XMPP Council - 2017-11-29

SamWhited: from your XEP-0095 trello card, is "none of them supports SI but does not support Jingle" a typo?

Ge0rG: I don't think so? I meant "none of them support only SI"

SamWhited: ah, it just took me multiple attempts to parse that sentence

Yah, sorry, in retrospect that was very poorly worded

SamWhited: feel free to change ;)

New councileers, kindly supply me (via PR, mail, IM, carrier pidgeon) with a short bio for the website. To avoid procrastination, please take two minutes to come up with two or three lines of text describing yourself when you read this. I'd be happy to modify the website on your behalf - just send me the raw text.

I'm not original enough to come up with something that's sufficiently different from Daniel's bio :(

It doesn't have to be sufficinetly different.

as long as it describes you.

basically: what's your name, what do you do for a living, what nice XMPP affiliations do you have?

Guus, say you’re a grumpy person that wants to make xmpp easier

itym Ge0rG

I'm a grumpy person tath wants to make xmpp easier.

damn, I meant Ge0rG

:)

We are all grumpy and wishing to improve XMPP on this blessed day.

Zash: you need more coffee

Maybe you could ask zinid to write your bios :-)

lol

lol

Holger: Russian cursing would make me blush

I wouldn’t recognize it.

Oh, come on. "Georg Lukas is a <whatdoyoudoforaliving>. Active since <date> within the XMPP community, he's the author of <name same XEPS>"

Guus: ^

aweesome :)

"He is also the one eternally blocking XEP-0280 because the rules are too vague."

he didn’t go for my suggestion, pity :)

I’d like to note that others do not have links to non-XMPP sites in their bios.

Who's out? Daniel?

Tobi too, right?

jonasw: valid point. I saw a link to an employer and considered that valid, but of course it was a company working in XMPP

Daniel is still in, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot is out

but Kevin is back

ok, tx

you could just look at the members page somebody helpfully updated ;-)

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/386

jonasw: you caught me being lazy :)

I wonder if we have an old bio for Kev somehwere

Guus, git show aad70e88511b1ce523a09ea64070fceb5c8b147f

yup, just found that

filling in the missing links now

I’d ask Kev beforehands though, to make sure everything is up-to-date :)

unless Kev has another text in midn

(I stripped the first sentence)

__Kevin Smith__ works at [Isode](http://isode.com) where he’s responsible for the [M-Link server](http://www.isode.com/products/m-link.html), other XMPP projects and work on the open-source [Swift](https://swift.im/) XMPP client. He was formerly the project leader on [Psi](http://psi-im.org/). Kevin is also the author of several [XMPP extensions](/extensions) and co-authored [XMPP: The Definitive Guide](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596521271.do).

isode has HTTPS now

I like how the only things staying in my linediff are "https://", "and" and "the"

If you're suggesting text for my Council bio, that looks good to me (that's my stuff from last time, right?).

I've updated https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/386

Kev, yes. I left out the part referencing your past roles (as you were chair then, not sure if you are now)

Guus, HTTPS the isode links and I thnik we’re good to go

jonasw: did you check if they worked? One link (I thnk psy) didn't.

I did

I'm not chair now, no.

(which is why I only mentioned "isode" :))

thanks :)

Thanks both.

hit the large green button

Some checks haven’t completed yet

right

hm, I miss a "merge when checks complete" button, I think gitlab has that

I think I can simply merge

but it'd be nice to merge only if the checks are ok

done

[Merge automatically at the least sensible moment]

thanks all.

You have now beat last years board by approximately 48 weeks. :)

impressive

in last years boards defense: they didn’t have such a keen SCAM/PR team leader :-)

(at the beginning of their term)

That the SCAM/PR team has been established is also partially in the responsibility of the old Board ;)

Hi folks. I can't be in the meeting today, but I can take minutes afterwards by reading the chat logs.

Tobias ^

jcbrand: dwd's the chair :)

Thanks Kev

dwd ^^^

jcbrand, If you're happy to do that, that'd be great.

if the meeting will be at 16:00Z, I now know that I can do it too

(that is, in six minutes or so)

the meeting of the minutes?

s/of/or

ETA -5min, yeah.

jcbrand, the meeting

but do the minutes, yes

ok, I'll do the minutes then dwd

ehh

confusion

yes

:)

I mean I can do the minutes live today, if that helps.

You're welcome to do them if you want to jonasw, or if you think it's more efficient

I don’t know if it’s more efficient, but I’m certainly around and plan to follow the meeting anyways

Thanks! Live is good (IMO) since it means context doesn't get lost and you can ask for clarification if needed.

ok, let's do it live!

jonasw, Oh, even better.

it’s settled then

thanks jonasw

Time for me to grab a water and get ready for the show, I guess.

Indeed: Kev, SamWhited, daniel, Ge0rG - 5 minute warning.

Well, three now.

Thank you 3

o/

OK.

'tis time.

