XMPP Council - 2017-11-15

am I missing something or should there be a trello card for " Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Markup"?

I thought there was…

I wonder if I archived that one by mistake, I can't figure out how to view the archives

found it; it's not in the archives, so nevermind.

got a link?

I found the archives, I mean. It's not in there

Tobias, you have to go to "more > archived items"

ah..

(but it’s not there, as SamWhited says)

I don't see anything in the history either, maybe we just never made one.

I half-remember it not being here last week.

I added a card for the LCs ending today.

ok

seems it's about time

1) Roll call

daniel, dwd, SamWhited, Link Mauve, ping

Hi.

Hi

Here

?

dwd doesn’t seem to be here right now.

Tobias,

yup

2) Minute taker

jcbrand, are you available?

o/

yep

great

So what's on our agenda today? :)

Here now, sorry.

(Had a phone call at just the wrong moment)

3) Accept the two ProtoXEP that have passed their acceptance time (Jingle Encrypted Transports + pubsub#multi-items )

i guess if they passed acceptence time the remaining votes count as non-vetos, right?

Default ±0 from everyone who didn’t vote.

Correct.

I don't think there's anything to do with these, just throw them on the Editors trello

yes. although I would be +1 on both of them

Yes.

if i hadn't forgotten to vote

indeed.

(I just archived BMH, fyi.)

(It also passed its acceptance time with two -1.)

i moved them to the editors column ✏

Tobias: Do you have access to the editors trello (I think you should?) can we move cards directly there and remove the for editors column on ours?

perhaps...i don't know about the magical trello powers

4) Compliance suites / MAM LC ends today ( SamWhited added this one )

SamWhited, is this just a reminder or specific discussion?

I don't know, I assume if the LC is over we should vote?

is it over already or does it end today?

It ends today

It ends today.

then it's probably something for next week, right?

I don't think it really matters; seems worth getting it out of the way

Unless you expect lots more discussion to suddenly happen in the next few hours

I don't think it much matters, does it? I think there's agreement it needs changes before advancement.

alright...one sec

So it's going to go through another LC and it's not like anyone's feedback's going to be ignored. If you were about to approve it before the LC was over that might be a bit different.

Define "it"?

I think the compliance suites at least are ready for a vote

Sorry, 313

*nods*

Kev: can you commit to doing the work 313 needs in the next LC period?

SamWhited, XEP-0387 is on its way to draft, right?

I'm sitting here nodding, but that isn't useful - XEP-0313 needs a new version, so it seems daft to sit on it for another week just for the sake of a couple of hours.

Depends when the next LC period is, presumably.

Tobias: correct

Kev: What sort of a LC period would you like? I think we can be flexible :)

I don't think we need an LC period until the changes are in.

dwd, I agree, we should put it back to experimental until Kev or someone else makes the requested changes.

^

oh I see, I don't really care about the process, whichever

The next LC will be called when these will be published.

Link Mauve, And *then* last call it again. :-)

I was just trying to convince Kev to commit to something out loud :)

Right.

:D

alright...then let's vote

5) Vote on moving XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2017) to Draft

I'll vote on list

+1

+1

+1

(they're "2018" now, FWIW)

Where are we with 114? I'm a bit lost on the outcome of that.

I just compied the email subject

Oh sorry, I meant to send a mail about that. I'm pretty torn, but I decided to leave it as is and let the council vote.

We can address that in the 2019 ones (which I will start as soon as these go to draft)

dwd, it’s still included.

It doesn't seem important enough to block them to me, but of course YMMV

Still in core, as per the discussion on list.

OK.

+1 to advance to Draft.

great

6) Vote on moving XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management) to Draft

this is just for completeness

-1, since changes are on the way.

-1, since changes are on the way. ✏

-1

-1

I'm torn because I still think it's stupid to have MAM and Message Archiving at the same time, but it hardly matters at this point.

+0 I suppose

I'm of the opinion that 136 should be deprecated regardless, but that matters not.

SamWhited, I’m going to take that to AOB.

*nods*

I do think MAM still needs some upgrades too, but we've been saying that for a long time so part of me feels like it's time to call it "good enough" and be done with it (unless of course Kev will do the updates :) )

The main issue as I see it is removing the config into a new XEP.

I'd be happy to deprecate '136 at this stage. MAM is clearly "almost Draft" at this stage, I'm fully expecting it to fly through LC next time.

IIRC MattJ mentioned something about wanting to split it?

If I was to do that, would those -1s go away?

I've forgotten what I said in the thread :)

Kev, archiving rules were also part of the complaints I’ve seen a lot.

I'm going to cry if you bump the namespace again

Zash: No reason to, I think.

dwd, same.

Link Mauve: I think we should do what we did with Carbons, there. Allow wiggle-room, so we can standardise later when the Big Picture is sorted.

Also the empty MAM-query result is underspecified

Kev, exactly.

With these two changes, you would get my +1 next time.

(And possibly note that using the same rules for carbons and mam probably makes sense)

Kev: FWIW I'm forgetting the reason why the last ns bump was justified

Zash: It might not have been, it's always possible I've been stupid.

