XSF logo XMPP Council - 2019-06-12


  1. peter has left
  2. dwd has joined
  3. peter has joined
  4. Remko has joined
  5. Zash has left
  6. Zash has joined
  7. peter has left
  8. Remko has left
  9. Wojtek has joined
  10. Wojtek has left
  11. dwd has left
  12. dwd has joined
  13. dwd has left
  14. Remko has joined
  15. lnj has joined
  16. Remko has left
  17. Zash has left
  18. Zash has joined
  19. dwd has joined
  20. Holger has left
  21. Holger has joined
  22. vanitasvitae has left
  23. vanitasvitae has joined
  24. Syndace has left
  25. Remko has joined
  26. dwd has left
  27. dwd has joined
  28. dwd has left
  29. dwd has joined
  30. Syndace has joined
  31. dwd has left
  32. dwd has joined
  33. dwd has left
  34. Kev has left
  35. dwd has joined
  36. Kev has joined
  37. dwd has left
  38. dwd has joined
  39. dwd has left
  40. dwd has joined
  41. debacle has joined
  42. dwd has left
  43. dwd has joined
  44. dwd has left
  45. Zash has left
  46. Zash has joined
  47. dwd has joined
  48. debacle has left
  49. dwd has left
  50. dwd has joined
  51. debacle has joined
  52. dwd has left
  53. dwd has joined
  54. dwd has left
  55. dwd has joined
  56. dwd has left
  57. dwd has joined
  58. dwd has left
  59. dwd has joined
  60. dwd has left
  61. dwd has joined
  62. Zash has left
  63. Zash has joined
  64. dwd has left
  65. dwd has joined
  66. dwd has left
  67. dwd has joined
  68. dwd has left
  69. dwd has joined
  70. dwd has left
  71. dwd has joined
  72. dwd has left
  73. dwd has joined
  74. peter has joined
  75. dwd has left
  76. Zash has left
  77. dwd has joined
  78. Zash has joined
  79. peter has left
  80. dwd hits 5 minute warning klaxon
  81. jonas’ sues dwd for ear damage
  82. jonas’ ...?
  83. Ge0rG Where's the meeting start klaxon?
  84. dwd Ooops.
  85. dwd 1) Role Call
  86. jonas’
  87. dwd <--
  88. Ge0rG .
  89. dwd Cool. Quorum achieved.
  90. jonas’ cluster ready to operate
  91. Kev I'm here
  92. dwd Great.
  93. dwd 2) Agenda Bashing
  94. dwd Anything I missed?
  95. dwd If not:
  96. Ge0rG I might go missing silently in the middle of things
  97. jonas’ how should we know?
  98. dwd 3) Items for voting: a) Last Call: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)
  99. Ge0rG I want to bash agenda item 3a
  100. jonas’ oh wow, *now* a bunch of mails show up in the standards folder in my MUA. disrgeard my earlier question.
  101. dwd I'm happy to shepherd this one through if nobody else particularly wants to.
  102. dwd But overall, I think it's ready to be Last Called.
  103. jonas’ I’m +1 on the LC
  104. Ge0rG I agree with the LC, but I'm not yet convinced it's ready to advance
  105. jonas’ and I’m also fine with dwd shepherding it
  106. dwd Yay?
  107. rion has joined
  108. Ge0rG I'll need to properly return before I can write that down though
  109. dwd Kev, ?
  110. Kev +-[01]
  111. Kev [+-][01]
  112. Kev I'm not convinced an LC when Ge0rG isn't convinced it should advance is productive
  113. Kev because we'll probably bore people of LCs on it.
  114. Kev But I won't block progress, so +-0.
  115. Ge0rG Kev: that's the exact definition of last call, isn't it?
  116. Kev Ge0rG: Depends, I read your 'not convinced' as 'well, we can ask, but I'd -1 advancing it without changes'.
  117. jonas’ Ge0rG, boring people?
  118. Kev If that wasn't the spirit it was intended...
  119. dwd Well, if Ge0rG would definitely reject the advance, it's a good reason not to bother. But if we can get some feedback on it (from Ge0rG or elsewhere) that will get it across the line, it feels worthwhile.
  120. Ge0rG We've been through a bunch already, and I need to check my own feedback from them for whether everything was included
  121. jonas’ so you’d re-submit your earlier feedback for inclusion?
  122. Ge0rG jonas’: most probably, yes. The last times after LC, just nothing happened
  123. Kev My preference, despite me not blocking an LC, would be to wait until we're fairly convinced the house is in order before doing another LC.
  124. dwd Ge0rG, I suppose the interesting question is do you feel confident we can get it to Draft this time?
  125. Ge0rG I'm also convinced we need to copy all message errors to all resources
  126. jonas’ I tend to agree with Kev
  127. Ge0rG dwd: I'd Rath first await implementation experience from the new changes
  128. Ge0rG *rather
  129. Ge0rG I haven't heard of any server implementing the new namespaced copying rules
  130. dwd Ge0rG, That's true. But we don't require that for Draft.
  131. Ge0rG Maybe an LC will make the developers realize there was a change.
  132. Kev Ge0rG: Incidentally, we re-implemented Carbons the other day, and I *think* we follow all the rules in the XEP. But that's not deployed anywhere.
  133. Ge0rG Kev: this is getting philosophical
  134. jonas’ implementation experience would be neat, but is technically not a requirement for Draft
  135. dwd Ge0rG, But still, I'm OK with rejecting a LC on this, but I'd like to do so in such a way that encourages it to happen some day.
  136. Kev jonas’: Given that we have huge amounts of implementation experience of everything other than the current version, Drafting while the current version doesn't have that seems...odd.
