XMPP Council - 2013-09-18

  1. Lance has left
  2. Lance has joined
  3. Lance has left
  4. Lance has joined
  5. Lance has left
  6. Lance has joined
  7. stpeter has joined
  8. stpeter has left
  9. stpeter has joined
  10. Lance has joined
  11. stpeter has left
  12. stpeter has joined
  13. stpeter has left
  14. stpeter has joined
  15. waqas has left
  16. Tobias has left
  17. stpeter has left
  18. waqas has joined
  19. waqas has left
  20. bear has left
  21. tato has left
  22. ralphm has left
  23. Tobias has joined
  24. Tobias has joined
  25. Tobias has left
  26. Tobias has joined
  27. xnyhps has joined
  28. xnyhps has left
  29. tato has joined
  30. stpeter has joined
  31. stpeter has left
  32. stpeter has joined
  33. stpeter has left
  34. m&m has joined
  35. stpeter has joined
  36. stpeter has left
  37. Tobias has left
  38. Tobias has joined
  39. Kev I really want someone to comment on 152 so we can sensibly advance it.
  40. stpeter has joined
  41. stpeter has left
  42. stpeter has joined
  43. Peter Waher has joined
  44. MattJ has left
  45. bear has joined
  46. waqas has joined
  47. Tobias just reading through it
  48. fippo has joined
  49. tato has left
  50. MattJ has joined
  51. Lance has joined
  52. Kev Right. 'tis time, 'tis time.
  53. m&m yay!
  54. Kev Thanks for sorting out the meeting in my absense.
  55. m&m we try
  56. Kev I don't think we have anything to discuss today.
  57. Kev 1) Roll call.
  58. Tobias here
  59. m&m presente
  60. m&m and, actually, most of the votes are due today
  61. Kev Yes.
  62. Tobias only left thing to read for me is dialback
  63. Tobias will do so later today
  64. Kev We can cover those in the meeting if anyone wants to vote here.
  65. Kev MattJ looks here, but isn't, if mail is to be believed.
  66. m&m well … I have comments
  67. Kev Ralph is marked AFK.
  68. Kev Let's go through them.
  69. Kev 2) 301?
  70. m&m yeah
  71. Kev yeah == +1?
  72. m&m so, I' am +1 on the intent … but there's a lot of formatting and consistency nits
  73. Tobias +1 on that if they add the MUC allowable traffic discovery stuff, which they said they'll do
  74. m&m it was really annoying to me … and it very well could just be me
  75. Kev Tobias: That sounds like -1 pending changes to me. Isn't it?
  76. m&m me too
  77. m&m (sounds like it to mee, too)
  78. Kev m&m: I don't enjoy reading that one. It is much *much* better than it used to be. Really is.
  79. m&m Oh, I know
  80. Kev So I think the motivation to sort things out was there.
  81. m&m I had a slew of comments early on myself
  82. m&m /nod
  83. m&m like I said, it's nits
  84. Tobias Kev, right..it's probably *that* version to draft or not and not *a fixed version* to draft, right?
  85. m&m things the XEP Editor would be in his/her pervue to fix
  86. Kev Tobias: Correct. It's "Is the XEP ready for Draft?".
  87. Kev Not "Might it be ready for Draft later".
  88. Tobias if it's about *that* particular unfixed version, than i'm -1
  89. 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.
  90. m&m /nod
  91. Kev But in general, there are other things that I'm not entirely satisfied with, but probably aren't fatal.
  92. Kev I'm torn on whether we should block on it until it's "Right" or not.
  93. Tobias for /me it's mostly MUC discovery and my editorial point i raised...after that it can go to draft
  94. m&m the enemy of Good is Perfect
  95. Kev Given slippage of Draft being essentially Final these days.
  96. Kev m&m: Did you have any blocking comments on it, or are you +1?
  97. m&m before the Draft version is published, I would really like this XEP to be consistent with other XEPs
  98. 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
  99. m&m consistency in references
  100. Kev stpeter: It wasn't "Nothing goes to Final", but "People think of Draft as Final".
  101. stpeter ah
  102. stpeter sounds like the IETF :P
  103. m&m heh
  104. Kev m&m: Could you produce a list of these?
  105. m&m yes
  106. Kev Ta.
  107. m&m I kind of stopped after 4.1
  108. Kev So this is a -1 at teh moment from both of you anyway.
  109. m&m but I can pick it back up
  110. Kev 288
  111. m&m +1
  112. Kev 3) 288
  113. Tobias +1 on 288
  114. 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.
  115. Kev 4) 220
  116. Kev I think we should leave this Experimental a bit longer until it's been proven in the field.
  117. m&m I believe Dave Cridland had implemented −288 in a previous life
  118. Kev Also, +1
  119. m&m +1 on 220
  120. Tobias i'll send my vote for 220 later today
  121. Tobias m&m, prosody also has an implementation...but occasional interop problems with dave's implementation
  122. Kev OK.
  123. Kev 5) 152
  124. m&m /-:
  125. m&m so, I can see the utility of −152
  126. Tobias those cusax environenments?
  127. m&m but it would be nice if someone that plans to implement it would comment
  128. m&m Tobias: possibly, yes
  129. Tobias well...send a mail some minutes ago..but i don't plan to implemente it so... :)
  130. 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.
