XMPP Council - 2017-03-22

SamWhited, I certainly don't see the council as the driving force of XMPP's IoT strategy..but we should certainly try to help our IoT SIG with the XMPP related parts where we can. don't we?

Tobias: Sure, I just wanted to make sure someone was actually going to show up if we were going to call a meeting

I certainly would show up if i'm awake at that time and there are no other conflicts :)

SamWhited, does https://trello.com/c/7Ayqtk9T/177-xep-0334-message-processing-hints mean the author wants us to vote on its advancement?

or vote on issueing an LC for it

?

It's currently in LC, I don't think it's going to get more feedback so we should vote on advancement (disclaimer: I'm probably going to -1 it)

ok..

It wasn't really clear to me what to do when the LC was over and feedback had been addressed; I think pointing to a specific version and saying "this one, vote" is correct?

yeah...

the council votes on advancing a specific version

Yes, changes can't be made after Council vote and before going to Draft.

wop.

it's about time

1) roll call

Hi. o/

here

here

Dave Cridland, ping

Sorry, here, distracted for obvious reasons.

2) Minute taker

any volunteers?

I can write them up again I suppose

and I’m not sure if I am allowed to do it.

jonasw: Yey, thanks!

jonasw, oh sure...thanks

jonasw, Not only allowed but encouraged.

great then!

3) https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-February/032328.html

Link Mauve, any news on this one?

None, I just came back from skiing two days ago and didn’t have any time to act on it.

ah..ok..so i guess not much to discuss on that point then

Yes, sorry. :/

4) IEEE IoT

I 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

Sounds good.

5) 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

https://trello.com/c/wF37u9DJ/169-vote-on-approve-xep-0045-changes-proposed-by-georg is the voting trello card on this

where nearly everbody voted on, except for Dave Cridland

I also did.

great, then it's just not mirrored in the trello

so i guess no further voting is required on that point, right?

I voted for (or at least not against).

good

I'd note the discussion in the xsf@ room a few days back on adding normative language to existing specs, though.

6) Vote on advancing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0334.html Version 0.2 to Draft

Dave Cridland: mind to give a one-line summary I can quo…te in the minutes?

jonasw, 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).

I was there, and I will link the logs. Just wanted to make sure.

I think I'm +1 on '334. Though I'm curious as to why Sam's thinking of -1'ing it.

I'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.

Also, 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?

SamWhited, no-copy isn’t only meant for carbons, and carbons defines both private (for legacy reasons) and no-copy now.

Hints 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)

We voted for that a few weeks ago IIRC.

(In version 0.11.0 fyi.)

Link Mauve: Right, and a few weeks ago I was for only having thigns in carbons and not in a separate document.

So, 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?

SamWhited, I thought the idea with hints is that they could not be relied upon; they were advisory only.

Dave Cridland: Yah, but we still probably need language defining where and how they're used, and can't anticipate the need for future hints

Eg. "This hint MUST only be included on messages addressed to full JIDs and…" from the XEP.

True...So this thing would never become Final in a sense

SamWhited, wouldn’t that be worth a new XEP in this case?

Link Mauve: I don't recall; if I was for that at the time, I have since changed my mind.

I had been wondering whether to add 0380 to 0334 or not when I first designed it, but opted against for that very reason.

Link Mauve: So we end up with "hints part 1: final", "hints part 2: experimental", and add more later?

then after hints part 2 becomes final we start on hints part 3 if new use cases arise?

New 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.

I 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.

can we take the rest of those discussion to the list?

Good plan; I'll vote on list before next meeting. In the mean time, feel free to convince me to not -1 :)

so I suppose the rest will vote on list

7) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: ISR-SASL2 https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/isr-sasl2.html as experimental

I'll vote on list

me too

Will also vote on list.

Needs Section 6 removing, which Flow has agreed to do (I think).

I also note the namespaced attributes.

So I'm -1 for *now*, but I think we'll resolve those quickly.

I 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

(long winded way of saying "What Dave said")

4) Date of next

question: what’s the time limit for votes on ProtoXEPs?

suggestions? I think there'll be a DST change in between for EU people

jonasw, 2 weeks

I think ecaps2 is still pending a vote and has reached its 2 weeks time limit

Tobias, haven’t we always been in UTC?

It was 16Z all along.

1600Z works for me. and if there is a timezone thing i'll just figure it out when the time comes

right...then lthat would be 2017-03-29 16:00:00 Z

*that

WFM.

er...that 4) should have been 8)

9) AOB

ecaps2?

Reminder of pending Votes; there's at least one missing from the clarify CSI/Carbons thing I think

Also ecaps2, which expires today

The due date is "before I get around to publishing it this after noon"

SamWhited, CSI/Carbons was already vetoed, so no need to wait for the last one imo.

oh, right… nevermind.

Maybe Tobias really wants to convince us to change ourmind, or just express his support for it? :)

also dave's vote on georg's change seems to be missing in trello

SamWhited, huh?

have I missed something?

Tobias: You're the missing vote on CSI/Carbons, but as Link Mauve said, everyone else -1'ed, so it doesn't really matter

will vote +0 on that, but it doesn't matter as you ssay

*say

thanks everybody

Thanks!

jonasw, thanks for writing up the minutes

send them to counci@ and standards@ please

Thank you. :)

does anyone want to proof-read?

jonasw, sure

https://sotecware.net/files/noindex/xsf-council-notes

looks good to me

sent

ta