  137. Ge0rG I don't want to end up with a useless Draft that needs undocumented knowledge to follow properly
  138. Kev And what Ge0rG says.
  139. dwd OK, well, in that case we should be pushing server implementors to implement it and/or feedback on why not.
  140. jonas’ maybe we can encourage or invest in the existing implementations to upgrade?
  141. Ge0rG Kev: you could write about your experience on list and encourage others with the new namespace carrot
  142. Kev Ge0rG: Maybe I could.
  143. dwd OK - so the consensus is to reject for now.
  144. jonas’ yes
  145. dwd b) Last Call: XEP-0300 (Crypto hashes)
  146. jonas’ +1 on that one
  147. dwd Technically, this one has authors that are presumably active, given one of them is in this meeting, but Jonas has offered to shepherd it through if they're busy.
  148. Kev May as well.
  149. Kev (+1)
  150. dwd I'm +1 on this.
  151. Ge0rG Didn't we move the actual hash algorithm list into its own informational XEP?
  152. jonas’ yes
  153. Kev Oh, except no.
  154. Kev The published 300 still has them in.
  155. jonas’ yeah
  156. jonas’ someone hasn’t merged it yet
  157. Ge0rG There are still hashes named in 0300.
  158. Kev Ah. Poke the editors? :)
  159. jonas’ an editor shall do that before issuing the LC
  160. dwd What a disgraceful someone.
  161. jonas’ an editor will
  162. dwd But yes, merge and Last Call.
  163. Kev Seems weird to issue an LC on an unpublished version, but I should be used to weird by now :)
  164. Ge0rG Do we have a rendered version of the proper content?
  165. dwd Kev, You're welcome to insist on a publication first, of course.
  166. Ge0rG I'm pretty sure I'm +1, but I'd like to have a quick glance to reconfirm
  167. dwd Ge0rG, Then be -1. Seems perfectly sensible.
  168. jonas’ I can probably scp one without css somewhere
  169. jonas’ but nobody will get hurt by delaying 1w
  170. Ge0rG Alright, I'll be -1 then
  171. dwd Cool.
  172. dwd 4) Outstanding Votes
  173. dwd I don't think we have any.
  174. dwd 5) Next Meeting
  175. dwd +1W OK for everyone?
  176. Ge0rG +2W for me
  177. dwd Anyone else can't make it next week?
  178. jonas’ +1wfm
  179. dwd OK.
  180. dwd 6) AOB
  181. dwd Anyone?
  182. dwd I noted in xsf@ that '357 looked enticing for a Last Call, but I vaguely recall Kev was going to do some edits at some point.
  183. dwd I think discussing those might mean Guus comes out with other comments, given he implemented it recently.
  184. Kev I think 357 needs a chunk of love before it's ready for advancement, yes. Sadly, I've not actually got as far as doing the implementation that I was expecting to lead to those changes yet.
  185. Kev I wonder at this point how bad it would be to advance 357 with the intention of replacing it later, instead of waiting for a better version.
  186. jonas’ entirely replacing it?
  187. dwd Kev, You in a position to shepherd it through? I think it's got some implementation at least, now.
  188. Kev I guess we'll find out if it goes to LC. I'll ask for help if I fail.
  189. dwd OK - shall we put it on the slate for an LC next meeting?
  190. Link Mauve Hi, sorry I was talking with pep. IRL, didn’t see the time. ;_;
  191. Kev Vote on having a vote to LC for having a vote on advancement? How meta.
  192. pep. Oops, sorry
  193. Link Mauve I’ll read the minutes and take part on list.
  194. dwd Kev, Yeah. I'll just do that.
  195. dwd Link Mauve, You're lucky - both items for a vote are being dropped by consensus anyway.
  196. dwd Anyone anything else for AOB?
  197. jonas’ not me
  198. Kev Please no.
  199. dwd Excellent.
  200. dwd 7) Ite, Meeting Est
  201. dwd Thanks all.
  202. dwd Kev, Dunno why you're complaining, we're a minute short.
  203. Guus Kev, there's some confusion on what could/should be added to 357. I've talked to Daniel, who is under the impression that 'implementation guidelines' are deliberately not put in - while we both agreed that they'd be handy (with regards to when a server should trigger notifications, specifically).
  204. jonas’ thanks dwd
  205. Zash And started a couple of minutes late?!
  206. Ge0rG I was just thinking of an AOB to cover at least 10 minutes
  207. Guus if anything, I'd like something like that to be added.
  208. flow as long as those are mostly guidelines and not mandatory parts of the specs…
  209. Ge0rG Now where did I write about 0357 not being ready yet?
  210. Guus I don't immediately see a reason for them to be mandatory - but triggering a notification 'at the right time' quickly gets complex, and might even vary between platforms. Some kind of documentation around what is a sensible approach would be welcome.
  211. Guus Ge0rG probably somewhere just above where Dave awakened me from my slumber. 🙂
  212. Guus Others refer to me as 'he-who-shall-not-be-named' to avoid this issue.
  213. jonas’ move this to xsf@?
  214. flow It's the same situation as with CSI and I understand why CSI has deliberately none. I wonder if we shouldn't just put up wiki pages and have the XEPs link to it
  215. Zash Are these network protocols or software specifications?
  216. Ge0rG Zash: do we want them to work properly for our user base or do we want to differentiate by features?
  217. rion > I wonder if we shouldn't just put up wiki pages and have the XEPs link to it +1 if it's about xep remarks
  218. debacle has left
  219. Ge0rG https://twitter.com/jutta_steiner/status/1138815580184731650 looks like we can close the XSF Council now.
  220. lnj has left
  221. lnj has joined
  222. debacle has joined
  223. rion has left
  224. peter has joined
  225. debacle has left
  226. peter has left
  227. peter has joined
  228. Remko has left
  229. debacle has joined
  230. lnj has left
  231. debacle has left
  232. peter has left