Sorry, on 4G with conversations and it was trying to join the MUC with an disconnected account.
SamWhited
Here
daniel
oh. yes i'm here
Tobias
yay...everybody here
daniel
forgot that it's wednesday again
Tobias
2) Minute taker
Tobias
any volunteer?
dwd
I can't I'm afraid; on a tablet and it's not very easy to multitask.
SamWhited
daniel: it's Wednesday every week at this time
Ge0rG
shall I?
Tobias
Ge0rG, thanks
jonaswhas left
jonaswhas joined
Tobias
3) Vote on accepting https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/528 " XEP-0071: make security considations much clearer #528 "
Link Mauve
+1, there are other things I want to add next but it already is a net improvement.
SamWhited
+1
Tobias
+1
dwd
+1
daniel
+1
Tobias
thanks
Tobias
4) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: Body Markup Hints https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bmh.html
Tobias
I'll vote on list
dwd
I'd like to see how the discussion goes on this one.
Tobias
I'll interpret that as 'on list' :)
Link Mauve
I’ve already read it yesterday evening, and I’m very much -1 on it due to the concept of waiving any format support, forcing implementations to support multiple formats and making it impossible for a message to carry more than one (think MUC for example).
dwd
You can interpret it as not voting yet, indeed.
daniel
i'm not a huge fan of the XEP personally but technically it looks fine. so +1 from me
SamWhited
I'm very much waivering somewhere between Link Mauve and daniel's positions, so on list for me (though it might not matter if Link Mauve is -1)
Tobias
alright
Link Mauve
(My -1 might change, but not with the XEP as is.)
Ge0rG
Link Mauve: is "very much -1" a -1 vote?
Link Mauve
Yes. :)
dwd
I'd appreciate a debate on list about this, mind - I'd like to explore how we might change your mind.
Tobias
5) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: Atomically Compare-And-Publish PubSub Items https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cap.html
Tobias
I'm on list on this too
dwd
I've not had a chance to review this properly yet, so I'll vote on list later.
Link Mauve
dwd, sure, but it’s already been mostly summarised in the long XHTML-IM thread, which I also read last night.
danielhas left
dwd
Bad luck. :-)
Link Mauve
Tobias, on list too.
daniel
On list
SamWhited
+1
SamWhited
There are a few things I don't love about this one, but I think having the operation is useful and it's a good start.
I think I'm +1 on this, given Paul's implemented it so the real errors are probably in spec not fundamental.
Tobias
ok
Tobias
The rest I think is pending external events or further discussion. Will ping respective people afterwards.
Tobias
7) Date of next
Tobias
same time next week
SamWhited
What about obsoleting XHTML-IM? I know that's the controversial one, but it seems like the discussion has moved on to "what to do next"
SamWhited
So I don't see any reason to hold off obsoleting it and indicating that we want to do formatting-nextgen
jonasw
I mentioned one
jonasw
but you might disregard it of course
daniel
i haven't had time to read through the thread
Tobias
SamWhited, we just started the discussion a week ago, i suggest waiting for next week to vote on obsoleting it
Link Mauve
SamWhited, jonasw’s email was very detailed about why we shouldn’t do that without a path forward.
jonasw
I am still not keen on obsoleting XHTML-IM before we have an actual
alternative ready. I don’t think that this will achieve anything good.
Instead, I think that one of two things will happen:
(a) Clients continue to implement XHTML-IM because it is the only actual
way to convey markup right now (this is what I’ll do until there’s a
replacement).
(b) The ecosystem will fracture in islands of different, underspecified,
plain-text markups put in <body/>.
I don’t think either is particularly good. I also wonder what it would look
like to have the only markup protocol with actual deployment being obsoleted
:-) (*hint towards the general direction of the Experimental vs. Draft
discussion*).
Tobias
like daniel, i haven't read all the mails in that thread yet
dwd
Yeah, I think people have raised objections largely predicated on "what else would we do", though. So I don't think there's community consensus just yet; this despite my feeling that we should deprecate it.
