Wednesday, January 09, 2019
council@muc.xmpp.org
January
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
  1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
             
XMPP Council Room | https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation#council | Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/ | https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda

[00:04:12] *** pep. shows as "online"
[00:22:24] *** pep. has left the room
[00:22:37] *** pep. shows as "online"
[00:25:00] *** vanitasvitae has joined the room
[00:42:36] *** oli shows as "online"
[00:49:40] *** oli shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[00:58:30] *** oli shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[01:01:32] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:13:20] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:13:23] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:13:23] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:13:23] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:13:25] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:15:22] *** oli has left the room
[01:15:23] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:28:51] *** oli has left the room
[01:29:47] *** oli shows as "online"
[01:32:44] *** oli has left the room
[02:22:51] *** oli shows as "online"
[02:24:42] *** oli has left the room
[03:03:36] *** oli has left the room
[03:07:45] *** oli has joined the room
[03:39:59] *** oli has left the room
[03:40:37] *** oli has joined the room
[03:47:07] *** oli has left the room
[03:48:01] *** oli has joined the room
[04:56:20] *** Zash has joined the room
[04:56:50] *** oli has left the room
[05:20:29] *** Tobias has joined the room
[05:48:16] *** Link Mauve has left the room
[06:00:25] *** Tobias has left the room
[06:00:26] *** Tobias has joined the room
[06:13:43] *** labdsf has left the room
[07:25:22] *** Zash shows as "online"
[07:31:53] *** Zash shows as "online"
[07:44:56] *** labdsf has joined the room
[07:57:03] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:31:38] *** ivucica has left the room
[08:32:02] *** ivucica shows as "online"
[08:34:45] *** pep. shows as "online"
[08:46:54] *** oli has joined the room
[08:50:16] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[08:55:10] *** Zash has left the room
[09:18:59] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[09:23:45] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[09:30:09] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[09:30:09] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[09:33:35] *** ralphm has left the room
[09:34:48] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:38:55] *** Kev shows as "away"
[09:39:52] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:49:32] *** Kev shows as "away"
[09:52:37] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[10:01:11] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:09:56] *** Zash has left the room
[10:11:44] *** Zash shows as "online"
[10:14:11] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:25:44] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[10:27:05] *** Zash has left the room
[10:27:19] *** Zash shows as "online"
[10:29:50] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[10:29:52] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[10:31:36] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[10:31:46] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[10:32:51] *** pep. shows as "online"
[10:38:49] *** pep. has left the room
[10:41:28] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[10:42:19] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[10:45:35] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[10:47:38] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[10:48:29] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[10:52:57] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[10:54:01] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[11:07:01] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[11:07:22] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[11:08:28] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[11:11:16] *** Zash shows as "online"
[11:11:50] *** Zash shows as "online"
[11:16:14] *** dwd has joined the room
[11:27:14] *** Link Mauve has joined the room
[11:27:52] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[11:27:53] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[11:36:32] *** Kev shows as "away"
[11:39:55] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[11:39:56] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[11:40:19] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[11:40:30] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[11:51:49] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[11:51:51] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[11:59:02] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:01:38] *** Zash has left the room
[12:02:16] *** Zash shows as "online"
[12:06:02] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:16:47] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:25:05] *** Link Mauve has left the room
[12:26:31] *** SouL has left the room
[12:28:28] *** SouL shows as "online"
