I really want someone to comment on 152 so we can sensibly advance it.
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
stpeterhas joined
Peter Waherhas joined
MattJhas left
bearhas joined
waqashas joined
Tobias
just reading through it
fippohas joined
tatohas left
MattJhas joined
Lancehas joined
Kev
Right. 'tis time, 'tis time.
m&m
yay!
Kev
Thanks for sorting out the meeting in my absense.
m&m
we try
Kev
I don't think we have anything to discuss today.
Kev
1) Roll call.
Tobias
here
m&m
presente
m&m
and, actually, most of the votes are due today
Kev
Yes.
Tobias
only left thing to read for me is dialback
Tobias
will do so later today
Kev
We can cover those in the meeting if anyone wants to vote here.
Kev
MattJ looks here, but isn't, if mail is to be believed.
m&m
well … I have comments
Kev
Ralph is marked AFK.
Kev
Let's go through them.
Kev
2) 301?
m&m
yeah
Kev
yeah == +1?
m&m
so, I' am +1 on the intent … but there's a lot of formatting and consistency nits
Tobias
+1 on that if they add the MUC allowable traffic discovery stuff, which they said they'll do
m&m
it was really annoying to me … and it very well could just be me
Kev
Tobias: That sounds like -1 pending changes to me. Isn't it?
m&m
me too
m&m
(sounds like it to mee, too)
Kev
m&m: I don't enjoy reading that one. It is much *much* better than it used to be. Really is.
m&m
Oh, I know
Kev
So I think the motivation to sort things out was there.
m&m
I had a slew of comments early on myself
m&m
/nod
m&m
like I said, it's nits
Tobias
Kev, right..it's probably *that* version to draft or not and not *a fixed version* to draft, right?
m&m
things the XEP Editor would be in his/her pervue to fix
Kev
Tobias: Correct. It's "Is the XEP ready for Draft?".
Kev
Not "Might it be ready for Draft later".
Tobias
if it's about *that* particular unfixed version, than i'm -1
Kev
It does raise the question of how good we want things to be before Draft. I think the MUC discovery needs to be addressed, at least.
m&m
/nod
Kev
But in general, there are other things that I'm not entirely satisfied with, but probably aren't fatal.
Kev
I'm torn on whether we should block on it until it's "Right" or not.
Tobias
for /me it's mostly MUC discovery and my editorial point i raised...after that it can go to draft
m&m
the enemy of Good is Perfect
Kev
Given slippage of Draft being essentially Final these days.
Kev
m&m: Did you have any blocking comments on it, or are you +1?
m&m
before the Draft version is published, I would really like this XEP to be consistent with other XEPs
stpeter
Kev: actually, we made good progress on advancing some specs to Final for a while there, and I'm happy to come up with more candidates for that progression
m&m
consistency in references
Kev
stpeter: It wasn't "Nothing goes to Final", but "People think of Draft as Final".
stpeter
ah
stpeter
sounds like the IETF :P
m&m
heh
Kev
m&m: Could you produce a list of these?
m&m
yes
Kev
Ta.
m&m
I kind of stopped after 4.1
Kev
So this is a -1 at teh moment from both of you anyway.
m&m
but I can pick it back up
Kev
288
m&m
+1
Kev
3) 288
Tobias
+1 on 288
Kev
Much as I wanted to implement this first, because I think it's the sort of XEP that bears implementing before judging, I think I'll just have to +1 it. Time time time.
Kev
4) 220
Kev
I think we should leave this Experimental a bit longer until it's been proven in the field.
m&m
I believe Dave Cridland had implemented −288 in a previous life
Kev
Also, +1
m&m
+1 on 220
Tobias
i'll send my vote for 220 later today
Tobias
m&m, prosody also has an implementation...but occasional interop problems with dave's implementation
Kev
OK.
Kev
5) 152
m&m
/-:
m&m
so, I can see the utility of −152
Tobias
those cusax environenments?
m&m
but it would be nice if someone that plans to implement it would comment
m&m
Tobias: possibly, yes
Tobias
well...send a mail some minutes ago..but i don't plan to implemente it so... :)
Kev
I poked Emil but got no response. I really don't think we can push this through to Draft while the people who most need it aren't supporting it.
m&m
right
m&m
agreed
stpeter
I think Emil was on vacation or moving or both
Kev
stpeter: Ah, OK. He's been showing up as Online to me all day.
stpeter
so I'll ping him again
Kev
Thanks.
stpeter
yeah, probably way behind on things :)
stpeter
once I get my Linux machine I might start hacking up some features in Gajim :P
Kev
Traitor :p
m&m
heh
m&m
Long Live OS/2
Kev
Psi was supported on OS/2, incidentally.