  131. m&m right
  132. m&m agreed
  133. stpeter I think Emil was on vacation or moving or both
  134. Kev stpeter: Ah, OK. He's been showing up as Online to me all day.
  135. stpeter so I'll ping him again
  136. Kev Thanks.
  137. stpeter yeah, probably way behind on things :)
  138. stpeter once I get my Linux machine I might start hacking up some features in Gajim :P
  139. Kev Traitor :p
  140. m&m heh
  141. m&m Long Live OS/2
  142. Kev Psi was supported on OS/2, incidentally.
  143. Kev I meant traitor for Gajim/Swift, not Linux/Mac, though.
  144. Kev Anyway...
  145. stpeter Kev: I'm not getting near C++ :P
  146. m&m Kev: stpeter work in Python d-:
  147. m&m moving on …
  148. Kev I think both Matt and I are -1 on 152 pending someone else actually wanting to implement it.
  149. stpeter OK
  150. stpeter so
  151. Kev Is that right?
  152. m&m yes
  153. stpeter do we have a requirement in XEP-0001 for implementations or expressions of desire to implement before advancing to Draft?
  154. Tobias Kev, were implementations a requirement for draft?
  155. stpeter I sense that we're changing XEP-0001 here
  156. stpeter and I have a problem with that
  157. Kev Implementations? No.
  158. stpeter if we want to change the criteria, we need to change XEP-0001
  159. Kev But if no-one comes forward saying they want it, it fails the test for being useful.
  160. stpeter I think it is very useful for CUSAX implementations, but I'm biased
  161. Tobias lance wants it, not?
  162. stpeter we poked a *lot* of people off list to get feedback on the CUSAX I-D
  163. Lance i've used it, yes
  164. stpeter they never posted to the lists
  165. m&m /-:
  166. stpeter I can poke them all again individually off list
  167. stpeter but it was a PITA
  168. stpeter and I do NOT see that this is required by XEP-0001
  169. fippo stpeter: heh, even you noting names of people who wanted to send feedback in STOX didn't help :-)
  170. Kev Incidentally:
  171. 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
  172. stpeter BUT, that said, I will poke some folks again
  173. stpeter IMHO this might be a case of people needing it and not realizing that
  174. stpeter I think it is fine for us to actually be ahead of implementers sometimes
  175. Kev I don't think it has achieved rough consensus if no-one wants to implement it (or only one person).
  176. stpeter so that we have something ready to go
  177. 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.
  178. m&m I would be happy with some people coming forward saying "I really need this"
  179. stpeter half the specs that are Draft should never have been advanced from Experimental, then
  180. m&m stpeter: very likely
  181. stpeter so we can deprecate those
  182. stpeter in any case
  183. Tobias and the schema contradicts the text
  184. stpeter I will poke some more folks and see what they have to say
  185. m&m well, there's a technical reason to not advance it
  186. stpeter time for the XSF board meeting in xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org
  187. stpeter see you
  188. stpeter has left
  189. m&m pedantically technical
  190. Kev Yeah, we're running over for a change.
  191. Kev 6) Date of next.
  192. m&m oh 297?
  193. Kev Isn't 297 pending more changes from Matt?
  194. Kev That's what I'd noted in the minutes.
  195. m&m I thought he already made them, and that is what was published two (three?) weeks ago
  196. Tobias thought that too
  197. m&m I thought he had made the changes, but they had not been published
  198. MattJ A disembodied voice says yes
  199. Kev Ah, OK.
  200. Kev Voting on that next week, then?
  201. MattJ wfm
  202. Tobias wfm
  203. Kev 6) Date of next. next weke?
  204. m&m sure
  205. Tobias okay
  206. m&m wfm (both 5 and 6)
  207. Kev 7) AOB?
  208. Tobias none here
  209. Kev I'll take that as a No.
  210. Kev Thanks all.
  211. Kev bangs the gavel.
  212. Tobias thank you
  213. m&m gracias
  214. Peter Waher has left
  215. fippo has left
  216. Tobias has left
  217. waqas has left
  218. tato has joined
  219. Tobias has joined
  220. Lance has joined
  221. tato has left
  222. waqas has joined
  223. 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:
  224. 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.
  225. Kev That is, we're doing the Right Thing by making the move to Draft a Big Deal.
  226. MattJ I clearly need to read the meeting logs now
  227. Kev I think it would be better to do that than rely on the minutes' summary.
  228. stpeter has joined
  229. stpeter has left
  230. stpeter has joined
  231. MattJ .
  232. waqas .
  233. m&m
  234. stpeter has left
  235. tato has joined
  236. Tobias has left
  237. Tobias has joined
  238. tato has left
  239. Lance has left
  240. stpeter has joined
  241. m&m has left
  242. m&m has joined
  243. Tobias has left
  244. Tobias has joined
  245. Tobias has left
  246. m&m has left
  247. tato has joined
  248. Lance has joined
  249. stpeter has left