It seems like most people on list (with a few exceptions of course) were interested in a replacement, and that a large group (unsure if majority) were interested in deprecating before a replacement is ready given the history of security issues with this spec.
dwd
SamWhited, I largely agree; however it doesn't feel like we have consensus across the standards participants, and I'm not sure how we could get it.
SamWhited
I don't think we can or ever will reach a consensus and it's up to the council to make a decision taking the community feeling into account.
SamWhited
Anything this big is impossible to get consensus on, that's why we have a council.
Tobias
yeah...there are definitly reasonable opinions on wanting to keep it
SamWhited
It did seem to me that most were in favor of a replacement though, and that "go ahead and deprecate" or "push forward on a replacement and wait then deprecate" is the place where there was more contention
SamWhited
Or is that just me?
dwd
SamWhited, I don't think that's a bad reading. Just that the minority against deprecation were both vocal and reasonable.
Tobias
that's also the impression i got
Tobias
indeed
SamWhited
Cool; obviously I'm biased so I wanted to make sure I didn't misread the temperature of that thread
Kev
I think the conversation stalled because some people are watiing to see the alternative.
dwd
SamWhited, Don't get me wrong, I'd like to kill XHTML-IM with fire. All the opinion I've got from dedicated web developers is that handling user-entered XHTML is playing with fire.
Kev
I thought we were going to see the new spec that wasn't likely to be easy to mis-implement.
SamWhited
I think we should push forward with an alternative and would like to volunteer to write a proposal and start a SIG to investigate how it could be done better.
dwd
Kev, I've half a snippets XEP, which might address some of the needs for XHTML.
SamWhited
A proposal for a SIG, I mean.
dwd
SamWhited, I don't really want to spin off a whole SIG if we can avoid it.
Zashhas left
SamWhited
That also sounds fair, I thought that might be a good way forward but could go either way
SamWhited
I volunteer to email the list asking for interest and requirements gathering then :)
daniel
Fwiw I still have that im markdown xep on my todo list
daniel
I've been traveling for the last couple of weeks though and didn't get around to
Tobias
SamWhited, sounds great initating a mail asking for interest/requirements
SamWhited
My plan was to ask for formatting use cases, distill requirements and scope from that, and then see if any of the existing proposals fit or call for a new one.
Tobias
right, maybe markdown fills those requirements or not, we'll see
SamWhited
Sounds good, I'll prepare that email sometime over the next few days.
Tobias
SamWhited, so do we want to vote on obsoleting it now or do you withdraw your request to have it obsoleted. Just want to make sure your initial request isn't overlooked.
Zashhas left
SamWhited
I would like to request that we obsolete XHTML-IM now. As always, this will not result in everyone not supporting it overnight, it just means we don't recommend new implementations. Given its history, I think it would be irresponsible to continue to recommend it.
Tobias
arlight..then let's vote on it
Tobias
4) Vote on Obsoleting XEP-0071: XHTML-IM
SamWhited
+1
daniel
+1
dwd
I think a greater match for the community would be to have a replacement for the IM case, so I'll vote -1 (noting that this is presumably a simple majority vote and therefore this is not a veto).
Link Mauve
Woops, sorry I didn’t see the time.
Link Mauve
I’m here now, let me backlog.
Tobias
i'm also -1 until there is an alternative experimental XEP for the IM case. XHTML-IM is currently the only way to exchange formatted messages between XMPP clients
SamWhited
I'd like to note that I think always requiring a replacement before we can stop recommending something is one of the faults with our process. It's always the same, and is why we have duplicate specs, old things no one implements that are just confusing, and specs with security issues still around.
SamWhited
Also that not recommending it does not mean no one can implement it if they just desperately want compatibility with something else that already has it.
dwd
SamWhited, I don't think it *is* part of our process. I just think it matches my sense of the standards list participant's preference better.
SamWhited
Yah, "process" might be the wrong word, "culture" maybe.
Link Mauve
I’m -1 on obsoleting, as the XEP fills a very much needed feature and there is no alternative currently.
Tobias
SamWhited, what do you recommend people wanting formatted messages in their XMPP client and also want to interop with other clients out there right now?
SamWhited
And there probably won't be as long as people can use "but we already have a thing" as an excuse. Obsoleting also provides pressure to come up with a replacement.
SamWhited
I recommend they don't, but if they really need to then nothing stops them from implementing XHTML-IM anyways.
Tobias
SamWhited, that's true.
SamWhited
Or I recommend they join the discussion about a replacement; obsoleting also provides pressure towards coming up with a good replacement.
Link Mauve
SamWhited, pressure isn’t anything we need imo.
Link Mauve
If someone wants to take part into that SIG (even informal), they would do so without any kind of pressure from us.
SamWhited
And I will as I mentioned earlier, but that's not the only place where a bit of pressure is helpful.
dwd
Actually, I think SamWhited has convinced me to change my vote.
SamWhited
Convincing people to contribute is also useful, taking away "but we already have a spec that's draft" as an argument is also helpful.
dwd
On balance, deprecating it will at the very least break the stalemate, so I'll change my vote ot +1 to deprecate.
ralphmhas left
dwd
Sorry for the confusion.
SamWhited
Thanks Dave, I appreciate it. Obviously I feel strongly about it
Tobias
XEP-0001 doesn't mention whether disapproving XEPs requires a majority vote or all council members being in agreement. But I'd assume it's majority as it's the same for the approval case
SamWhited
> A majority of Council members must vote +1 in order for a XEP to advance.
