-
Ge0rG
Oh, it looks like the vote update mail I didn't finish went down in a laptop crash.
-
jonas’
'tis time
-
jonas’
1) Roll Call
- jonas’
-
daniel
Hi
-
Ge0rG
Good morning everyone!
-
jonas’
I don’t expect a dwd, but Zash was active in another room a few minutes ago
-
Zash
Hey
-
jonas’
alright
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
anything to add/remove?
-
Zash
None here
-
jonas’
3) Editor’s Update - ProtoXEP: Reminders - Expired calls: CFE on XEP-0184 - Calls in progress: None.
-
jonas’
4) Items for voting
-
jonas’
4a) Decide on advancement of XEP-0184 Title: Message Delivery Receipts URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for message delivery receipts, whereby the sender of a message can request notification that the message has been delivered to a client controlled by the intended recipient.
-
Ge0rG
That's a tough one. There was some feedback, and part of it I'd consider as "very important"
-
jonas’
I agree
-
Ge0rG
I'm pretty sure the original authors are very busy, so looks like we need to re-assign or to find a Shepherd of sorts.
-
daniel
I'm very torn on that one. On one hand hand it kinda does what it is supposed to do. And it is widely deployed. It has just slightly fallen out of time
-
jonas’
I admit to not have read the full thread yet, so I’m hesitant to shepherd.
-
Zash
I think I'll have to re-read that thread. So, on-list.
-
Ge0rG
There are two possible ways forward: 1) do some eitorial clean-up and modernization without bumping 2) do the crazy multi-ACK namespace bump
-
Ge0rG
all that said, I'm -1 to advance it as-is
-
daniel
I'm against 2
-
jonas’
I’m also against (2). I’d rather get '333 bumped in such a way.
-
Ge0rG
and given my lack of time, I can't responsibly promise to step up to do #1
-
Zash
I think it's mostly fine, but some clarification never hurts
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: there were strong arguments for the per-message ACKing of 0184 that isn't available in 0333
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, I meant to implicitly mutate '333 to do multi-message acks
-
Ge0rG
but maybe I'm biased in that regard, and what I see as strong arguments is just a "meh" for other readers.
-
Zash
Different implementations / implementers have different requirements? :)
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: that would be rather weird
-
Zash
jonas’, doesn't it already, in a forward-moving pointer way?
-
jonas’
either way, I see we can’t advance it
-
jonas’
Zash, but message loss
-
daniel
I'm -1 and I'd suggest we do some minor cleanups and advance them
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: adding a new version to 0184 and a server-side muxing/demuxing compat is much more straight-forward
-
jonas’
daniel, will you do the cleanups?
-
daniel
I haven't even gotten around my own xeps
-
Ge0rG
shouldn't we formally ping the authors first?
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, true
-
jonas’
so let’s do that. I’m on-list for now
-
Ge0rG
I feel like I'd like to do the 0184 editing, but I lack the time
-
Ge0rG
so if somebody wearing a chair or an editor hat could remind me periodically, this could happen in a reasonable timeframe
-
jonas’
next:✎ -
jonas’
I’ll ping the authors with my editor hat, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll nag you ✏
-
jonas’
next:
-
jonas’
4b) Start Last Call for XEP-0280: Message Carbons Title: Message Carbons URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html Abstract: In order to keep all IM clients for a user engaged in a conversation, outbound messages are carbon-copied to all interested resources.
-
jonas’
that’s a fun one
-
Zash
again?
-
jonas’
someone™ suggested it
-
jonas’
I’m +0
- Ge0rG ,oO( I'm )-1 on principle.
- Ge0rG ,oO( I'm -1 on principle. )
-
jonas’
is that a formal vote?
-
Ge0rG
no.
-
daniel
I don't think a LC will yield widely different results to last time
-
jonas’
I personally think that '280 should not be touched anymore and any energy should go in '409 (IM 2.0)
-
Ge0rG
I was the last one to touch it, so: - I was told that "it contains payload elements typically used in IM" is not a strict definition of applicable payloads, and thus not implementable - there are not enough implementations of `urn:xmpp:carbons:rules:0` yet
-
Zash
Is version 0.13 the incorporation of previous LC's feedback?