I call this meeting to session, then. (says he, grandly)

Hi

1) Role Call:

("'tis time", the harpie cries?)

I see daniel, Kev, SamWhited - do we have a Ge0rG?

I be here.

👋

SamWhited, You *are* still here right?

Indeed

Ace. Full house.

So, items for a vote:

1) XEP-0387, vote to mvoe to Draft.

+1

(naturally)

+1

I note that Kev thought we should restart the Last Call, but I believe that ended and I'm not convinced we need to revisit it.

Depends if we much care about process.

+1 (I'm still against having Avatars in IM Core, but only because I'm a lazy client developer)

technically the LC ended before the council changeover, at least according to the announcement made by the editor.

jonasw: There was no advancement, though, so it resets if we do things properly.

I see

Anyway, I don't much care one way or the other, but I'll on-list if this is an advancement vote rather than LC.

Kev, Well, I do. But it's not clear to me that we would be following process by repeating a last call. It's surely in Proposed state, now?

I don’t see a logical reason why council would be forced to re-start a last call; I wouldn’t expect new input just because council switched.

I'll on-list, then.

Kev, OK.

I'm happy to +1 it, anyway.

I'm +1 with either re-LC or advance, with a preference to the latter.

2) Vote on deprecating XEP-0095 (note incorrect XEP number in agenda, sorry).

SamWhited wrote up some findings on deployment in the Trello card, if anyone's not noticed.

So I went through a list of clients (see the trello issue) last night looking for support for this

I did not find any client that supported SI alone

They all supported neither, Jingle, or Jingle and SI

I note that this is presumably deprecation in favour of 234, which is still Experimental, in case we care (I don't, immediately, I think).

SamWhited, i think there are some clients that only do SI

Is it worth Last Calling Jingle FT, then?

Are there any technical reasons to favor 95 over 234? Complexity of implementation? Number of roundtrips?

but i'm unprepared and didn't research this

I checked quite a few popular ones and didn't find any, but I'm sure at least one or two old clients exist

I haven't implemented either (as Sam rightfully pointed out in trello), so it's hard to decide right now.

I think an LC on 234 might be useful in informing deprecation of 95/96. Which isn't to say that I'm gating approval of deprecation on advancement.

Ge0rG, i think you can't fall back to ibb in SI

and the receiver can't suggest proxies

daniel: is IBB still relevant in practice? Or is HTTP-Upload the new file transfer?

i'm just pointing out the differences between si and jingle

HTTP-Upload certainly can't replace the case where you need to fallback to IBB because you're crossing boundaries.

I do think it makes sense to consider pushing Jingle forward as well, but it seems clear to me that SI is functionally deprecated (Pidgin and Gajim both do Jingle, which is probably the vast majority of users), so we might as well recommend one thing IMO.

pidgin does jingle? file transfer!?

SamWhited: I agree, I just think we may as well wait a couple of weeks and see what LC on 234 comes up with.

daniel: it looked like it from browsing their source code, but I could be wrong

Equally, I don't object to deprecating 95/96 and LCing 234 concurrently, if that's what the general feeling is for.

Kev: I don't think we're in any rush, but I also think they're completely orthogonal and am generally for deprecating old things that look like recommendations but which aren't good for compatibility

I hadn't considered LCing 234, but I would also be for doing that as part of this if it's something people want.

LCs are cheap, and generally the best way to bring out feedback.

Indeed

Kev: do you know of any practical use cases for IBB?

Is there a way to have an LC for deprecating an XEP?

Or can we piggy-back the deprecation warning of 95 on the 234-LC?

We can send out a mail, sure.

Ge0rG, I do - when crossing very tight network boundaries, there's a preference to having everything within a single TCP stream.

We can also un-deprecate if we've made a mistake.

So, meh, +1 on deprecating 95/96 and also on the AOB to LC 234 :)

I don't really see the point in seeking feedback on deprecation; that's why we're the council, to make recommenations, although in this case I think we're documenting what the community has decided, not really changing anything.

+1 on deprecating SI

daniel: 234 mandates IBB as a MUST have feature

+1 on deprecating

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0234.html#impl-mti

Ge0rG, ?

Yes, I think +1 on deprecating both and a LC. Which I'll come to later.

+1 on deprecating 95/96 and to LC

OK. Unanimous on deprecating '95.

3) ... and XEP-0096?

+1 on deprecating

^

I think we're all +1 there, but speak now if not.

oops, was getting ahead of myself…

+1

+1 to that too

And because I'm doing this out of the agenda order:

4) Issue Last Call for XEP-0363 for advancement to Draft:

+1

+1 (which isn't to say I won't have feedback onlist)

+1

+1

Ge0rG, ?

+1 for LC

Great, thanks.

I've already written a comment re 363 to standards@ yesterday

5) Trello Triage

Folks, if you look at the "Proposed Agendums" column, you'lkl notice two things.

Firstly, the plural of agendums is agenda, and that irritates me every time I see it. :-)

Please don't remove that bit of history.