[12:31:16] *** Link Mauve has joined the room
[12:31:47] *** Zash shows as "online"
[12:32:53] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:32:57] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[12:34:23] *** Zash has left the room
[12:34:27] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[12:35:38] *** oli has joined the room
[12:37:14] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:38:18] *** Zash has left the room
[12:40:10] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:42:11] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:45:06] *** oli has left the room
[12:45:08] *** oli has joined the room
[12:47:14] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:47:28] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:00:29] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:03:32] *** dwd shows as "online"
[13:08:00] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[13:08:01] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[13:08:09] *** Link Mauve has left the room
[13:11:43] *** Link Mauve has joined the room
[13:22:49] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:31:56] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[13:31:58] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[13:32:51] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:33:41] *** pep. shows as "online"
[13:37:40] *** Holger shows as "online"
[13:38:43] *** Holger has left the room
[13:48:09] *** Zash shows as "online"
[13:49:19] *** Holger shows as "online"
[13:49:32] *** Holger shows as "online"
[13:52:03] *** Zash has left the room
[13:59:53] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:09:34] *** Holger has left the room
[14:09:38] *** Kev shows as "online"
[14:12:26] *** Zash has left the room
[14:13:23] *** dwd shows as "online"
[14:18:49] *** labdsf has left the room
[14:19:10] *** lnj has joined the room
[14:21:09] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:21:13] *** labdsf has joined the room
[14:26:15] *** Holger shows as "online"
[14:30:24] *** Holger shows as "online"
[14:30:35] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:35:32] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:40:04] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:40:30] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:44:49] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:52:16] *** Holger has left the room
[14:52:48] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:55:33] *** Holger has left the room
[14:57:46] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:10:47] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:14:10] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[15:17:48] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:18:12] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[15:22:53] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:23:00] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[15:23:25] *** Zash shows as "online"
[15:25:05] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:25:10] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[15:31:07] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:31:21] *** Zash shows as "online"
[15:33:06] *** Zash has left the room
[15:33:28] *** Zash shows as "online"
[15:41:29] *** Ge0rG has joined the room
[15:41:36] <Ge0rG> Good morning!
[15:42:15] <Link Mauve> Hi.
[15:42:27] <Link Mauve> Did we have an agenda btw?
[15:42:49] <Ge0rG> yeah!
[15:43:08] <dwd> We did, because I got around to it.
[15:43:08] <Kev> Yes, Dave sent it out yesterday.
[15:43:18] <Ge0rG> !praise dwd
[15:43:20] <dwd> I've not got around to my Voting Bot, though.
[15:44:08] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:44:40] <Link Mauve> Oh, just now I see it. :x
[15:45:50] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[15:52:52] *** Zash has left the room
[15:57:13] <jonas’> I still don’t see the agenda
[15:57:17] <jonas’> where is it?
[15:57:31] <Kev> [Council] Council Agenda 2019-01-09
[15:57:45] <jonas’> is that a mailing list?
[15:57:53] <jonas’> separate from standards@?
[15:58:10] <Link Mauve> jonas’, it is council@.
[15:58:14] <jonas’> I’m not on that list
[15:58:19] <Link Mauve> Oh.
[15:59:17] <Kev> Alex should have added you after the elections.
[15:59:27] <jonas’> haven’t been added, afaict
[15:59:28] <Kev> If you mail me, I'm probably capable of doing the magic.
[15:59:49] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[15:59:54] <jonas’> I have two things which look like they may be email addresses of yours
[16:00:03] <Kev> isode please.
[16:00:05] <jonas’> okay
[16:00:21] <jonas’> sent
[16:00:25] <Kev> Received.
[16:00:31] <jonas’> awsum
[16:00:37] <Kev> 'tis time.
[16:00:37] <jonas’> let’s just do IM over email!
[16:00:41] <jonas’> (oh somebody already did ;-))
[16:00:43] <dwd> Oh, it's time for a meeting!
[16:00:49] <Kev> It's not IM over email, it's TODO list over email :)
[16:00:53] <jonas’> :D
[16:00:55] <dwd> 1) Roll Call
[16:01:00] <Kev> I'm here. I think.
[16:01:01] *jonas’ is here
[16:01:03] <jonas’> afaict
[16:01:11] *Link Mauve is here too.
[16:01:17] <jonas’> Ge0rG, ?
[16:01:18] *** lnj has left the room
[16:01:22] *Ge0rG .o/
[16:01:25] <jonas’> \o/
[16:01:50] <dwd> I'm here too. Apologies for last week.
