XMPP Council - 2018-12-19


  1. Zash has left
  2. dos has left
  3. dos has left
  4. Kev has left
  5. Kev has left
  6. Tobias has joined
  7. flow has left
  8. lnj has joined
  9. lnj has left
  10. labdsf has left
  11. Zash has joined
  12. labdsf has joined
  13. flow has joined
  14. Kev has left
  15. Kev has left
  16. Zash has left
  17. Zash has joined
  18. Zash has left
  19. Syndace has left
  20. Syndace has joined
  21. dos has left
  22. dos has left
  23. ralphm has left
  24. Zash has left
  25. ralphm has left
  26. labdsf has left
  27. labdsf has joined
  28. flow has left
  29. flow has joined
  30. Zash has left
  31. Zash has left
  32. labdsf has left
  33. labdsf has joined
  34. Zash has left
  35. labdsf has left
  36. labdsf has joined
  37. Zash has left
  38. lnj has joined
  39. Zash has left
  40. Ge0rG has joined
  41. jonas’ .
  42. Ge0rG :
  43. jonas’ meeting?
  44. Ge0rG .o/
  45. dwd has joined
  46. dwd Meeting.
  47. dwd 1) Who's Here?
  48. Ge0rG .o/
  49. dwd Um.
  50. dwd Anyone else but me and Ge0rG?
  51. jonas’
  52. Ge0rG I've seen jonas’
  53. dwd Link Mauve, ?
  54. dwd We'll assume it's just us three, then.
  55. dwd jonas’, I don't think there's anything new for a vote, is that right?
  56. jonas’ https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/727
  57. Ge0rG dwd: I'd like to ask for an LC on 0410
  58. jonas’ I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Defer those XEPs
  59. jonas’ I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Deprecate those XEPs
  60. jonas’ I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Obsolete those XEPs
  61. jonas’ I think we should bring XEP-0008 to Active (it’s historical)
  62. jonas’ XEP-0051 can be obsoleted IMO, with reference that the <see-other-host/> stream error should take care of that already.
  63. dwd OK. I don't think we can move things from Deferred to Obsolete.
  64. jonas’ that is true
  65. Link Mauve Hi.
  66. jonas’ hi Link Mauve :)
  67. dwd So deferred just means dead, but it can be resurrected.
  68. jonas’ so: I’d say issue an LC for dt
  69. jonas’ so: I’d say issue an LC for them; XEP-0008 should go to active IMO, XEP-0051 should be rejected (<see-other-host/>), XEP-0038 I have no idea baout
  70. Link Mauve dwd, we have a process for deferred → experimental → deprecated → obsolete.
  71. Link Mauve My proposal is just to skip some of them, for XEPs we do know we will never need anymore.
  72. dwd Link Mauve, I don't think we do. We have a process for Experimental -> Retracted.
  73. Link Mauve Oh, right.
  74. jonas’ Retracted needs author though?
  75. dwd Link Mauve, We can go Deferred -> Experimental -> Proposed -> Rejected, if you wanted to go through a Last Call.
  76. Link Mauve jonas’, is there any reason to accept a third avatar XEP though?
  77. dwd jonas’, Indeed.
  78. jonas’ Link Mauve, it’s historical.
  79. jonas’ it’s obviously documenting things of the past
  80. jonas’ that’s as good as Deprecated IMO
  81. dwd In any case, what is the problem you're trying to achieve, Link Mauve?
  82. dwd Isn't Deferred good enough?
  83. Link Mauve dwd, I’d like to sort all of our deferred XEPs into we-won’t-ever-need-them-anymore, and actually-should-go-through-a-last-call.
  84. Link Mauve Deferred is a mixed bag of both.
  85. jonas’ I kind of like the plan
  86. Link Mauve In the end, I’d like to deprecate this status.
  87. dwd Link Mauve, Going through them to find LC candidates seems useful.