Secondly, there's a lot of stuff here and much of it has been there a long time.

Kev, I have a keen sense of tradition as well as Latin grammar.

dwd, i think you can remove 280 and odr

oh for the 280 we wanted to ask Ge0rG for permission :-)

It's neither tradition or grammar, it's a reference to an old Council discussion, between me and Peter IIRC, about the singular of Agenda. It's terribly important for culture's sake :)

I think Datums may also have been involved.

-1 on whatever you want to do to 280

Ge0rG, removing it from the agenda

Ge0rG, Well, I wanted to do nothing. So what should we do now you've vetod that?

I guess we have to do something to 0280?

( Kev, maybe add "[sic!]" to the column then, so that at least everybody knows that there’s some good story to know :))

280 should go from our Agenda.

dwd: there is a pending PR with "improved" rule wording. Merge it?

i just noticed 280 is on the agenda twice

Ge0rG, Is there consensus to?

dwd: of course not

That was closed since Kev was going to work on a document WRT new routing rules

There is no longer a PR matching that agenda item, so it should go

I've also investigated the current and potential routing rules extensively, and updated my slides at https://op-co.de/tmp/whats-wrong-with-xmpp-2017.pdf accordingly.

cf. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434#issuecomment-344918631

OK. Moving on, then, in the absence of agreement.

I still can't promise I will make it to the Summit, but maybe I can tele-present it.

And I think it doesn't make sense to move on with 280 or 313 before that.

I see '186 and '352 are both out of last call but not advanced.

Ge0rG, I mean, I'm moving on with the meeting.

0168 was waiting on some changes that peter wanted to make, IIRC?

Ge0rG, I'd like to finish this meeting before February.

dwd: nothing wrong with that

dwd: my "moving on" was unrelated to your "moving on", sorry for the confusion

Ge0rG, I thought it might be. :-)

SamWhited, WHat were the changes? Are they in a PR or on the list somewhere?

dwd: I don't recall

SamWhited, No, me neither.

186 was last addressed in http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-02-08#16:00:55

0352 does not appear to have received any feedback; still looking for the mail about 0168

oops, too late. Ge0rG got it.

So, I propose that for both 186 and 352, we consider repeating a Last Call.

+1

I think we've done that already at least once, maybe twice for 352. I don't think we're likely to get more feedback the second (or third?) time

I have a vague feeling that 352 is also related to the message routing Big Picture, in the context of "urgent" messages

csi received a lot of feedback

oh no, I'm sorry, this was an older LC, maybe it was unrelated

daniel: did it? I was just looking at see no replies to the LC email

Well, I'm going to put them on for next week's agenda for a LC vote.

i'm looking at an older thread from februrary 9th

no idea why the LC was repeated

We've got XEP-0084 deprecation, and also some stuff about reverting bookmarks to private XML. Anyone any idea on those?

there haven't been any changes and the old thread has positive feedback

dwd, XEP-0084 isn’t really used in the wild and it is confusing for developers (I certainly was confused) because everybody™ uses vcards, apparently.

Link Mauve: care to elaborate on those?

regarding bookmarks, I think the argument was that the change to PEP was a major break which should not have happened in a Draft XEP, it should’ve been a new XEP.

I think that both are valid things for the council to discuss.

OK, on for next week.

So I think I understand the XHTML-IM and XEP-0286 ones. They can go on next week as well.

So, quickly since we're running short on time - AOB.

I think we agreed to vote on XEP-0234 for Last Call?

... for which I'm +1.

+1

+1

+1

Already +1d.

OK. Any other Any other Business?

dwd, the LC mail I sent you

but that’s not urgent I believe

XEP-0286 also had a LC end with minor feedback (all editorial things, IIRC) that was addressed.

but in fact I think that was fully adressed, nevermind, dwd

jonasw, I know you wanted feedback on hash choices for the colour XEP, too. Can we discuss that next time?

ah, yes

sure

Right. Assuming no other business, then:

7) Time of next

+1W WFM

WFM

I cannot, unfortunately, make next week's meeting - I'll be stepping off stage after a talk at the time.

What Foxes Move.

Kev, Can you chair next week's?

Sure.

I'll *try* to join late, if possible.

Right, in that case we're done. Thanks all.

Thanks all.

8) Ite, Meeting Est.

the minutes go to which addresses? council@ and standards@?

Please.

Thanks.

minutes sent, thanks everyone

SamWhited: Yes, there was list discussion about XEP-0186 early this year, and I have not yet made those changes. I think the changeset will be somewhat small, but I need to do that soon before my new job starts. Thanks for the reminder.

peter: thanks! I'll update the card so we don't forget again

OK, great.

peter, you’ll have noticed that the tooling for sending emails etc. changed quite a bit. if you don’t mind, it’d be great if you familiarize yourself with it or make PRs for your changes, so that e.g. I can take care of that.

damn, I wanted to write that in the editors muc.