Kevfippo: I haven't sent an agenda, which isn't quite the same as there not being one.
Kevwinfried: I don't have that on the agenda. I do have on the agenda choosing a XEP Editor team that can issue the calls for Council to shove stuff on the agenda though :)
KevThe things I have on the agenda for today are:
2) 152 vote
3) Select editors
4) deprecate non-forms from 55?
KevAnd 'tis time, 'tis time.
Move to Draft?
KevI'll +1, grumbling a bit that the people who most need it didn't comment saying so.
Kev3) Select editors
KevSo, the deal here is that we pick the XEP Editors we think we should have, and then present the list to Board for them to ratify.
ralphmHow many implementations are there or 0152?
ralphmKev: is that >=2, interoperable?
KevBy my reckoning, we've had as volunteers Dave, m&m, Ashley, Stefan (Strigler), Lloyd, Steffen (Larsen).
Kevralphm: That's the requirement for Final, not Draft.
ralphmKev: I know this, of course.
Tobiaswhat's the size we're aiming at for that team?
winfriedI was at the list too
KevBut yes, I believe there are >=2. I do not know if they're interoperable, due to the lack of responses on list.
Kevwinfried: My bad, I stopped typing before getting to the bottom of the thread.
ralphmKev: I just wanted to know if there has been enough gathered experience, given the lack of real LC comments.
KevTobias: Up to us, I think.
bear > 2 and < too many
fipporalphm: i know a thing which solves the same usecase and i think 0152 is a good fit for the requirements
Kevralphm: I'm basically trusting Peter here, who said it should be Draft, and Lance, who's implemented it IIRC.
ralphmfippo, Kev: right
Kev(I also volunteered for the editor role)
KevMy inclination for the Editor team is to just choose those people who aren't already serving on Board/Council from the list, and filter no further than that.
ralphmMy personal stance on the Editor Team is that sitting council and board members should not be serving.
Kevralphm: My stance is that there's no problem with overlap with Council, probably no problem with Board, but that people on Council/Board are doing enough already :)
KevLance / fippo / Tobias: What are your thoughts on this?
LanceI'm fine appointing all non-council, non-board to the team
Tobiasi'm fine with that too
ralphmI'm still ok with them providing review comments on pull requests, of course
KevFab. In that case, I'll suggest this at the immenent Board meeting for them to ratify.
KevI'll also learn to typo.
Tobiasone thing at a time
Kev4) There was discussion at the summit about deprecating the non-xep4 bit of xep55. What do people think of doing that?
fippodoes that change the current workflow where some people have direct git access? (e.g. me)?
fippoi'm happy to have more people who review diffs though
Tobiasfippo, i think not
KevMy view is that xep55 is a mess, but that it's widely deployed and if we want to drastically change semantics, it's better to just obsolete it with a new one.
LanceKev: +1 on that sentiment
Kevfippo: I am assuming not, but the editor team might decide otherwise.
bearhow the editorial team works will be decided by them after it's been formed
Tobiasyup, jabber search is widely implemented in servers and clients, the way it currently is
ralphmKev: I had the same idea, just do a new one, with a new namespace, like we did with delay
KevI think people will shout if they start taking away the ability to push patches from people who already have it, so they are probably not foolhardy enough to try, but I think it's the editor team's decision to not fight that particular beast ;)
KevCool. I think that's us done for action items (by next week the editor team will probably be asking for BOSH voting :))
Kev5) Date of next
Kevbangs the gavel.
winfriedthank you kev!
stpeteroh sigh, I spaced out the meeting
stpeterchecks out the room logs
bearand here I thought you had amazing timing to arrive *just* as it ended