  398. Kev has left
  399. ralphm has left
  400. Ge0rG has left
  401. Ge0rG has left
  402. Ge0rG Link Mauve: take the Google NoTo Emoji font and render its SVG into the flickering avatar square
  403. Ge0rG has left
  404. Ge0rG has left
  405. Ge0rG has left
  406. Ge0rG has left
  407. Ge0rG has left
  408. daniel has left
  409. Ge0rG has left
  410. ralphm has joined
  411. daniel has left
  412. Ge0rG has left
  413. Ge0rG has left
  414. Ge0rG has left
  415. Ge0rG has left
  416. ralphm has left
  417. Ge0rG has left
  418. Ge0rG has left
  419. jere has left
  420. jere has joined
  421. Ge0rG has left
  422. Ge0rG has left
  423. SamWhited Would anyone be against me making a few slight changes to the styling XEP that don't actually affect anything before it actually gets published? I figured I might as well go ahead and commit some simple editorial changes (typos, definitions, etc.) that I was going to make assuming its accepted (since they're already done, I was only holding off on the larger changes because I didn't want to waste time if it didn't get accepted)
  424. Ge0rG has left
  425. Ge0rG has left
  426. ralphm has joined
  427. Kev has joined
  428. Tobias has joined
  429. Ge0rG has left
  430. jonasw SamWhited, editorial changes etc. seem fine to me
  431. Ge0rG has left
  432. SamWhited yah, me too, I just want to make sure the people voting don't have any objection
  433. Kev SamWhited: Was it accepted?
  434. SamWhited Kev: one remaining vote on list
  435. Kev If it's not accepted, there's no issue updating the protoXEP. If it's accepted, you don't need Council approval to make changes to an Experimental XEP of which you're the author.
  436. SamWhited good point, I guess I could make them anyways.
  437. Kev So while *technically* you should publish the version that was approved, I don't think it's going to hurt much.
  438. Ge0rG has left
  439. Ge0rG has left
  440. Kev has left
  441. Ge0rG has left
  442. Ge0rG has left
  443. jonasw FWIW, I’ve been holding back editorial changes etc. until after approval too
  444. Ge0rG has left
  445. daniel Yeah just update it
  446. moparisthebest I haven't heard a single person argue it should be kept as-is so
  447. Ge0rG has left
  448. Ge0rG has left
  449. Ge0rG has left
  450. Ge0rG has left
  451. Kev has joined
  452. Ge0rG has left
  453. Ge0rG has left
  454. Ge0rG has left
  455. Tobias has joined
  456. Ge0rG has left
  457. Ge0rG has left
  458. Ge0rG has left
  459. Ge0rG has left
  460. daniel has left
  461. Ge0rG has left
  462. Ge0rG has left
  463. daniel has left
  464. Ge0rG has left
  465. Ge0rG has left
  466. Kev has left
  467. Ge0rG has left
  468. Ge0rG has left
  469. jere has joined
  470. Ge0rG has left
  471. SamWhited I ended up pushing some of the simple non-editorial changes too: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/537
  472. SamWhited Still more to do, but that was all the simple stuff that didn't require a lot of work or that I already had done, plus I tried to clear up a few things.
  473. Ge0rG has left