[16:02:00] <dwd> 2) Agenda Bashing
[16:02:05] <jonas’> same, I was caught up in house cleaning and totally forgot about day of week and time of day
[16:02:09] <dwd> Did I forget anything?
[16:02:14] <Ge0rG> LGTM
[16:02:17] <jonas’> I can’t tell, I haven’t seen the agenda
[16:02:40] <dwd> jonas’, Have you not?
[16:02:45] <Ge0rG> probably we should split 6a (PR #727) into individual LCs for process' sake
[16:02:47] <jonas’> no, I’m not on council@ as we discussed just now
[16:02:52] <jonas’> Kev will take care
[16:02:59] <jonas’> but I’ll just shout in AOB if something is missing or so
[16:03:21] *** Zash shows as "online"
[16:03:28] <dwd> Oh. Whoops. I normally cc it to standards as well.
[16:03:30] *Ge0rG also just bounced the Agenda mail to jonas’, just in case.
[16:03:34] <dwd> My mistake, anyway.
[16:03:37] <jonas’> thanks
[16:03:46] <dwd> 3) Items for voting:

a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Order-By

Abstract:
This specification allows to change order of items retrieval in a
Pubsub or MAM query

URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/order-by.html

[16:04:01] <Ge0rG> Is that a vote or discussion first?
[16:04:47] <dwd> That's a vote for adoption, I believe.
[16:04:52] <Ge0rG> I tend to -1, because it's a very specific use case, and it defines two hard-coded properties to order by. A clean approach would allow ordering by any field of the items, using some XSLT magic or something.
[16:04:53] <jonas’> I’m on-list in any case, I want to discuss with goffi a bit, because I’m pretty sure that I’m right about the points I raised ;-)
[16:05:12] <jonas’> Ge0rG, note, it defines properties which live *outside* the items, determined by the server
[16:05:34] <jonas’> it could easily be extended to support XPath or anything like that though
[16:05:37] <Kev> I'm not keen on it, but it clears my bar-of-incompetence for Experimental. So +1.
[16:05:42] <Ge0rG> jonas’: yes. But is there any reason not to embed those properties in the items?
[16:05:45] <dwd> Ge0rG, Yeah, this is indeed ordering by metadata external to the item payload.
[16:05:50] <jonas’> Ge0rG, yes, the server shalt not modify the items
[16:06:06] <Ge0rG> jonas’: what's wrong with the client adding the respective stamps?
[16:06:22] <jonas’> Ge0rG, goffi doesn’t find that correct (which I disagree with), because it can be "spoofed"
[16:06:41] <jonas’> see the discussion on-list for that
[16:06:55] <Ge0rG> oh, didn't catch-up on that.
[16:07:00] <Ge0rG> So I'm on-list, with fallback to -1.
[16:07:23] <jonas’> what’s your rationale for your fallback -1?
[16:07:42] <Ge0rG> At least this needs to be renamed "PubSub MAM retrieval ordered by creation or modification"
[16:07:43] <Link Mauve> I’m on list on that, I haven’t caught up with anything yet.
[16:07:49] <dwd> I did notice this applies to MAM, too, but doesn't disucss it, and presumably has quite an impact on RSM, but doesn't mention that.
[16:07:49] <Link Mauve> (I’ll try to get better soon!)
[16:07:50] <jonas’> (OT: Subject: Welcome to the "Council" mailing list. Thanks Kev)
[16:08:08] <jonas’> dwd, it doesn’t have an impact on RSM, it happens before RSM even comes into play.
[16:08:20] <jonas’> although, the server might have to use different identifiers in RSM to make it work with RSM
[16:08:33] <dwd> jonas’, I think that needs mentioning. Or thinking about.
[16:08:36] <Kev> It does have an interaction with RSM, at least. Whether 'impact' or not is up to linguists :)
[16:08:39] <jonas’> dwd, I agree
[16:09:06] <Kev> I wouldn't be unhappy to see this have more work on it before it's published, but I couldn't find a reason to veto it using my usual criteria.
[16:09:10] *** lnj has joined the room
[16:09:45] <jonas’> afaict, all except Kev are on-list?
