Ge0rGThis looks straight-forward and I'm pretty sure it's not a breaking change.
Ge0rGkicks Link Mauve's wifi
Ge0rGAwesome. If Dave happens to re-appear, he can cast his vote as well.
Ge0rG3b) XEP-0368: clarify what happens when a `.` target is published. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/796
Link MauveDefinitely +1 on this.
Ge0rG+1, as this is just a clarification of what's in RFC 2782
Ge0rG4) Outstanding Votes
jonas’I still don’t know what to do about the jingle things
Ge0rGThat's an awesome AOB actually
peteris sort-of watching in case author input is needed
Dave Cridlandhas joined
jonas’although that has resolved itself because it expired / vetoed with several -1 because nobody had an idea what to do about it
Ge0rGDave Cridland: who are you and what have you done to dwd?
jonas’I read the mails by fippo but those weren’t a clear +1 / -1 for me
Ge0rGWe also have two votes that expire today, with missing input from Kev and Link on https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-sce.html
Dave CridlandSorry, seems my DSL at home went down at exactly the wrong moment.
Dave CridlandAnd my j.org account has months of spam to download from offline storage...
Ge0rGDave Cridland: that adds to the voting spam from this MUC
Ge0rG5) Next Meeting
Link MauveGe0rG, still on list for me, I haven’t reviewed it yet.
Dave Cridland+1W is good.
Ge0rGwas just going to post a crickets emoji.
jonas’sorry, didn’t realize you were waiting for input :)
Ge0rG6a) Jingle and other "special skills" [Jonas]
Ge0rGjonas’: do you want to make your point first?
jonas’so, my point is that Jingle and possibly other subprotocols of XMPP are rather complex beasts, and I find it very hard to judge whether a change is sensible without having implemented it myself
Dave CridlandI do sympathize - I've never implemented Jingle either.
jonas’Jingle is my main issue right now, because I have sunk several hours into reviewing MIX in depth and took MIX into consideration when I wrote my MUC implementation, so I have a rough idea how things work there; same for PubSub.
Ge0rGI second that, PubSub is another candidate for this category
jonas’so I don’t really feel confident when voting on Jingle things
jonas’which is probably not a good thing
jonas’now others have mentioned that the Jingle veterans like fippo and peter would be qualified to give reviews, which makes sense to me
jonas’and which would, in my opinion, be a sane way forward
Link Mauvejonas’, it’s the opposite for me, I feel Jingle pretty well, but MIX is still foreign to me.
peter(although we might be the people posting PRs too)
jonas’it would of course be even better if council had actually the technical understanding itself, but that’s probably not realistic for all the 400+ things we have
Ge0rGThe alternatives would be:
- create a Jingle SIG
- force all Council members to implement Jingle
jonas’deferring to the authors would effectively mean that we treat Jingle like any Experimental XEP
jonas’modulo that someone like Link Mauve may be a gatekeeper, too
Ge0rGI think that formally, we should aim for something like two (or three) independent reviews from people who were not involved in the PR
Dave CridlandHowever, my view is that we're voted onto Council and we have to have to final say. How we reach that decision is, basically, up to us - you're welcome to defer to expertise like Fippo if you like, or something else.
Dave CridlandBut I'm all in favour of getting independent reviews.
GuusFrom the floor: is this to be a consideration when accepting future, new, possibly complex XEPs?
jonas’so my course of action would be to ask on the mailing list for specific +1/-1 feedback on the PRs from the jingle veterans
Ge0rGDave Cridland: I'd like to prevent a situation where all five Council members privately ask fippo for feedback and base their decisions on that
jonas’Guus, not necessarily from my side. sometimes complexity is necessary. I’m not saying that Jingle is too complex for what it does
Ge0rGA SIG for each complex area would be a very formal way to do things.
jonas’and too much organizational overhead IMO
Ge0rGI'm fine with just asking for +1/-1 from veterans on the list.
Ge0rGI just wonder how we define who qualifies for a veteran.
jonas’author and/or implementor during CFE
Ge0rGOr maybe this is something we as Council members can do implicitly. Ask for public review, wait, -1 if there is not enough feedback
peterPlease do feel free to flag me on PR reviews in GitHub.
peterSame for others, I'm sure.
jonas’peter, is pinging your github name enough?
Dave CridlandGe0rG, How about we discuss who we'll ask for reviews when things come up for voting that we'reuncomfprtable with?
Ge0rGDave Cridland: that's perfectly fine with me
Ge0rGSo when such a vote comes up, we defer it and define a list of people to consult.
Dave CridlandThat's probably the right choice. And I've usually found that one decent reviewer is often enough to spark a discussion which illuminates the issues.
Ge0rGI think we can move forward with that.
peterAnd as Dave says, it's up to the Council members to come to their own conclusions.
Ge0rGDo we still need to do so for https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/793 ? Probably yes.
peterI balloted on lots of RFCs while I was on the IETF, but I didn't make as many comments on routing specs (that's not my area of expertise) as on apps/real-time specs.
jonas’can we start this process right now for #793?
jonas’then let’s do that
Ge0rGpeter: do you feel confident to review #793 and to estimate its implications?
Ge0rG(also able to review it in two weeks time?)
peterYes, I can commit to that.
Ge0rGpeter: thanks very much.
Ge0rGI also don't see a clear indication from fippo's email. We probably should ask for a clarification.
Ge0rGAny other suggested reviewers?
Ge0rGLink Mauve, obviously. You didn't vote the last time. Can you review the PR and make a public statement on the ML thread?
Ge0rGWe are also a bit over time already.
Ge0rGAlso it seems like we've lost quorum.
Ge0rGDave Cridland: do you have suggestions on whom to ask for reviews of #793?
Link MauveGe0rG, ok, I will do that.
Ge0rGLink Mauve: great, thanks
Dave CridlandGe0rG, Thanks for stepping up there.
Link MauveThanks. :)
Dave Cridlandhas left
peterPlease note that I am interrupt-driven, so feel free to poke me if I haven't replied in time!
peter(well, interrupt-driven and also overloaded in my $dayjob)
peterLance is another possible "Jingle veteran" who could possibly review PRs. :-)
Ge0rGLance: could you also have a look at https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/793 (is it useful? does it break things? is it an incompatible change?) and provide a feedback on the standards@ ML? That would be highly appreciated
LanceYeah, I can do that today
LanceMy review of that PR is that, although I agree entirely with the sentiment, the change would be breaking, and by itself is not worth the namespace fracturing.
fippoge0rg: i would only do a "first thre get served" to ensure my opinion has a majority :-)