  88. jonas’ but in any case, you need to LC to go into any other state except Retracted
  89. dwd Link Mauve, You want to get rid of Deferred?
  90. Link Mauve Note that we can appoint anyone as a new author, in order to reach retracted, or even do it ourselves.
  91. Link Mauve dwd, yes.
  92. Link Mauve Or at least, reach a point where useful XEPs are never put in this status anymore.
  93. dwd Link Mauve, Right, but the point fo that state is to declutter Experimental.
  94. jonas’ then I’d suggest to focus on those which may be useful, and not those which should be Deprecated or whatever
  95. Link Mauve I just started from the beginning of the list.
  96. Ge0rG I have a hard deadline at xx:30, so are we still Meeting?
  97. Link Mauve We are.
  98. dwd In any case, our current process doesn't allow for this, and therefore I'm not keen on even voting on this.
  99. Link Mauve Ok.
  100. dwd Ge0rG, We are actually meeting. Sorry, this was waffly; I'll get things back on track.
  101. Link Mauve Shall I escalate that to the board?
  102. dwd Ge0rG, Your Last Call - what XEP was it?
  103. Ge0rG dwd: Self-Ping
  104. dwd Link Mauve, To the list, if you want.
  105. Link Mauve Ok.
  106. dwd Ge0rG, OK.
  107. dwd 2) Voting
  108. dwd a) XEP-0410: MUC Self-Ping (Schrödinger's Chat)
  109. dwd https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0410.html
  110. Ge0rG obviously +1
  111. Link Mauve +1 for the LC, I’ve been testing an implementation and it did improve things greatly over the current status quo.
  112. dwd To Last Call.
  113. dwd I'm happy to Last Call this.
  114. jonas’ +1 to LC
  115. dwd And Kev on list. Cool.
  116. Ge0rG Cool
  117. dwd 3) Outstanding Votes.
  118. dwd I think everyone but me owes a vote on Buttons.
  119. jonas’ yeah
  120. dwd That's Proposed XMPP Extension: Simple Buttons - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buttons.html
  121. Ge0rG I was owing a vote on HTTP Upload from last Council, but that EXPIRED. I suppose
  122. Ge0rG Oh, yeah. The Buttons.
  123. Ge0rG still on-list
  124. jonas’ I’m going to read through the arguments from last time and vote on-list today or tomorrow
  125. dwd Please look at that. Feel free to air your thoughts on the list, it might shake out some discussion.
  126. dwd 4) AOB
  127. jonas’ I’m going to delay the re-issuance of the LCs from last-council until after western new years, if that’s fine with everyone.
  128. jonas’ otherwise I don’t see anything happening during the LC period anyways and it’s just wasting resources of people.
  129. dwd Thanks, good plan.
  130. dwd I noticed that jonas’ has pushed through XEP-0412 (the new compliance suite) without waiting Kev's on-list vote.
  131. Ge0rG jonas’: yes please, I also haven't reviewed the new 0363 yet
  132. jonas’ dwd, yeah, I noticed too, but I couldn’t get hold of Kev to discuss how to move forward
  133. dwd I have literally no idea what to do about that.
  134. jonas’ git revert is always an option
  135. dwd Not really. It's a process violation, and we have no process for that. :-)
  136. Ge0rG We could just pretend that it didn't happen until Kev (+1|0)s, and escalate if he -1s
  137. Ge0rG and by escalate I mean git revert
  138. jonas’ I’d prefer that route proposked by Ge0rG, because it is minimal on resources.
  139. jonas’ git revert and an apology from me to the list
  140. jonas’ git revert and an apology from Editor-me to the list
  141. dwd I think a git revert is a very bad idea.
  142. jonas’ why?
  143. dwd It might lead to XEP-0412 referring to a different XEP.
  144. Kev Not if the editor is smart.
  145. Ge0rG Because the XSF is already doing too much process for process sake.
  146. jonas’ oh, Kev is here.
