Link MauveNone, I just came back from skiing two days ago and didn’t have any time to act on it.
Tobiasah..ok..so i guess not much to discuss on that point then
Link MauveYes, sorry. :/
Tobias4) IEEE IoT
TobiasI got around replying to Sam's mail and wrote to Rikard so we can setup a XMPP IoT SIG meeting where council members can join and we can together discuss a good IoT strategy for XMPP, on a rather high level
Dave CridlandSounds good.
Tobias5) Ge0rG did changes after the last vote started, do we want/need to revote? are these changes major enough? https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/436
Tobiashttps://trello.com/c/wF37u9DJ/169-vote-on-approve-xep-0045-changes-proposed-by-georg is the voting trello card on this
Tobiaswhere nearly everbody voted on, except for Dave Cridland
Dave CridlandI also did.
Tobiasgreat, then it's just not mirrored in the trello
Tobiasso i guess no further voting is required on that point, right?
Dave CridlandI voted for (or at least not against).
Dave CridlandI'd note the discussion in the xsf@ room a few days back on adding normative language to existing specs, though.
Tobias6) Vote on advancing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0334.html Version 0.2 to Draft
Tobiaswill vote on list
jonaswDave Cridland: mind to give a one-line summary I can quo…te in the minutes?
Dave Cridlandjonasw, I think you were there, but it's simply that we need to avoid adding normative requirements to existing specifications, and instead negotiate new features (and encourage their use via compliance specs).
jonaswI was there, and I will link the logs. Just wanted to make sure.
Dave CridlandI think I'm +1 on '334. Though I'm curious as to why Sam's thinking of -1'ing it.
SamWhitedI've come to the conclusion that these things should be defined in the XEPs that would use them, eg. <no-copy/> should be defined in carbons. Theoretically they're reusable between similar XEPs, but in practice I think it just means we'll end up with <private/> in carbons and <no-copy/> in hints, and no one is quite sure what the difference is or what to do about it.
SamWhitedAlso, I'm not sure how we'd update this in the future if new requirements need new hints; deprecate the draft XEP and start over?
Link MauveSamWhited, no-copy isn’t only meant for carbons, and carbons defines both private (for legacy reasons) and no-copy now.
SamWhitedHints most likely need normative language to explain when they should and should not be used and what they mean, so I'm not sure a registry is appropriate (and one doesn't exist anyways)
Link MauveWe voted for that a few weeks ago IIRC.
Link Mauve(In version 0.11.0 fyi.)
SamWhitedLink Mauve: Right, and a few weeks ago I was for only having thigns in carbons and not in a separate document.
Link MauveSo, two months ago we vote for making carbons depend on 0334 while keeping its legacy element, and now you are against advancing 0334 because carbons should be the only one using it?
Dave CridlandSamWhited, I thought the idea with hints is that they could not be relied upon; they were advisory only.
SamWhitedDave Cridland: Yah, but we still probably need language defining where and how they're used, and can't anticipate the need for future hints
SamWhitedEg. "This hint MUST only be included on messages addressed to full JIDs and…" from the XEP.
TobiasTrue...So this thing would never become Final in a sense
Link MauveSamWhited, wouldn’t that be worth a new XEP in this case?
SamWhitedLink Mauve: I don't recall; if I was for that at the time, I have since changed my mind.
Link MauveI had been wondering whether to add 0380 to 0334 or not when I first designed it, but opted against for that very reason.
SamWhitedLink Mauve: So we end up with "hints part 1: final", "hints part 2: experimental", and add more later?
SamWhitedthen after hints part 2 becomes final we start on hints part 3 if new use cases arise?
Link MauveNew hints will (pretty much always) require discovery, and you don’t want to bump the namespace of previous hints that require no changes, so imo a multi-part set of XEPs (not named that way ofc) would make sense.
SamWhitedI think it's the only way to do it *if* we have a hints XEP. If the hints just live where they'd be used (eg. MAM, Carbons), then it doesn't matter as much and you'd track them just like every other XEP that has elements that vaguely act as hints.
Tobiascan we take the rest of those discussion to the list?
SamWhitedGood plan; I'll vote on list before next meeting. In the mean time, feel free to convince me to not -1 :)
Tobiasso I suppose the rest will vote on list
Tobias7) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: ISR-SASL2 https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/isr-sasl2.html as experimental
TobiasI'll vote on list
Link MauveWill also vote on list.
Dave CridlandNeeds Section 6 removing, which Flow has agreed to do (I think).
Dave CridlandI also note the namespaced attributes.
Dave CridlandSo I'm -1 for *now*, but I think we'll resolve those quickly.
SamWhitedI would like to see Flow's rework based on the discussion that happened on list before voting. In its current form, I am not comfortable advocating for even experimental implementations, so -1
SamWhited(long winded way of saying "What Dave said")
Tobias4) Date of next
jonaswquestion: what’s the time limit for votes on ProtoXEPs?
Tobiassuggestions? I think there'll be a DST change in between for EU people
Tobiasjonasw, 2 weeks
jonaswI think ecaps2 is still pending a vote and has reached its 2 weeks time limit
Link MauveTobias, haven’t we always been in UTC?
SamWhitedadds a trello due date… he just discovered (and really likes) Trello due dates.
Link MauveIt was 16Z all along.
daniel1600Z works for me. and if there is a timezone thing i'll just figure it out when the time comes
Tobiasright...then lthat would be 2017-03-29 16:00:00 Z
Tobiaser...that 4) should have been 8)
SamWhitedReminder of pending Votes; there's at least one missing from the clarify CSI/Carbons thing I think
SamWhitedAlso ecaps2, which expires today
SamWhitedThe due date is "before I get around to publishing it this after noon"
Link MauveSamWhited, CSI/Carbons was already vetoed, so no need to wait for the last one imo.
SamWhitedoh, right… nevermind.
SamWhitedMaybe Tobias really wants to convince us to change ourmind, or just express his support for it? :)
Tobiasalso dave's vote on georg's change seems to be missing in trello
Tobiashave I missed something?
SamWhitedTobias: You're the missing vote on CSI/Carbons, but as Link Mauve said, everyone else -1'ed, so it doesn't really matter
Tobiaswill vote +0 on that, but it doesn't matter as you ssay