[16:09:46] <Ge0rG> jonas’: my rationale is that it's only adressing a very specific use case, and requires changes to multiple other XEPs, like PubSub (for storing metadata). However, I suppose that's not an appropriate reason for rejecting a proto-XEP
[16:09:52] <jonas’> no, dwd hasn’t said anything yet
[16:10:07] <dwd> Yeah, I'll go with +0.
[16:10:08] <jonas’> it doesn’t require changes to XEPs
[16:10:20] <dwd> (Though I reserve the right to change that while others are still on-list).
[16:10:36] <Ge0rG> jonas’: it implies changes to their implementation.
[16:10:41] <jonas’> that’s true
[16:10:46] <jonas’> but those are two different things
[16:10:57] <jonas’> (kinda important when one of the affected XEPs is Draft)
[16:11:10] <dwd> OK, moving on.
[16:11:21] <dwd> 4) Outstanding Votes
[16:11:33] <dwd> I don't think we have any, do we? I can't imagine we do anyway.
[16:11:52] <dwd> 5) Next Meeting
[16:12:00] <Ge0rG> I can't remember any, but maybe this is the right time to remind about the Spreadsheet of Doom?
[16:12:16] <dwd> Or something.
[16:12:22] <dwd> Same time next week?
[16:12:36] <jonas’> wfm
[16:13:09] <Kev> WFM, I think.
[16:13:10] <dwd> I'll assume 2019-01-16 1600Z unless anyone shouts.
[16:13:10] <Ge0rG> will *probably* work for me. If it does not, it will be impacting my availability for the next ~3mo, so we might need to reschedule or to on-list Ge0rG
[16:13:33] <dwd> Ge0rG, Ah... Should we reschedule now?
[16:13:49] <Ge0rG> My employer translocates me into another city for a full-time engagement, and I don't know the specific business hours there yet
[16:14:08] <Ge0rG> I'll hopefully know more by +1W
[16:14:18] <dwd> Ah, OK. Keep us posted; we can rearrange via email if it's a semi-permanent thing.
[16:14:30] <dwd> 6) AOB

a) Cleaning up Deferred items.

Link's PR #727 seems unresolved - we should decide on a suitable way to handle this.


[16:15:05] <dwd> These two AOBs are basically about cleaning the github issues and PRs out, so it's more obvious what I should put on the agenda.
[16:15:10] <Kev> That's the obsoleting? We vote on the obsoletes don't we?
[16:15:15] <jonas’> the PR as is cannot be applied, so I (Council Member) propose I (Editor) just close this
[16:15:15] <Link Mauve> So, a) is a process issue.
[16:15:29] <Ge0rG> Kev: IIRC we can't vote to obsolete without an LC, and probably we shouldn't anyway
[16:15:31] <jonas’> and if we want to have process for that, we need to propose a modification of XEP-0001
[16:15:36] <Link Mauve> We are not allowed (?) to obsolete without a last call first.
[16:15:53] <Ge0rG> So why not just vote on an LC for all of them?
[16:15:59] <dwd> We can't apply #727 as-is, due to a mismatch in the process, so does someone want to take on changing the process, or do we just not care about clearing out old deferred XEPs?
[16:16:00] <Ge0rG> So why not just vote on an LC for each of them?
[16:16:03] <Link Mauve> But I still believe obsolete is the correct status for these three XEPs (and more, but I wanted to start small).
[16:16:04] <jonas’> they have to pass to draft to allow obsoleetion, Ge0rG
[16:16:24] <dwd> jonas’, There's Proposed->Rejected
[16:16:40] <jonas’> Rejected ≠ Obsolete, but Rejecting would be an option, too
[16:17:01] <Kev> Sorry, why can't we go from Deprecated to Obsolete? That's what 9.10 says we can do :)
[16:17:11] <dwd> I'd be fine with Rejected, actually. Feels more accurate. But again, process.