SamWhited
Let's discuss next week then
Link Mauve
Ack.
Tobias
so time for next, as usual
Tobias
8) AOB
Link Mauve
Wfm.
dwd
AOB - I noticed the email from Klaus; we should probably consider that *before* someone demonstrates the problem...
dwd
Perhaps simply [re]confirming votes on list in this room would be enough?
Link Mauve
While making sure we are using our usual JID?
SamWhited
Sounds like premature optimization. I can't imagine that it ever becomes a problem, and even if it did it would be pretty easy for someone to see it and say "wait, I didn't send that"
Tobias
Reminder for daniel to to vote in the "[Council] 2017-09-27 XSF Council Minutes" thread on accepting "XEP-0060: Add pubsub#multi-items in Publish-Subscribe features #500"
Link Mauve
SamWhited, that was the answer I was going to make after this meeting, that we should be aware of the emails “we” send.
Tobias
+1 on what SamWhited said
Link Mauve
Basically monitor the mailing list.
Link Mauve
Oh, and only us can post to council@, correct?
dwd
That may well be sufficient, too.
jonasw
SamWhited, given that nobody reads all emails on list, I find that a not-so-good solution.
jonasw
GPG would be nice
Kev
Link Mauve: Yes, and thankfully email can't be forged ;)
dwd
Yes, but that means anyone using your email address.
Kev
jonasw: Council do, though, that's kinda the point.
jonasw
Kev, okay, if you say so :)
pep.has joined
Link Mauve
Kev, do you mean the ML software isn’t checking my server is actually who it pretends to be? :(
dwd
Good luck with finding a standard for that.
Link Mauve
jonasw, I make a point in reading everything, even if I don’t always answer.
Kev
dmarc will solve everything.
jonasw
Link Mauve, how would it? :)
jonasw
SPF would be an option, sure...
Kev
But yes, I think that's the worst bit of being on Council, the responsibility to process every single blasted mail.
jonasw
email is a mess.
jonasw
Kev, didn’t know that it was a requirement.
Tobias
another point for AOB, Ge0rG's very old PR https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434, it still says "Needs list discussion". Ge0rG, is that still correct?
Ge0rG
Tobias: Hints was -1ed, so that PR is in limbo
Tobias
Limbo?
Link Mauve
Ge0rG, would it get unblocked by your suggestion of better semantic hints?
Ge0rG
Tobias: I'd like to hear if the council is +1 on the proposed wording change, to make the rules stricter
Kev
I'm still -1 on enforcing the rules, FWIW.
Ge0rG
Kev: what would make you change your mind?
danielhas left
Kev
Ge0rG: Having the big picture clear and agreed first.
jonasw
I think by the way that we urgently and before advancing MAM&CSI need to have a discussion about the point georg brought up about message routing.
Ge0rG
Kev: so I should continue with my TLDR posts?
Link Mauve
I want to take part into that big whiteboard routing party, where do I sign?
Tobias
TLDR is always nice
Kev
Ge0rG: Absolutely. And I should read the one you sent the other day.
Ge0rG
Kev: that's not very motivating.
SamWhited
I agree, I like the idea of clarifying the rules, but I think it needs a bit whiteboarding party first. I don't have confidence that this is necessarily the correct set of rules.
Kev
I promise I'm going to, if that helps. But, busy week.
SamWhited
*big
jonasw
I’m all in for whiteboarding, if I can attend somehow :)
Tobias
ok..any further AOB topics?
Tobias
doesn't look like it
Tobiasbangs the gavel
Tobias
thanks everybody
SamWhited
*whew* busy meeting; thanks all!
Tobias
thanks Ge0rG for taking notes
Link Mauve
Thanks all. :)
Tobias
please send them to standards@ and council@
Flow
Link Mauve, "waiving any format support"?
Tobias
btw: people interesting in serving on council, please add at https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board_and_Council_Elections_2017
jonasw
is nobody gonna re-apply?
Link Mauve
Flow, just like 0380, you are making an incomplete list of supported formats, clients are free to pick any of them (as long as there is disco, otherwise it’s outright impossible), and there is nothing required to be supported.