SamWhited
I assume that's advancing to any state, including obsolete
Tobias
right
SamWhited
But I'm not sure. Board question?
Tobias
SamWhited, according to the flow chart it would be an advancement
dwd
Tobias, I believe that if Council folk were allowed to veto it would be mentioned.
Tobias
So with 3 (+1) votes and 2 (-1) votes, we decide to change the state of XEP-0071: XHTML-IM to Obsolete
Tobias
5) Date of next
Tobias
Same time next week
Tobias
?
SamWhited
WFM
Tobias
I can't do that but happily read the mails
dwd
Tobias, Erm, Deprecated, surely, not Obsolete?
Tobias
so someone else would need to run it
Tobias
dwd, didn't we have the discussion once, whether to vote twice to Deprecate and then again to Obsolete it or to vote on directly Obsoleting it
Tobias
or am I misremembering things?
daniel
Wfm
SamWhited
I probably screwed up the terminology, I always mix them up. I could see it being either deprecated or obsolete.
Link Mauve
Tobias, we did, but dwd said deprecating in this discussion, not obsoleting.
Link Mauve
But we are totally ok with advancing twice in a same vote.
Link Mauve
I’m still -1 even to deprecating, it’s very much not a sensible direction imo.
SamWhited
Shall we just say deprecated since it should technically happen first and then we can discuss if obsoleting makes more sense next time?
Tobias
alright..then let's make it Deprecated
Tobias
i honestly don't care much as I can't see the difference between the two states
Tobias
6) AOB
SamWhited
yah, I doubt anyone makes much of a distinction
daniel
I think the people who voted +1 are happy with obsolete as well
daniel
And it wouldn't change the minds of the -1
Tobias
daniel, yeah...as there's no difference between the two states
Link Mauve
Ah right, an AOB, about the pending votes.
Link Mauve
Just a reminder.
SamWhited
I could go either way also, so we could just say that dwd gets to decide since he's the only unvoiced opinion?
Tobias
right, people please vote. Sam and I did today. Someone should takes those votes into trello and move things to editor column if all votes are in
Tobias
dwd, do you care much whether it's Deprecated or Obsolete?
dwd
I think I'd be more comfortable with Deprecated ("new implementations are no longer encouraged") as compared with Obsolete ("should no longer be [...] deployed").
ralphmhas joined
Tobias
Alright
Tobias
So with 3 (+1) votes and 2 (-1) votes, we decide to change the state of XEP-0071: XHTML-IM to Deprecated
danielhas left
Tobias
no other AOB? great
SamWhited
Sorry for the terminology confusion
Tobiasbangs the gavel
Tobias
thanks everybody
Tobias
jcbrand, thanks for writing the minutes
SamWhited
Thanks all; sorry for the big contentious topic, I knew that would divisive when I first sent a mail to the list about it.
Kev
FWIW, Final XEPs have to have a replacement before they can be Deprecated. I don't believe that's true of Draft.
jcbrand
You're welcome
Kev
And any -1 prevents a XEP from advancing.
Kev
No?
SamWhited
Kev: no, 0001 says that advancement requires a simple majority
Tobias
> A majority of Council members must vote +1 in order for a XEP to advance.
Kev
I think you're wrong.
Kev
Let me check.
Kev
Yes, the sentence before the one you quote "A XEP shall not be advanced to the next stage in the approval process so long as any Council Member continues to vote -1"
Link Mauve
SamWhited, it also says it requires “rough consensus” on standards@, which it is far from imo.
Kev
It requires a majority to be +1, with no -1s.
dwd
Kev, I don't think Final has to be replaced to be Deprecated. It just says that if it is replaced, it'll become Deprecated.
Kev
dwd: I guess you could reasonably read it that way, yes.
Tobias
Kev, true
SamWhited
I am now even more confused about the process. In that case, what are the reasons for -1s? Just that there is no other formatting XEP? What would make those concerns "addressed"? Discussion started? A SIG started? An experimental XEP submitted? Or does something have to get all the way to Final?
SamWhited
s/Final/Draft/
Tobias
SamWhited, no.for me it would be enough to have an alternative experimental XEP
Tobias
then we can say to people do that instead
Link Mauve
Yes, same for me.
Link Mauve
Something which could provide roughly as much interoperability as what we have currently.
SamWhited
So saying "don't do formatting in new implementations until something new is on the table" is not an acceptable recommendation for either of you?
Link Mauve
(So not BMH, for which it’s explicitly a non-goal.)
ralphmhas joined
Tobias
i'll reply to the minutes that it's not actually deprecated
Link Mauve
SamWhited, implementations do want formatting, and saying there is no way to do any kind of formatting atm is misleading at best, and harmful in general.
SamWhited
I disagree
Link Mauve
I know. :)
SamWhited
But anyways, I'll start gathering use cases like I said in the beginning and we can keep this on the table. Although it sounds like it will be for the next council to finish again
SamWhited
Given that we're so close to the end of term
Link Mauve
Thanks SamWhited.
Tobias
jcbrand, will you cc standards too?
Tobias
jcbrand, ta
jerehas left
jerehas joined
jcbrand
Tobias: I always do, however I need to send from different mail accounts since I'm subscribed with different accounts. Who could I ask to change the email address with which I'm subscribed to council@xmpp.org?
Tobias
Phew. Mailman admin?
Tobias
don't know who that is though
dwdhas left
dwdhas left
Zashhas left
dwdhas left
dwdhas left
dwdhas left
dwdhas left
Link Mauve
I just reported my votes and Tobias’s on the trello.