[16:17:25] <jonas’> Kev, they’re deferred, not deprecated
[16:17:26] <dwd> Kev, We can -but these are Deferred, not Deprecated, I thought?
[16:17:32] <Kev> Oh, right.
[16:18:22] <dwd> We have Retracted, but I'd prefer not to use that personally. I'd happily go for allowing Deferred->Rejected though.
[16:18:41] <jonas’> vote for rejection without asking the community at all?
[16:19:02] <dwd> So, two questions: What do we want the process to be, and who wants to draft the PR to XEP-0001?
[16:19:05] <Ge0rG> issue a "Call for Deprecation"?
[16:19:10] <jonas’> I can do the PR to XEP-0001
[16:19:41] <Kev> And the third question: Is there a problem with Deferred XEPs staying Deferred?
[16:19:57] <jonas’> not for me (as Editor)
[16:20:08] <dwd> Kev, Well, yes - if we're happy with the process as-is.
[16:20:20] <Ge0rG> I suggest that we add an arrow from "Proposed" to "Deprecated"
[16:20:40] <dwd> I would note that it's much the same as expired Internet Drafts in the IETF, and those sometimes get "unexpired" years later.
[16:20:50] <Kev> I'm not sure I see a particular problem with something being Deferred for eternity, when it seems to reflect the actual state - abandoned before advancement.
[16:21:08] <Link Mauve> Kev, the main problem I want to solve is that we’ve asked people to read (big red warning) deferred XEPs for quite a while, because our process is way too slow.
[16:21:13] <Ge0rG> Kev: I think that "Deprecated" is a stronger signal not to implement it than "Deferred"
[16:21:23] <Ge0rG> What Link Mauve says!
[16:21:29] <jonas’> Link Mauve, but then it is more worthwhile to tackle the XEPs which actually have a chance to advance
[16:21:32] <jonas’> and which should advance
[16:21:36] <jonas’> and not those which are dead anyways
[16:21:40] <Kev> Link Mauve: Isn't the problem there getting things out of Deferred when they're not really Deferred, rather than getting them out when they are.
[16:21:42] <Link Mauve> jonas’, sure, in the end I’d like to do both.
[16:21:54] <Ge0rG> jonas’: you can't force other people to implement your XEPs
[16:21:54] <dwd> Link Mauve, Right, moving a XEP from Deferred is easy. And I'm not sure how we could make it "faster".
[16:21:56] <Link Mauve> Kev, whynotboth.jpg
[16:22:06] <jonas’> focus on the other part first, maybe, becauise the Deferred ones which are actually abandoned and should be aren’t the actual issue
[16:22:09] <dwd> Ge0rG, You don't need to, to move to Draft.
[16:22:17] <jonas’> Ge0rG, you don’t need implementations to move to Draft
[16:22:24] <Link Mauve> Also, I’ve in the past fixed a typo in a deferred XEP which put it back to experimental.
[16:22:24] *** lnj has left the room
[16:22:29] <Ge0rG> ah well.
[16:22:39] <Link Mauve> I’d like to avoid doing that everytime there is a typo.
[16:22:42] <jonas’> Link Mauve, I agree
[16:22:44] <Link Mauve> (And I hate typos. :p)
[16:22:45] <Ge0rG> Link Mauve: that shouldn't happen, as editorial changes shouldn't count against Deferral
[16:22:46] <jonas’> this needs fixing, but is also separate
[16:22:52] <jonas’> Ge0rG, there are varying opinions on that
[16:22:56] <jonas’> we should ask Board to clarify maybe
[16:23:09] <jonas’> some people say "if someone cares enough to fix a typo, it should become undeferred"
[16:23:24] <Ge0rG> I still propose a new arrow from "Proposed" to "Deprecated", after which we can LC those and bury them.
[16:23:26] <jonas’> others (me, for example) say "only non-editorial changes should un-defer"
[16:23:52] <Ge0rG> jonas’: next time I submit a proto-XEP, I'll add a dozen typos to keep it in Experimental
[16:24:45] <dwd> OK, so no agreement - can someone take this to standards@ please? (I suggest someone who wants things to change)
[16:24:56] *Ge0rG volunteers Link Mauve :D
[16:25:05] <Kev> If we allow proposed going to deprecation, I don't oppose it.