  147. Kev And I think carry on and hope Kev doesn't -1.
  148. Kev If he does, panic about that later.
  149. Ge0rG Keep calm and vote +1
  150. dwd Ge0rG, We do process so that we avoid people saying we're being arbitrary.
  151. jonas’ Kev, fwiw, I’ll hate you if you -1 on the 24th
  152. jonas’ (or actually any time after Friday, because I’ll be on vacation-ish then)
  153. jonas’ ;-)
  154. Kev The sky isn't going to fall regardless.
  155. Kev If it's January before we resolve a -1 it's not going to kill anyone.
  156. dwd So my view is that this is a process violation and we flag it with Board, saying we're going to wait and see what Kev votes (etc).
  157. Kev I wouldn't even bother flagging it, but whatever.
  158. Ge0rG It's about "Compliance Suite 2019", and we've had a history of attempting to publish it before the year in the name
  159. jonas’ dwd, yeah, I’d say, despite having process, we’re still humans and mistakes happen, and we can roll them back (that’s what we have version control for). and we can then discuss if we tombstone XEP-0412 or if we reserve if for the CS-2019 version which will eventually be accepted
  160. jonas’ dwd, fine with me
  161. jonas’ I’ll but it ont he boards trello
  162. jonas’ I’ll put it ont he boards trello
  163. jonas’ I’ll put it on the boards trello
  164. dwd Kev, I think that the Board, as guardians of the process, are probably the right people to decide on what we do.
  165. Ge0rG Kev: we still have 4mins of meeting left, which you might use to issue votes
  166. Ge0rG is just saying
  167. dwd 5) Next Meeting
  168. dwd I'm not around next week. If you guys really want to meet the day after Christmas...
  169. jonas’ is this a fair text for the trello item: XEP-0412 was published before the council vote was finished, and there is a possibility that it is now vetoed. Council stances: - Ge0rG, Jonas, Kev: worry about -1 when it happens, hope for +0/+1 - dwd: Ask board what to do. ?
  170. jonas’ I won’t be there either
  171. Link Mauve I’ll be somewhere between Paris and Leipzig next week, I suggest doing +2W this time.
  172. jonas’ +1 on +2w
  173. dwd jonas’, Text looks accurate. Though I'm in favour of the proposed solution too. :-)
  174. dwd OK, so 2nd January 2019, 1600 UTC.
  175. jonas’ updated: XEP-0412 was published before the council vote was finished, and there is a possibility that it is now vetoed. Council stances: - Ge0rG, Jonas, Kev, dwd: worry about -1 when it happens, hope for +0/+1 dwd still wants to raise this to board, to be sure, since board is guardian of the process.
  176. Link Mauve I’m +1 on not worrying, which I do most of the time anyway. :D
  177. dwd 6) Ite, Meeting Est.
  178. dwd (Fractionally ahead of the half hour mark)
  179. jonas’ \o/
  180. Link Mauve Thanks all!
  181. Ge0rG +1 on +2w
  182. jonas’ hm
  183. Ge0rG jonas’: when will you finally write that plugin that translates your [mh]* into English?
  184. jonas’ Ge0rG, there was supposed to be something following that, but I decided to put it into xsf@ instead.
  185. Ge0rG has left
  186. labdsf has left
  187. Kev has left
  188. Kev has left
  189. pep. > dwd> Link Mauve, Right, but the point fo that [deferred] state is to declutter Experimental. And they can be brought back with a typo fix? :-°
  190. labdsf has joined
  191. ivucica has left
  192. ralphm has joined
  193. Zash has left
  194. ralphm has left
  195. Zash has joined
  196. Zash has left
  197. Zash has joined
  198. lnj has left
  199. ivucica has joined
  200. ivucica has joined
  201. labdsf has left
  202. Tobias has joined
  203. labdsf has joined
  204. jonas’ has left
  205. jonas’ has joined
  206. dos has left