Kev
I meant traitor for Gajim/Swift, not Linux/Mac, though.
Kev
Anyway...
stpeter
Kev: I'm not getting near C++ :P
m&m
Kev: stpeter work in Python d-:
m&m
moving on …
Kev
I think both Matt and I are -1 on 152 pending someone else actually wanting to implement it.
stpeter
OK
stpeter
so
Kev
Is that right?
m&m
yes
stpeter
do we have a requirement in XEP-0001 for implementations or expressions of desire to implement before advancing to Draft?
Tobias
Kev, were implementations a requirement for draft?
stpeter
I sense that we're changing XEP-0001 here
stpeter
and I have a problem with that
Kev
Implementations? No.
stpeter
if we want to change the criteria, we need to change XEP-0001
Kev
But if no-one comes forward saying they want it, it fails the test for being useful.
stpeter
I think it is very useful for CUSAX implementations, but I'm biased
Tobias
lance wants it, not?
stpeter
we poked a *lot* of people off list to get feedback on the CUSAX I-D
Lance
i've used it, yes
stpeter
they never posted to the lists
m&m
/-:
stpeter
I can poke them all again individually off list
stpeter
but it was a PITA
stpeter
and I do NOT see that this is required by XEP-0001
fippo
stpeter: heh, even you noting names of people who wanted to send feedback in STOX didn't help :-)
Kev
Incidentally:
Kev
In order for a Standards Track XEP to advance from Proposed to Draft, it must:
fill known gaps in XMPP technologies or deficiencies with existing protocols
be clearly described and accurately documented so that it can be understood and implemented by interested and knowledgeable members of the XMPP developer community
document any known security considerations with the proposed technology
be generally stable and appropriate for further field experience
have achieved rough consensus (though not necessarily unanimity) within the Standards SIG
be formally defined by an XML schema
receive the requisite votes from the XMPP Council
stpeter
BUT, that said, I will poke some folks again
stpeter
IMHO this might be a case of people needing it and not realizing that
stpeter
I think it is fine for us to actually be ahead of implementers sometimes
Kev
I don't think it has achieved rough consensus if no-one wants to implement it (or only one person).
stpeter
so that we have something ready to go
Kev
I'm happy for people to say "We need this and are going to use it for CUSAX", but only having one person saying they want it seems to fall shy of these criteria to me.
m&m
I would be happy with some people coming forward saying "I really need this"
stpeter
half the specs that are Draft should never have been advanced from Experimental, then
m&m
stpeter: very likely
stpeter
so we can deprecate those
stpeter
in any case
Tobias
and the schema contradicts the text
stpeter
I will poke some more folks and see what they have to say
m&m
well, there's a technical reason to not advance it
stpeter
time for the XSF board meeting in xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org
stpeter
see you
stpeterhas left
m&m
pedantically technical
Kev
Yeah, we're running over for a change.
Kev
6) Date of next.
m&m
oh 297?
Kev
Isn't 297 pending more changes from Matt?
Kev
That's what I'd noted in the minutes.
m&m
I thought he already made them, and that is what was published two (three?) weeks ago
Tobiasthought that too
m&m
I thought he had made the changes, but they had not been published
MattJ
A disembodied voice says yes
Kev
Ah, OK.
Kev
Voting on that next week, then?
MattJ
wfm
Tobias
wfm
Kev
6) Date of next.
next weke?
m&m
sure
Tobias
okay
m&m
wfm (both 5 and 6)
Kev
7) AOB?
Tobias
none here
Kev
I'll take that as a No.
Kev
Thanks all.
Kevbangs the gavel.
Tobias
thank you
m&m
gracias
Peter Waherhas left
fippohas left
Tobiashas left
waqashas left
tatohas joined
Tobiashas joined
Lancehas joined
tatohas left
waqashas joined
Kev
Upon reflection (and checking xep1), I don't think the whole 'we treat Draft quite like Final' is something we've tacitly accepted, I think it's what is implied by:
Kev
Note: Once an XMPP Extension Protocol has been advanced to a status of Draft, it is expected that the specification will be the basis for widespread implementation and for deployment in production environments. As a result of such implementation and deployment experience, the protocol may be subject to modification, including changes that are backwards-incompatible. Although such backwards-incompatible modifications shall be avoided if at all possible, deployment of a Draft protocol in mission-critical application may not be advisable.
Kev
That is, we're doing the Right Thing by making the move to Draft a Big Deal.
MattJ
I clearly need to read the meeting logs now
Kev
I think it would be better to do that than rely on the minutes' summary.