[16:25:07] *Link Mauve volunteers too.
[16:25:10] <Kev> I'm just not convinced it's worth any of my cycles.
[16:25:13] <dwd> ... and if nobody does, I'll assume nobody wants it to change.
[16:25:41] <Ge0rG> dwd: we could vote on allowing "Proposed" --> "Deprecated" and then add it to tomorrow's Board agenda.
[16:25:46] <dwd> b) Tidying examples in XEP-0045

Flow's PR #715 remains unmerged.
[16:26:18] <dwd> Ge0rG, Nah. I don't think there's sufficient agreement to worry, and I'd rather ping the community first.
[16:26:34] *** lnj has joined the room
[16:26:47] <Ge0rG> 6b: IIRC we had a discussion that ended with disagreement between some council members and flow about what's the right thing.
[16:26:54] <dwd> So this PR came up last year, and I think we buried it in discussion about whether disco#info needed to be listed in a disco#info response.
[16:27:04] <dwd> Which was another (related) PR.
[16:27:09] <dwd> (Also by Flow)
[16:27:29] <Link Mauve> Imo fixing examples to match 0030’s text is a no brainer.
[16:27:34] <Ge0rG> Right. This PR only adds disco#info to examples.
[16:27:50] <dwd> My recollection is that Council decided that disco#info MUST be listed, as XEP-0030 says. Therefore we should presumably apply this one to fix the examples?
[16:28:05] <Link Mauve> That’s also what I remember.
[16:28:24] <dwd> (I mean, I dissented on that one, but whatever)
[16:28:26] <Ge0rG> dwd: that will make the examples look more normative and less example-y, won't it?
[16:28:47] <dwd> Ge0rG, I think they'll still look exampley, they'll just be better examples.
[16:28:55] <jonas’> for certain definitions of better
[16:29:03] <dwd> jonas’, More accurate.
[16:29:03] <jonas’> it is not relevant to the implementation of XEP-0045 itself
[16:29:06] <jonas’> and more noisy
[16:29:14] <Ge0rG> I think that an example should focus on the things relevant to *this* XEP and not on boilerplate from other specs.
[16:29:23] <dwd> jonas’, And pointless. But that's what Council voted for, so...
[16:29:34] <Kev> I'm low-F on this. I'd rather like it if we were able to list only the bits relevant to a XEP in a XEP's example disco, but whatever.
[16:29:52] <Ge0rG> dwd: Council voted on disco#info being part of the response, not part of the examples of each XEP.
[16:30:20] <Ge0rG> I'm -0 on PR#715, because I like my examples short and focused.
[16:30:25] <dwd> I'm happy not to care. I'm unhappy if we don't close this one way or another though.
[16:30:39] <dwd> So, apply or not: It's votin' time!
[16:30:47] <jonas’> -0
[16:30:59] <Kev> -0. Don't care.
[16:31:05] <dwd> -0
[16:31:11] <dwd> Link Mauve, ?
[16:31:34] <Link Mauve> I think it’d be useful to add “...” on a separate line to make them look more exampl-y, but +1.
[16:31:58] <jonas’> Link Mauve, that would be even better IMO
[16:32:02] <Ge0rG> Link Mauve: that's an excellent proposal!
[16:32:21] <dwd> Link Mauve, Yeah, I'd be fine with that. I'd consider it editorial too.
[16:32:24] <jonas’> or even better, <!-- ... -->, which wuoldn’t break schema validation
[16:32:31] <dwd> jonas’, That too.
[16:32:32] <Ge0rG> jonas’: 👍
[16:32:34] *** lnj has left the room
[16:32:36] <Link Mauve> jonas’, a previous council rejected this usage. :p
[16:32:41] <jonas’> pft
[16:32:45] <dwd> Link Mauve, Really?
[16:32:47] <jonas’> this council seems to be rather happy with it
[16:32:57] <Link Mauve> dwd, I think it was for the CLIENT: and SERVER: parts.
[16:33:02] <dwd> Ah, probably.
[16:33:04] <Link Mauve> But I’m +1 for this usage too.
[16:33:06] <jonas’> those are kaputt anyways
[16:33:10] <dwd> Anyway, that's all folks.
[16:33:18] <dwd> 7) Ite, Meeting Est.
[16:33:20] <jonas’> Link Mauve, you +1’d the other PR so we’ll have both now?
[16:33:51] <Link Mauve> jonas’, both sounds more fine than none or either.
[16:34:07] <jonas’> how does it sound more fine than either, considering the noise factor?
[16:34:17] <Ge0rG> Thanks Dave
[16:36:38] *** lnj has joined the room
[16:45:24] *** lnj has left the room
[16:49:22] *** lnj has joined the room
[16:52:48] *** lnj has left the room
[17:08:35] *** lnj has joined the room
[17:16:54] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:17:06] *** Kev shows as "away"
[17:20:00] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:22:41] *** Zash shows as "away"
[17:24:40] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:27:16] *** Zash shows as "online"
[17:30:12] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:34:02] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:38:40] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:42:11] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:42:42] *** Zash has left the room
[17:46:00] *** labdsf has left the room
[17:50:12] *** bear has left the room
[17:51:18] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:01:18] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:03:29] *** bear has joined the room
[18:03:31] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:08:03] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:11:00] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:11:04] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:12:14] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[18:14:27] *** Zash has left the room
[18:17:46] *** Zash shows as "online"
[18:18:22] *** Zash shows as "online"
[18:26:05] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:29:58] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:30:24] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:31:29] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:41:29] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:58:00] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[19:12:59] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[19:15:27] *** labdsf has joined the room
[19:15:29] *** labdsf has left the room
[19:18:24] *** labdsf has joined the room
[19:20:09] *** labdsf has left the room
[19:20:11] *** labdsf has joined the room
[19:20:21] *** labdsf has left the room
[19:21:40] *** labdsf has joined the room
[19:24:23] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[19:24:25] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[19:24:40] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[19:24:43] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[19:24:50] *** labdsf has left the room
[19:25:49] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[19:25:56] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[19:27:15] *** labdsf has joined the room
[19:39:09] *** labdsf has left the room
[19:39:12] *** oli has left the room
[19:39:12] *** labdsf has joined the room
[19:41:38] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[19:41:46] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[19:42:49] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:44:35] *** lnj has left the room
[20:02:35] *** pep. has left the room
[20:04:05] *** labdsf has left the room
[20:04:06] *** labdsf has joined the room
[20:05:47] *** labdsf has left the room
[20:05:49] *** labdsf has joined the room
[20:06:32] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[20:06:39] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[20:09:58] *** pep. shows as "online"
[20:24:21] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[20:25:25] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:34:50] *** lnj has joined the room
[20:35:25] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[20:42:16] *** oli has joined the room
[20:42:17] *** labdsf has left the room
[20:47:30] *** labdsf has joined the room
[20:50:10] *** lnj has left the room
[20:56:33] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[20:56:40] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[20:59:15] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[20:59:17] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[21:05:55] *** Tokodomo has joined the room
[21:05:59] *** Tokodomo has left the room
[21:09:59] *** lnj has joined the room
[21:10:11] *** Zash shows as "online"
[21:26:56] *** pep. has left the room
[21:27:00] *** pep. shows as "online"
[21:38:56] *** pep. has left the room
[21:38:59] *** pep. shows as "online"
[21:39:28] *** Tobias has left the room
[22:13:32] *** lnj has left the room
[22:14:42] *** Kev shows as "online"
[22:38:17] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:40:49] *** Zash has left the room
[22:58:30] *** Zash shows as "online"
[22:59:01] *** Zash shows as "online"
[23:36:22] *** Zash has left the room
[23:46:08] *** Zash has left the room