XMPP Council - 2016-01-06

Right, that's MUC2 (MIX) finally submitted.

\o/

\o/\o/

was about time :)

I took the slightly unusual approach of annotating in the ProtoXEP those points that I thought most needed list discussion. Partly in order to provoke that discussion, but mostly as a warning to early implementors so they think about both cases and don't write code that makes switching later hard.

That's useful, I think. The TODO in the XML comments possibly less so.

Woot! Catching up on this mornings conversations… Kev++

Lance: I seem to be here, so as long as someone says my name to summon me, I'm happy to spare 30mins to be a poor imitation of SamWhited if that's useful.

it is time

0) Roll call

I assume that's "Yep, please scribe" :)

yep :)

hi

Afternoon.

MattJ Tobias ?

here

ah, different nick

yeah...too lazy to move to the other machine or start another swift instance

1) Update XEP-0080 <https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/128>

+1

+1

I'm +1

finally a change that you cna read during the meeting :)

heh

While this looks OK, does this imply that consumers of this format need to handle unexpected elements?

Dave Cridland, isn't that always the case?

you are supposed to ignore tags you don't understand

I hadn't thought about this until just now; happy to raise this on the list, mind.

Here

Tobi, Not always; ISTR a lengthy discussion about cases where there was a single element expected, and multiple elements were forbidden.

We've added elements before, such as the timezone info

Lance, Since Draft?

yes

Lance, As I say, not against the change, I just noticed now there's no warning to clients that new elements may be added.

So I'll vote +1, but with food for thought for the future.

2) ProtoXEP Mediated Information eXchange (MIX): Accept as Experimental? < http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mix.html >

+1

+1

haven't read it yet..will do so tomorrow and vote on list

+1…

SamWhited, I'd +2 if I could.

psa MattJ?

+1 - let the discussion begin!

(Matt didn't vote on item 1 either, that I recorded)

+1 to altaccuracy

+1 to MIX

3) Summit technical agenda

well, that is, let the long overdue public discussion begin ;-)

This was requested by Dave

good idea to establish a bit of an agenda ahead of time

Yes, I'd at least like to have a few topics we'd like to get covered.

I'll take a chance here, and say MIX :)

I think MIX is one thing that warrants discussion. Possibly e2e, given the momentum in this area might yield some fruitful discussion.

E2E also feels sensible with OMEMO and Flow's recent post

I think Flow (if he's attending) might like to say something about the E2E discussions at the GSoC summit.

I say "might like", but I mean "should be encouraged to" :)

I don't know if Flow is attending; I think he isn't. But we can figure something out.

but OMEMO folks are i think

= daniel

I'd suggest whatever happens that we don't put too many topics on the table that we can't go off-piste (behave) if something interesting comes up. But otherwise, setting some goals for the summit sounds like a good idea to me (having thought about it overnight).

Also, Kev suggested encouraging someone to take proper minutes, even at the cost of spnsoring someone's attendance. I'd like to know if the Council supports this before raising it at the Board meeting.

i like the idea..more communication is good

I think having MIX and E2E as target topics is reasonable to me.

Proper minutes would be very desirable - it seems that we could crowdsource that via etherpad

+1 to sponsoring a minute taker

psa: I think that generally unless one or two specific people who are good/motivated at that have attended, it's not been done.

we actually had decent minutes for the last summit until I dropped off

But it sounds like E2E and MIX are the big ones. I don't think we have sufficient IoT people, otherwise I'd suggest that.

right

RE minutes: If you want, enso.me (similar to Talky, which we used last time) has a shared notepad built in which works pretty well. No idea how it compares to etherpad, but it's in the same window as the people dialing in, which is nice.

and I think the Jingle stuff is mostly done - those are smaller fixes anyway and probably don't require broader discussion

SamWhited: same for Jitsi Meet, no? ;-)

psa: I don't think Meet has notes? Maybe they've updated that since I last used it though

Since they're effectively just different frontends on the same platform

mett.jit.si doesn't make you sign in, which is nice; wish it did have notes.

Oh hey, nope, psa is right. Ignore me, it totally has notes.

Ok, I think we have a good target agenda then

4) Date of next

sbtsbc?

I don't think I have a suitable summary to minute for the minutes discussion.

wfm

wfm

Kev: Council recommends discussing MIX and E2E at the summit

Kev, "various options for taking minutes were discussed" - I don't think there was a conclusion reached about which we'll take :)

SamWhited: click "shared document" in the top bar and that brings up etherpad in Jitsi Meet ;-)

Lance: I've captured that. It was the second point about minutes that I don't think had any conclusions

That will probably be made on the day, as usual

Lance, Does the Council want minutes? Does the Council want the Board to Do Something about it?

i'd say yes to both

Can I suggest treating this as a pseudovote and getting a +1/-1 from everyone?

Yes

+1

+1

I suggest treating this as ...

+1

Thanks folks, your minutetaker is once again satisfied. :)

Thanks,#

thanks

Thanks Kev

psa, Dave: sbtsbc?

Yes, that's fine.

WFM

5) AOB

none here

I have a question

about how we'd like to handle the Jingle updates

which are somewhat coordinated across 4 XEPs

would the Council prefer to consider those all together at the same time?

or trickle out the spec updates?

Yes.

How coordinated do they need to be?

I'd like to trickle out the spec updates, but then trigger the formal approval and update simultaneously.

Jingle-XEP-Trickle. I see what you did there.

Kev, (n)Ice joke there.

Also good.

Dave Cridland: sure, that works for me

I'll start pushing toward that goal

having the Jingle ICE XEP published will help

that's enough for me to proceed, thanks

</aob>

thanks Peter

Any other AOB?

I'd just like to thank Kev for both the minutes and MIX.

indeed, thanks Kev!

Welcome, and Peter did most of the MIX wording.

Thanks Kev

It's the submission that makes me particularly happy, though.

Looks like no other AOB

thanks all

Yes. Although now I'll have to try to find someone to implement it in our codebases :)

Thanks all :)

SamWhited: I'm still thinking about your i18n question ;-)

I want special recognition for managing to write 2016 not once, but twice in the minutes without writing 2015 first.

^5 Kev

Thank you, thank you.

is there an award for that?

psa: Yah, no worries; I actually avoided it all together by just not having a preparation step and always doing enforcement (at least with existing profiles, the benchmarks I wrote were plenty fast)

I'm hoping the award is Tobi +1ing MIX :)

hehehe

SamWhited: interesting!

Lance, I think you mean ^6.

Two observations after taking minutes (neither of which need any actions, they're just observations). 1) Writing the minutes as you went along was easier that waiting until afterwards (possibly I should have always done this instead of doing it post-meeting). 2) I think it helps to be thinking of the minutes to ensure stuff that means actions gets definite conclusions (which was my argument for not having non-chair minute takers, but in this case as long as people don't mind the minute taker moaning until there's a resolution that seems to not matter).

Kev: good points, both

Indeed. In real meetings, when I'm taking minutes, I've tended to halt discussion in order to read out my suggested summary if I can't figure it out, or it it's unclear.

Kev: good feedback, thanks

For the record then: anytime a minute taker wants to request a +/-1 vote to clarify things or get a summary, I'll allow it :)

SamWhited ^

Ack