Hmm, I will be on a coach today during the meeting, I don’t know if they have wifi there so I might be unable to join. :/
Tobias
Link Mauve, thanks for letting us now :)
Dave Cridland
Link Mauve, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiBI3A2WcrE
daniel
I wont be able to attend either.
jayaurahas joined
Zashhas left
danielhas left
Holgerhas left
SamWhitedhas left
SamWhitedhas joined
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Holgerhas left
Holgerhas left
SamWhitedhas left
ralphmhas left
Kevhas left
SamWhitedhas left
ralphmhas joined
Tobias
seems it's about time
Tobias
1) Roll call
SamWhitedwaves
Tobias
Link Mauve and daniel sent apologies earlier today
Tobias
Dave Cridland?
Tobias
.
Tobiashas left
Dave Cridland
Hiya
Tobias
2) Minute Taker
Tobias
happy to do it if nobody else wants
SamWhited
I'll do it
Tobias
ok
Tobias
3) Move XEP-0153: vCard-Based Avatars to "Obsolete"
Tobias
seems the discussion pretty much died
Tobias
but hey..let's vote anyway
Tobias
-1
SamWhited
+1
Dave Cridland
I think there's no concensus to do this, so -1.
Dave Cridland
Ugh. Consensus.
Dave Cridland
Actually I don't even know how to spell anything at all today.
Kev
'anything'
SamWhited
Dave Cridland: Not to worry, that's me every day :)
Tobias
the rest will vote on list, if they want to i assume
Dave Cridland
What about the 'at all'? See? Fraught with complexity.
Tobias
4) XEP-0300 fixing, and Jingle FT
Tobias
according to latest news, Swift does Jingle FT :4 with base64 and Salut-a-toi does Jingle FT :4 with hex encoding
Tobias
everyone in agreement that bumping versions, fixing examples and explitly specifing what encoding to use is the right way to go from here?
Dave Cridland
Which namespaces are getting bumped?
Dave Cridland
Jingle FT *and* hashes?
Tobias
Jingle FT and hashes, yes
ralphmhas left
SamWhited
+1 for namespace bump and specifying an encoding
Dave Cridland
Does Jingle FT need it? I thought bumping hashes would be sufficient?
Link Mauve
Dave Cridland, that was my understanding too.
Tobias
Kev suggested this would be neede
Tobias
*needed
Link Mauve
I found some wifi at the first stop, but no wifi in the coach itself. :(
SamWhited
You'd have to bump the version that Jingle FT used for hashes, wouldn't that break Jingle FT compatibility if two things were advertising ft:4 but using different hashes versions?
SamWhited
So I think that means you'd have to bump FT too
Kev
What Sam said.
Kev
Unless he and I have both misunderstood Jingle FT.
Dave Cridland
Does Jingle FT mandate hashes? I thought they were optional.
SamWhited
"REQUIRED when offering a file, otherwise OPTIONAL"
Tobias
Kev, although XEP-0300 version is discoverable via caps, so clients could send the version the other side supports
Dave Cridland
Ah, no, REQUIRED when offering.
Dave Cridland
Also, it requires a specific namespace.
Dave Cridland
So yeah, bump away.
Link Mauve
Indeed, then +1 to bumping both.
Tobias
ok..great
Tobiaswill prepare the required PRs over the week
Tobias
5) Sam's elaborate topic "A bit late, but let's have a vote on moving the 2016 compliance suite forwards. Even if we get vetoes or people think it doesn't make sense, that will give me a place to start on changes to the 2017 ones."
Tobias
i think it'd make more sense to ship out a compliance suite XEP for 2017 at this point
SamWhited
heh, sorry, that description got a bit out of hand
SamWhited
In that case, what differences should there be for 2017?
Dave Cridland
Um. I'll have to go on list for this. But I don't *think* 2016 is ready, quite, yet from what I recall.
Tobias
SamWhited, my idle XEP..but yeah...i'll post more on the list
SamWhited
Sounds good; I'll start a list topic about what we want for a 2017 list then, and people can reply with fixes there.
SamWhited
Unless someones already done it or is drafting an email, in which case I'll wait for that
Tobias
SamWhited, sounds like a plan
Tobias
6) Accept https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bind2.0.html as experimental
SamWhited
One more thing
SamWhited
before we move on
Tobias
ok
SamWhited
On this topic: can we go ahead and deprecate the 2010 ones and just not have compliance suites for a bit? I still feel like it's confusing to have them hanging around when we have no new alternative and many of the things in them are probably out of date.
SamWhited
Especially if we're going to be starting over again on 2017 ones which will presumbaly take a while to get right.
Dave Cridland
Is no current compliance suite better than an out of date one?
SamWhited
I think so
Tobias
SamWhited, probably makes sense...although i think we should have at least a new one before deprecating the old one
Dave Cridland
I think I'd want to review them again to understand why.
SamWhited
We've had a new one for a while, it just didn't get advanced. I suspect a new-new one would be the same way
SamWhited
If 2010 (or whatever it is) is up to date, I think it's fine, but otherwise I think it's better to have no recommendation than to have old ones that may be wrong
Tobias
SamWhited, true...the 2016 is experimental, so fine my be deprecating the 2010 one
Dave Cridland
I don't think they're likely to be wrong. But in any case, I'll review and get back to you.
