Link MauveHmm, 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. :/
TobiasLink Mauve, thanks for letting us now :)
Dave CridlandLink Mauve, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiBI3A2WcrE
danielI wont be able to attend either.
Tobiasseems it's about time
Tobias1) Roll call
TobiasLink Mauve and daniel sent apologies earlier today
Tobias2) Minute Taker
Tobiashappy to do it if nobody else wants
SamWhitedI'll do it
Tobias3) Move XEP-0153: vCard-Based Avatars to "Obsolete"
Tobiasseems the discussion pretty much died
Tobiasbut hey..let's vote anyway
Dave CridlandI think there's no concensus to do this, so -1.
Dave CridlandUgh. Consensus.
Dave CridlandActually I don't even know how to spell anything at all today.
SamWhitedDave Cridland: Not to worry, that's me every day :)
Tobiasthe rest will vote on list, if they want to i assume
Dave CridlandWhat about the 'at all'? See? Fraught with complexity.
Tobias4) XEP-0300 fixing, and Jingle FT
Tobiasaccording to latest news, Swift does Jingle FT :4 with base64 and Salut-a-toi does Jingle FT :4 with hex encoding
Tobiaseveryone in agreement that bumping versions, fixing examples and explitly specifing what encoding to use is the right way to go from here?
Dave CridlandWhich namespaces are getting bumped?
Dave CridlandJingle FT *and* hashes?
TobiasJingle FT and hashes, yes
SamWhited+1 for namespace bump and specifying an encoding
Dave CridlandDoes Jingle FT need it? I thought bumping hashes would be sufficient?
Link MauveDave Cridland, that was my understanding too.
TobiasKev suggested this would be neede
Link MauveI found some wifi at the first stop, but no wifi in the coach itself. :(
SamWhitedYou'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?
SamWhitedSo I think that means you'd have to bump FT too
KevWhat Sam said.
KevUnless he and I have both misunderstood Jingle FT.
Dave CridlandDoes Jingle FT mandate hashes? I thought they were optional.
SamWhited"REQUIRED when offering a file, otherwise OPTIONAL"
TobiasKev, although XEP-0300 version is discoverable via caps, so clients could send the version the other side supports
Dave CridlandAh, no, REQUIRED when offering.
Dave CridlandAlso, it requires a specific namespace.
Dave CridlandSo yeah, bump away.
Link MauveIndeed, then +1 to bumping both.
Tobiaswill prepare the required PRs over the week
Tobias5) 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."
Tobiasi think it'd make more sense to ship out a compliance suite XEP for 2017 at this point
SamWhitedheh, sorry, that description got a bit out of hand
SamWhitedIn that case, what differences should there be for 2017?
Dave CridlandUm. I'll have to go on list for this. But I don't *think* 2016 is ready, quite, yet from what I recall.
TobiasSamWhited, my idle XEP..but yeah...i'll post more on the list
SamWhitedSounds good; I'll start a list topic about what we want for a 2017 list then, and people can reply with fixes there.
SamWhitedUnless someones already done it or is drafting an email, in which case I'll wait for that
TobiasSamWhited, sounds like a plan
Tobias6) Accept https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bind2.0.html as experimental
SamWhitedOne more thing
SamWhitedbefore we move on
SamWhitedOn 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.
SamWhitedEspecially if we're going to be starting over again on 2017 ones which will presumbaly take a while to get right.
Dave CridlandIs no current compliance suite better than an out of date one?
SamWhitedI think so
TobiasSamWhited, probably makes sense...although i think we should have at least a new one before deprecating the old one
Dave CridlandI think I'd want to review them again to understand why.
SamWhitedWe'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
SamWhitedIf 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
TobiasSamWhited, true...the 2016 is experimental, so fine my be deprecating the 2010 one
Dave CridlandI don't think they're likely to be wrong. But in any case, I'll review and get back to you.
SamWhitedI 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
SamWhitedYah, if they're not wrong I suppose it's fine to leave them
SamWhitedI haven't actually looked; although it still looks bad that the current up to date recommendations are from 2010
SamWhitedMight be better to deprecate just for image
TobiasSamWhited, any other points on that topic?
SamWhitedNope, that's it. Thanks.
Tobias6) 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 CridlandSamWhited, It isn't.
Tobias+1, although it's missing tons of specific references to the standards and extensions it talks about
Dave CridlandSamWhited, The only "old" thing is Privacy Lists.
SamWhitedDave Cridland: I definitely think we should deprecate it then
Dave CridlandSamWhited, Only applies to Advanced Server, actually.
Tobias7) Deferring lots of XEPs
TobiasSamWhited, why did you put that on the agenda?
SamWhitedJust wanted to mention that I'd done this in the notes (in case it wasn't obvious)
Dave CridlandTobias, I think he likes deferring things and has run out?
SamWhitedIf you notice anything wrong, or want to push something forward please do so
SamWhitedI do like deferring things :)
Tobiaswe used to have a calendar that had the dates in for when XEPs expire or are deferred
Tobiasbut people thought we needed a new website instead :P
SamWhitedZash suggested a bot that deferred things automtaically; I doubt anyone has the bandwidth, but I liked the idea
Tobiasok..guess that's noted then
Tobias8) Consider advancing XEP-0333: Chat Markers to LC
SamWhitedRelated; 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.
Tobiasis it in wide spread use?
KevIs it in widespread use? :)
SamWhitedI 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 CridlandIs it in... Oh, wait.
SamWhitedMaybe no action is necessary
Dave CridlandLC it. If it's good enough to implement, and seems to be working, it's probably ready for a Last Call.
Dave CridlandAnd if nobody responds and/or people flag issues, then that was what LC was for.
Tobiashappy to LC it , yes
Dave CridlandIn particular, "widespread use" is for Draft->Final, really, not Experimental->Draft.
KevMight be worth LCing 233 while we're at it.
Dave CridlandKev, Hmmm. Why is Mili's name not on that? She wrote/rewrote quite a chunk of that, didn't she?
Tobiashappy to have an LC on that too
Dave CridlandHappy to LC it, mind. Just glanced at it and was surprised.
Tobias9) Date of next
Tobiassame time next week?
SamWhitedCool, I'll issue LCs on both of those then.
Dave CridlandTobias, WFM, noting that I'll be travelling the week after.
Tobias10) AOB (probably none because of all the discussions in between)
Tobiasno AOB it seems, YAY
Tobiasbangs the gavel
TobiasSamWhited, thanks for wrtiting up the minutes
SamWhitedsure thing; sent
SamWhitedactually, how does LC work? I guess that needs to be pending votes too
SamWhitedOr would the absentees just vote on the LC itself?
ZashOr do they vote after the LC?
SamWhitedProcess is hard.
SamWhitedgoes to try and find a reference
ZashTo 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
TobiasSamWhited, we first vote on it (probably the safest to show we're all in agreement)
SamWhitedFixed; marking us all as +1
TobiasSamWhited, so...let's vote on it next week?
SamWhitedOh, or that; I'm doubly getting ahead of myself
Tobiasor do the minutes include a record for voting so others know they'll have to vote on it
Tobiasotherwise 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.
SamWhitedIt says that we all agreed
Tobiasconsidering how long they were ignored one week more or less probably doesn't matter