Zash, Because. I moaned at the time it wasn't needed.

Zash, Unless that was the last one.

7) Date of next

As I see it now, that last namespace bump could have been avoided, sadly.

We live and learn.

Tobias, there were two other cards there.

there are tons of cards...but apparently there's AOB and at one time we said we didn't want to have meetings longer than 30 minutes

Namely my proposals to deprecate 0084, and fixing 0048. ✏

Oh, go ahead then. :)

+1W works for me.

WFM too

is that the last meeting of the current council or how many meetings are left?

One left, next week.

I have a quick AOB that I'd like to run up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes :)

alright

We have a flagpole?

8) AOB

AOB: We should totally get a flag.

+1

AOB (shared by a few other members): vote to deprecate 0136.

I’m +1 on that.

that probably makes sense

I am still definitely +1

+1

+1

+1

Any further AOB?

I think it might be too early to do anything standards-track with "xmpp 2", but I'm thinking it'd be good to write up an Informational XEP that overviews the issues we're trying to solve, and the directions we're thinking of taking, so we can get something written and published. Then we can update it as the mailing list discussions advance, and eventually do the standards-track work required. Does any of Council think that's a reasonable or stupid idea? I'd feel better if we had something in a XEP somewhere, even non-normatively Informational.

(If anyone wonders, there is precedent for doing this)

Having some sort of document (informational XEP, wiki page? Whatever.) sounds sensible to me

sounds sensible to me

historically XEPs have been more tolerant to disk failure than wikis

I think any real attempt to make a genuine "XMPP 2.0" would be a disaster.

mhhh i think the wiki might be a better idea. i'm afraid that external people (people who are not that involved in the community) might get a wrong idea from a XEP

Kev, sounds like a great idea, will be more “official” than the various wiki pages or burried Ge0rG emails.

even if it's just an 'informal' xep

dwd: You know that's not really what I mean :)

so let’s choose a different title

"Message Routing Improvements"

daniel, informational*

It would be formal.

daniel: Informational, describing the issues we're trying to solve. I think that being formal actually *is* a good thing.

I share daniels concern when we have a XEP called "XMPP 2.0"

daniel, My understanding is that most of the suggestions are server-side, and the server community tends to be both smaller and more observant of the standards process, so we should be safer.

I'm genuinely offended that you really think I'm going to author a XEP called "XMPP 2.0" for this.

Kev, don’t be

^^

I’m dehydrated

Oh, thanks for reminding me I’m too.

Any further AOB?

0280 changes and OMEMO have been cards forever

They appear to have stalled, should we do something with them?

yeah we should

don't know what though

OMEMO is dealt with I think?

i'm not so sure about that

maybe Remko knows or so

jonasw, Dealt with? The outcome appears to have been for the proponents of sticking with libsignal only to ignore everybody else.

i think 0280 changes will be superseded by our 'xmpp 2.0' attempts

so we can probably just dismiss that

May I close that PR and say that we're planning a document on routing rules that will hopefully make things clearer?

seems reasonable

maybe ask georg if he is fine with that but i guess he will be

you could at least ask if the initiater of the PR is fine with that

what daniel said

they could always reopen if they are not

Also that it should be handled by the new non-MAM-only rules.

Sounds good

regarding OMEMO we should check back with Remko and Andy i guess

So what happens to XEP-0280 in the meantime?

probably on ML or GH

end the last call. let it go back to experimental

what daniel said

+1

i feel like it's too early to deprecate

dwd, it would be useful for it to get the same treatment as 0313, as in getting the specified archiving rules removed, IIRC it was the only complaint on the mailing list, so it could then go through LC again and become draft.

'280 has very few rules. That was the argument against it.

could we move the rest of the discussions to the ML, this meeting is alrady running for 45 minutes?

The weasel words were so it could go to Draft.

Because we're free to set concrete rules later.

Since the routing rules discussion is probably much bigger than carbons, I think Carbons is firmly in the "good enough" category and should go to draft personally. If MAM supersedes it at a later date, we could deprecate.

MAM or some other routing rule change that's incompatible, that is.

What SamWhited says.

+1kev

I would be fine with advancing it too.

me too

yeah..something to discuss or vote on in a different meeting

I'll add a card for next week

thanks everybody

thanks jcbrand for taking the notes

Is 0280 still technically in LC, despite the expiration?

If so we could vote on it right now.

Link Mauve: More or less. It's been implicitly extended by Council not doing much with it, I think.

I'm a little bit shocked by the sudden rush to advance 280 no matter what, it has still open issues that where raised on the LC ~9 months ago

Damn, network outage right at the wrong time…

i guess with more than 9 monhts in LC, it doesn't matter if you vote now or next week

Sure.

Let's pop something on the list saying we'll vote to advance next week then.

Sent an email about 0313 not going to draft.

thanks

Also, apologies for being late on the markup vote. I will try to review it this week.

Oops, I forgot that 0286 was also under LC. Moving that back to the council board for next week too.