-
Ge0rG
Zash: no, 0.13 is me pushing my own agenda
-
Zash
Ge0rG, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html could do with an update, I think it's meant to have that definition, or something
-
Ge0rG
there might be some overlap between last 0280 LC feedback and my agenda, though
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: the lessons that we are learning from 0280 and 0313 are Very Important for the IM 2.0 compat translation
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, indeed
-
Ge0rG
so +1 on the LC
-
Ge0rG
I'll heat up my flamethrower.
-
Zash
+0
-
daniel
+0
-
jonas’
the vote cannot succeed in this constellation
-
jonas’
methinksk✎ -
jonas’
methinks ✏
-
jonas’
need to check the rules again
-
Ge0rG
+2/3/-0 would probably result in a NO
-
jonas’
yes, we need a majority of +1
-
jonas’
we don’t have that
-
jonas’
(and can’t have it anymore✎ -
jonas’
(and can’t have it anymore) ✏
-
jonas’
though I agree with Ge0rG and hence change to +1
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: yaaay!
-
jonas’
let’s see what dave says
-
jonas’
moving on
-
jonas’
4c) Start Last Call for XEP-0357: Push Notifications Title: Push Notifications URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html Abstract: This specification defines a way for an XMPP servers to deliver information for use in push notifications to mobile and other devices.
-
jonas’
+1
-
jonas’
I think lots of folks have something to say about this
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: I've reminded those folks over the last months to put out their pencils and fix the XEP
-
Ge0rG
...to no avail.
-
daniel
Wasn't that called before with no changes in between?
-
jonas’
useful and specific on-list feedback would still be good, if we can get it
-
Ge0rG
+1 to the LC, and I really hope it won't result in a pointless change-less -1 afterwards.
-
daniel
But whatever +1
-
Zash
+1
-
jonas’
alright
-
jonas’
5) Outstanding Votes
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: I've got a small AOB for 0280
-
jonas’
daniel, unless I missed it, you’re still pending on the advancement of '402
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, noted
-
daniel
+1
-
jonas’
thanks
-
jonas’
6) Date of next
-
jonas’
+1 wwfm✎ - jonas’
-
Zash
+1
-
jonas’
+1w wfm ✏
-
Ge0rG
+1
-
jonas’
7) AOB I hear Ge0rG has one.
- jonas’ hands the mic to Ge0rG
-
Ge0rG
to the people who vote less-than-one to the 0280 LC (and that might include Future Dave): please elaborate what I can improve on the spec to change your mind.
-
Ge0rG
*crickets*
-
Ge0rG
daniel, Zash: currently that is a question to you two
-
daniel
I just think that the situation of people think it's a dead end problematic xep hasn't changed much since last time
-
Ge0rG
I don't see a viable replacement, though.
-
jonas’
'409?
-
Zash
IM 2?
-
jonas’
that
-
Ge0rG
a viable *short term* replacement
-
daniel
Well im2 has very similar problems
-
Ge0rG
also what I said above, IM 2 will require a compat routing mode which will be more-or-less the Carbon+MAM rules
-
daniel
I guess it's a question of what do we do with xeps that we know aren't perfect but are still the best available solution
-
daniel
Maybe I was wrong with my 0
-
Ge0rG
put them in deferred.
-
daniel
Let's see what the LC brings
-
jonas’
is that a +1?
-
Zash
Sure, +1, LC away
-
Ge0rG
Zash: would you like to update 0226?
-
Ge0rG
thanks very much :)
-
Zash
Personally I'd rather have simple general rules that don't need to change too often, or it'll be painful to roll out updates
-
Ge0rG
Zash: yeah, but we somehow failed to define the simple general rules when multi-device support was needed.
-
Zash
Long lists of XEPs tend to become outdated
-
jonas’
this sounds like something which could be moved to xsf@
-
jonas’
adjurn?
-
daniel
I mean we sort of had the same topic at summit
-
daniel
Yes doesn't have to be on council meeting time
-
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
-
Ge0rG
thanks, jonas’
-
jonas’
Thanks all, thanks Tedd
-
Zash
Thanks jonas’
-
Ge0rG
thanks, Tedd