SamWhited
I wouldn't want someone to go implement, eg. SI file transfer or something if everything is moving to Jingle just because they saw it in an old document
SamWhited
Yah, if they're not wrong I suppose it's fine to leave them
SamWhited
I haven't actually looked; although it still looks bad that the current up to date recommendations are from 2010
SamWhited
Might be better to deprecate just for image
Tobias
SamWhited, any other points on that topic?
SamWhited
Nope, that's it. Thanks.
Tobias
6) Accept https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bind2.0.html as experimental
Kev
"I wouldn't want someone to go implement, eg. SI file transfer or something if everything is moving to Jingle just because they saw it in an old document"
Sounds sound to me, FWIW.
SamWhited
(note that I'm not sure that SI File Transfer is in there; that was just the first thing that was sort of superseded that came to mind)
SamWhited
+1 to accept bind 2.0
Dave Cridland
+1 on Bind 2.0.
Dave Cridland
SamWhited, It isn't.
Tobias
+1, although it's missing tons of specific references to the standards and extensions it talks about
Dave Cridland
SamWhited, The only "old" thing is Privacy Lists.
SamWhited
Dave Cridland: I definitely think we should deprecate it then
Dave Cridland
SamWhited, Only applies to Advanced Server, actually.
Tobias
7) Deferring lots of XEPs
Tobias
SamWhited, why did you put that on the agenda?
SamWhited
Just wanted to mention that I'd done this in the notes (in case it wasn't obvious)
Dave Cridland
Tobias, I think he likes deferring things and has run out?
SamWhited
If you notice anything wrong, or want to push something forward please do so
SamWhited
I do like deferring things :)
Tobias
we used to have a calendar that had the dates in for when XEPs expire or are deferred
Tobias
but people thought we needed a new website instead :P
SamWhited
Zash suggested a bot that deferred things automtaically; I doubt anyone has the bandwidth, but I liked the idea
Tobias
ok..guess that's noted then
Tobias
8) Consider advancing XEP-0333: Chat Markers to LC
SamWhited
Related; this is the only deferred thing that stood out to me as in wide spread use (I think?) and that hasn't been changed because it appears to be working.
Tobias
is it in wide spread use?
Kev
Is it in widespread use? :)
SamWhited
I thought so? Conversations does it anyways, and I tend to see it for all my contacts (only a few of which use Conversations), but I don't have a lits.
Dave Cridland
Is it in... Oh, wait.
SamWhited
Maybe no action is necessary
Dave Cridland
LC it. If it's good enough to implement, and seems to be working, it's probably ready for a Last Call.
Dave Cridland
And if nobody responds and/or people flag issues, then that was what LC was for.
Tobias
happy to LC it , yes
Dave Cridland
In particular, "widespread use" is for Draft->Final, really, not Experimental->Draft.
Kev
Might be worth LCing 233 while we're at it.
Dave Cridland
Kev, Hmmm. Why is Mili's name not on that? She wrote/rewrote quite a chunk of that, didn't she?
Tobias
happy to have an LC on that too
Dave Cridland
Happy to LC it, mind. Just glanced at it and was surprised.
Tobias
9) Date of next
Tobias
same time next week?
SamWhited
Cool, I'll issue LCs on both of those then.
SamWhited
WFM
Tobias
wfm
Dave Cridland
Tobias, WFM, noting that I'll be travelling the week after.
Tobias
10) AOB (probably none because of all the discussions in between)
Tobias
no AOB it seems, YAY
Tobiasbangs the gavel
Tobias
thanks everyone
SamWhited
Thanks all!
Tobias
SamWhited, thanks for wrtiting up the minutes
SamWhited
sure thing; sent
SamWhited
actually, how does LC work? I guess that needs to be pending votes too
SamWhited
Or would the absentees just vote on the LC itself?
Zash
Or do they vote after the LC?
SamWhited
Process is hard.
SamWhitedgoes to try and find a reference
Zash
To the XEP 1 machine!
Tobias
"Before an Experimental XEP may be proposed to the XMPP Council for advancement to Draft (Standards Track XEPs) or Active (Historical, Informational, and Procedural XEPs), the XMPP Council must agree that the XEP is ready to be considered for advancement. Once the Council so agrees, it shall instruct the XMPP Extensions Editor to (1) change the status of the XEP from Experimental to Proposed and (2) issue a Last Call for open discussion on the Standards list. The Last Call shall expire not less than fourteen (14) days after the date of issue."
SamWhited
"Once the council agrees", so I guess that needs a vote
Tobias
SamWhited, we first vote on it (probably the safest to show we're all in agreement)
SamWhited
Fixed; marking us all as +1
Tobias
SamWhited, so...let's vote on it next week?
SamWhited
Oh, or that; I'm doubly getting ahead of myself
Tobias
or do the minutes include a record for voting so others know they'll have to vote on it
Tobias
otherwise it'll look a bit odd
Kev
> Kev, Hmmm. Why is Mili's name not on that? She wrote/rewrote quite a chunk of that, didn't she?
Probably because adding oneself to the author list is unseemly, and no-one else did it.
SamWhited
It says that we all agreed
Tobias
considering how long they were ignored one week more or less probably doesn't matter