Tobias
jonasw, probably people are too busy and haven't added them yet
jonasw
disco doesn’t work, I should’ve added that
jonasw
(to my email on that protoxep)
Link Mauve
<body-markup-hint language="text/html"/> is totally fine, as an example.
jonasw
oh the pain
Flow
Link Mauve, I don't think the situation is comperable to xep380
Link Mauveshivers in horror, remembering Adium’s OTR <FONT>…
jonasw
that sounds so much like things libpurple would do.
Link Mauve
jonasw, Tobias, it isn’t the day before the deadline, nobody has even started working on their application. :p
Flow
So, the situation I'm is that I've data which is formated using CommonMark. And I want to send that data to an XMPP client. I don't want to make the effor to write a CommonMark to XHTML-IM-NEXT convert, so I just shove it into the <body/>
jonasw
I find that a super bad idea
jonasw
you shouldn’t be doing that in the first place
Flow
And all I want to achieve with BMH is to tell the receiving entity: Hey, there is CommonMark in the <body/>
Link Mauve
Flow, not making the effort of using a library to generate a common format that everyone understands is a very bad practice, imo.
Flow
jonasw, but I will do that, and others will also
jonasw
either you care about interop (and use a separat element + plaintext variant in <body/>), or you don’t
jonasw
tacking a "greenwashing" "oh and if you happen to support my unspecified format, this is it" tag doesn’t make things a whole lot better
Link Mauve
If you consider that CommonMark to be the plain-text alternative of the XHTML-IM version, you can put it in the body already, but please don’t assume the recipient will also need to support CommonMark.
Flow
I think <body/> is the highest level of interop
jonasw
putting markup in <body/> isn’t
Flow
So I do care very much
Link Mauve
Yes, I agree on that.
Link Mauve
jonasw, exactly.
Flow
Link Mauve, I don't assume that
Flow
but I give him a hint that it's CommonMark
jonasw
putting marked-up things in body could easily break accessibility tools
Flow
jonasw, …
Link Mauve
Flow, if my client doesn’t support CommonMark but reST, will you convert that for me?
jonasw
Flow, …?
jonasw
FWIW, I’ve heard "there are no accessible clients for jabber" more than once as a reason not to use it.
Flow
Link Mauve, If the data I have is already formated in CommonMark, possibly not
jonasw
while many of the hip messengers in fact are quite accessible.
Link Mauve
If you are talking to me and my friend there whose client only supports Creole, in a MUC, are you going to provide us two different messages?
Flow
I feel like the XEP would had more acceptance if there was no disco part
jonasw
the disco part is irrelevant, because it doesn’t work
Flow
Link Mauve, that's another aspect
jonasw
it doesn’t work in MUC, it doesn’t work in MIX, it doesn’t work in modern one-on-one chats due to carbons and MAM
Link Mauve
Flow, all that just because you couldn’t find a library to generate XHTML-IM from your CommonMark?
jonasw
(also, shouldn’t we move this discussion to xsf@?)
Kev
Ge0rG: Because I'd hate to demotivate you.
Link Mauve
(I’m some 2000+ lines up in that buffer, I have a lot of backlog to read before that discussion then. :x)
Link Mauve
(Damn being ill!)
jonasw
:(
Ge0rG
Sorry, I just got a bunch of work calls. Now working up the AOBs.
Ge0rG
dwd: what's the context of "dwd> AOB - I noticed the email from Klaus; we should probably consider that *before* someone demonstrates the problem..."?
Kev
Ge0rG: Voting on list without sender verification.
Ge0rG
can I write that into the Minutes?
Kev
It was an AOB, yes.
SamWhited
I am writing up a reply to the thing Link Mauve suggested hadn't been addressed (jonasw's email), FYI. It will be on list shortly. I think I've addressed all these points individually, but maybe it wasn't clear.
ralphmhas left
Ge0rG
I'm not sure if my mail to council@ went through, or if I need to fake somebody's email address.