XMPP Council - 2017-11-15

  1. Tobias

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

  2. SamWhited

    I thought there was…

  3. SamWhited

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

  4. SamWhited

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

  5. Tobias

    got a link?

  6. SamWhited

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

  7. mathieui

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

  8. Tobias


  9. mathieui

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

  10. SamWhited

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

  11. Link Mauve

    I half-remember it not being here last week.

  12. SamWhited

    I added a card for the LCs ending today.

  13. Tobias


  14. Tobias

    seems it's about time

  15. Tobias

    1) Roll call

  16. Tobias

    daniel, dwd, SamWhited, Link Mauve, ping

  17. Link Mauve


  18. daniel


  19. SamWhited


  20. daniel


  21. Link Mauve

    dwd doesn’t seem to be here right now.

  22. Link Mauve


  23. Tobias


  24. Tobias

    2) Minute taker

  25. Tobias

    jcbrand, are you available?

  26. jcbrand


  27. jcbrand


  28. Tobias


  29. Tobias

    So what's on our agenda today? :)

  30. dwd

    Here now, sorry.

  31. dwd

    (Had a phone call at just the wrong moment)

  32. Tobias

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

  33. Tobias

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

  34. Link Mauve

    Default ±0 from everyone who didn’t vote.

  35. Link Mauve


  36. SamWhited

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

  37. daniel

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

  38. Link Mauve


  39. daniel

    if i hadn't forgotten to vote

  40. Tobias


  41. Link Mauve

    (I just archived BMH, fyi.)

  42. Link Mauve

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

  43. Tobias

    i moved them to the editors coulmn

  44. Tobias

    i moved them to the editors column

  45. SamWhited

    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?

  46. Tobias

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

  47. Tobias

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

  48. Tobias

    SamWhited, is this just a reminder or specific discussion?

  49. SamWhited

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

  50. Tobias

    is it over already or does it end today?

  51. SamWhited

    It ends today

  52. Link Mauve

    It ends today.

  53. Tobias

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

  54. SamWhited

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

  55. SamWhited

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

  56. Kev

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

  57. Tobias

    alright...one sec

  58. Kev

    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.

  59. SamWhited

    Define "it"?

  60. SamWhited

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

  61. Kev

    Sorry, 313

  62. SamWhited


  63. SamWhited

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

  64. Tobias

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

  65. dwd

    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.

  66. Kev

    Depends when the next LC period is, presumably.

  67. SamWhited

    Tobias: correct

  68. SamWhited

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

  69. Kev

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

  70. Link Mauve

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

  71. Kev


  72. SamWhited

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

  73. Link Mauve

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

  74. dwd

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

  75. SamWhited

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

  76. dwd


  77. Link Mauve


  78. Tobias

    alright...then let's vote

  79. Tobias

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

  80. Tobias

    I'll vote on list

  81. SamWhited


  82. daniel


  83. Link Mauve


  84. SamWhited

    (they're "2018" now, FWIW)

  85. dwd

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

  86. Tobias

    I just compied the email subject

  87. SamWhited

    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.

  88. SamWhited

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

  89. Link Mauve

    dwd, it’s still included.

  90. SamWhited

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

  91. Link Mauve

    Still in core, as per the discussion on list.

  92. dwd


  93. dwd

    +1 to advance to Draft.

  94. Tobias


  95. Tobias

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

  96. Tobias

    this is just for completeness

  97. Link Mauve

    -1, since changes are on the way.

  98. dwd

    -1, since change are on the way.

  99. dwd

    -1, since changes are on the way.

  100. Tobias


  101. daniel


  102. SamWhited

    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.

  103. SamWhited

    +0 I suppose

  104. Kev

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

  105. Link Mauve

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

  106. SamWhited


  107. SamWhited

    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 :) )

  108. Kev

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

  109. dwd

    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.

  110. jonasw

    IIRC MattJ mentioned something about wanting to split it?

  111. Kev

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

  112. Kev

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

  113. Link Mauve

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

  114. Zash

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

  115. Kev

    Zash: No reason to, I think.

  116. Link Mauve

    dwd, same.

  117. Kev

    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.

  118. Flow

    Also the empty MAM-query result is underspecified

  119. Link Mauve

    Kev, exactly.

  120. Link Mauve

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

  121. Kev

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

  122. Zash

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

  123. Kev

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

  124. dwd

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

  125. dwd

    Zash, