XMPP Council - 2019-05-22

OK.

ok?

itym OOK.

It's meeting time, is what I actually meant.

now it is

Except it wasn't.

But now is.

there we go

1) Who is here?

I am

Hey!

Sorry for the late start.

I is here.

How is it late if you stated 5 seconds early?

Link Mauve ?

He won't know the answer to that, surely?

Kev, Apparently not.

2) Agenda Tcshing

Anyone got anything more than was already on the agenda?

If not...

3) Items for votings:

a) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/690 XEP-0184: Make the schema require @id in <received/>

I've left a comment there just moments ago.

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/690/files

As noted, this is an old PR that's been rejected, but has since been reopened.

I agree with Kevs comment

+1, ideally including the Kev wording change

I was confused there too for a second

Kev, Is that a veto, but accepting it in advance with that note?

I guess technically yes? But really it's "yes, and" rather than "No!".

I follow Kev on this one

I really view it as approval given that Link Mauve would presumably update the text before the end of the voting period :)

But regardless, +1 if that tweak gets merged, -0 otherwise.

OK - so... Votes... Is that everyone with a bizarre conditional +1, then?

But we'd have to have a new vote after the update

Ge0rG, Not if you all veto and change it when Link Mauve updates.

Ge0rG: I'm not convinced we really do. Nothing says that the change we vote on has to be in github.

Kev, This is also true.

dwd: we miss your vote

I think council can just bring in their own changes anyways

A proposed change that we approve being "Link Mauve's change plus Kev's text" can be approved AFAICS.

so if we say "yeah, we want that change, Editor, do that when you merge" that’s what’s going to happen

Ge0rG, Good point. I'm +1 on the change including Kev's proposal.

Moving on...

b) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/750 XEP-0300: remove content which has been moved to XEP-0414

I think events have overtaken this.

As an Author already okayed it.

have they? ✏

Have they?

ah, that

probably

In that case, do we want to consider Last Call - I feel we should probably wait until this is merged.

Can't we make a last call with a bizarre precondition?

it’s all about bizarre conditions today

Ge0rG, Our powers are without limitation, it seems.

But no, we'll await a merge, I think.

dwd, I think Board might have a word on that ;)

dwd: we might need an author or a shepherd for the last call.

4) Outstanding Votes

A membership vote is open.

When I wrote the agenda, we had none. Now we have one from Link Mauve...

5) AOB

No, wait.

5) Next Meeting

2019-05-29 OK for everyone?

Most probably yes

you’re making me do arithmetics in my head

I don’t like that

I don't immediately have a problem with it :)

wfm

6) AOB

none from me

Nope.

I do, vaguely - does anyone have pointers to the "Inbox" discussions from the various summits?

I don't have any breaking changes to XEPs to offer on short notice.

I’d expect Kev to have some

but surely we have minutes?

I ask because I'm considering knocking out a candidate design, and I'm curious to see how it matches what has been discussed.

there’s something on smart mam here which might relate slightly to that: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Minutes_of_the_2019_Summit:_Day_one

But no matter, I'm sure I can probably find the minutes etc.

I don't have pointers to them, but I have considerable interest in the area, and also opinions ;)

Kev, Opinions? How unlike you.

In as much as I think it can be driven pretty much entirely through smart use of the archive currently referred to as MAM.

dwd, there’s also this: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Minutes_of_the_2018_Summit:_Day_one#1.4_Inbox_.28Open_Chats.29

Kev, I agree up to a point.

jonas’, Thanks.

dwd: I'm up for a quick chat about it, at least. Before or after a strawman or more appears.

I remember a discussion in Düsseldorf that resulted in the realization that just using MAM, smartly or not, is not sufficient.

No, MAM is not sufficient.

Kev, Cool, I'll organise a timeslot.

But I think it makes sense to be using data heavily tied to the archive that is currently presented over MAM.

I’d like to at least listen in to those discussions

Kev, Yes, with you there.

jonas’, I'll organise a timeslot with a chatroom attached.

that sounds great

unless it’s a webex ;)

jonas’, Oh, you want video too?

nooo

doesn’t work anyways

(I';m actually fine with that, but...)

It MUST be using XMPP. No Experimental XEPs, though.

Ge0rG, :-)

I was assuming video, because bandwidth.

Right, anyway, I think we're drifting into:

Thanks all.

7) Ite, Meeting Est.

I don’t like the acausality of today’s meeting.

thanks, dwd & all

jonas’, Cause and effect, but not necessarily in that order.

jonas’: I'm pretty sure that people haven't yet digested the fallout of the preceding meetings, that resulted in a peak of editor activity recently.

for certain definitions of "recently"

I did most of the stuff last week and simply forget to send the emails :-X

jonas’: I'm sure that all the people who are using website change notification services to watch for XEP changes noticed.