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?
SamWhited
Tobias: Sure, I just wanted to make sure someone was actually going to show up if we were going to call a meeting
Tobias
I certainly would show up if i'm awake at that time and there are no other conflicts :)
ralphmhas left
Tobias
SamWhited, does https://trello.com/c/7Ayqtk9T/177-xep-0334-message-processing-hints mean the author wants us to vote on its advancement?
Tobias
or vote on issueing an LC for it
Tobias
?
SamWhited
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)
Tobias
ok..
SamWhited
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?
Tobias
yeah...
Tobias
the council votes on advancing a specific version
Kev
Yes, changes can't be made after Council vote and before going to Draft.
jonaswhas joined
Tobias
wop.
Tobias
it's about time
Tobias
1) roll call
Link Mauve
Hi. o/
daniel
here
SamWhited
here
Tobias
Dave Cridland, ping
Dave Cridland
Sorry, here, distracted for obvious reasons.
Tobias
2) Minute taker
Tobias
any volunteers?
Tobias
I can write them up again I suppose
jonaswcan do it, but I haven’t done it before for council meetings.
None, I just came back from skiing two days ago and didn’t have any time to act on it.
Tobias
ah..ok..so i guess not much to discuss on that point then
Link Mauve
Yes, sorry. :/
Tobias
4) IEEE IoT
Tobias
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
Dave Cridland
Sounds good.
Tobias
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
Tobias
https://trello.com/c/wF37u9DJ/169-vote-on-approve-xep-0045-changes-proposed-by-georg is the voting trello card on this
Tobias
where nearly everbody voted on, except for Dave Cridland
Dave Cridland
I also did.
Tobias
great, then it's just not mirrored in the trello
Tobias
so i guess no further voting is required on that point, right?
Dave Cridland
I voted for (or at least not against).
Tobias
good
Dave Cridland
I'd note the discussion in the xsf@ room a few days back on adding normative language to existing specs, though.
Tobias
6) Vote on advancing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0334.html Version 0.2 to Draft
Tobiaswill vote on list
jonasw
Dave Cridland: mind to give a one-line summary I can quo…te in the minutes?
Dave Cridland
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).
jonasw
I was there, and I will link the logs. Just wanted to make sure.
Dave Cridland
I think I'm +1 on '334. Though I'm curious as to why Sam's thinking of -1'ing it.
SamWhited
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.
SamWhited
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?
jerehas joined
Link Mauve
SamWhited, no-copy isn’t only meant for carbons, and carbons defines both private (for legacy reasons) and no-copy now.
SamWhited
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)
Link Mauve
We voted for that a few weeks ago IIRC.
Link Mauve
(In version 0.11.0 fyi.)
SamWhited
Link Mauve: Right, and a few weeks ago I was for only having thigns in carbons and not in a separate document.
Link Mauve
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?
Dave Cridland
SamWhited, I thought the idea with hints is that they could not be relied upon; they were advisory only.
SamWhited
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
SamWhited
Eg. "This hint MUST only be included on messages addressed to full JIDs and…" from the XEP.
Tobias
True...So this thing would never become Final in a sense
Link Mauve
SamWhited, wouldn’t that be worth a new XEP in this case?
SamWhited
Link Mauve: I don't recall; if I was for that at the time, I have since changed my mind.
Link Mauve
I had been wondering whether to add 0380 to 0334 or not when I first designed it, but opted against for that very reason.
SamWhited
Link Mauve: So we end up with "hints part 1: final", "hints part 2: experimental", and add more later?
SamWhited
then after hints part 2 becomes final we start on hints part 3 if new use cases arise?
Link Mauve
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.
SamWhited
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.
Tobias
can we take the rest of those discussion to the list?
SamWhited
Good plan; I'll vote on list before next meeting. In the mean time, feel free to convince me to not -1 :)
Tobias
so I suppose the rest will vote on list
Tobias
7) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: ISR-SASL2 https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/isr-sasl2.html as experimental
Tobias
I'll vote on list
daniel
me too
Link Mauve
Will also vote on list.
Dave Cridland
Needs Section 6 removing, which Flow has agreed to do (I think).
Dave Cridland
I also note the namespaced attributes.
Dave Cridland
So I'm -1 for *now*, but I think we'll resolve those quickly.
SamWhited
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
SamWhited
(long winded way of saying "What Dave said")
Tobias
4) Date of next
jonasw
question: what’s the time limit for votes on ProtoXEPs?
Tobias
suggestions? I think there'll be a DST change in between for EU people
Tobias
jonasw, 2 weeks
jonasw
I think ecaps2 is still pending a vote and has reached its 2 weeks time limit
Link Mauve
Tobias, haven’t we always been in UTC?
SamWhitedadds a trello due date… he just discovered (and really likes) Trello due dates.
Link Mauve
It was 16Z all along.
daniel
1600Z works for me. and if there is a timezone thing i'll just figure it out when the time comes
Tobias
right...then lthat would be 2017-03-29 16:00:00 Z
Tobias
*that
Link Mauve
WFM.
Tobias
er...that 4) should have been 8)
Tobias
9) AOB
jonasw
ecaps2?
SamWhited
Reminder of pending Votes; there's at least one missing from the clarify CSI/Carbons thing I think
SamWhited
Also ecaps2, which expires today
SamWhited
The due date is "before I get around to publishing it this after noon"
Link Mauve
SamWhited, CSI/Carbons was already vetoed, so no need to wait for the last one imo.
SamWhited
oh, right… nevermind.
SamWhited
Maybe Tobias really wants to convince us to change ourmind, or just express his support for it? :)
Tobias
also dave's vote on georg's change seems to be missing in trello
Tobias
SamWhited, huh?
Tobias
have I missed something?
SamWhited
Tobias: You're the missing vote on CSI/Carbons, but as Link Mauve said, everyone else -1'ed, so it doesn't really matter
Tobias
will vote +0 on that, but it doesn't matter as you ssay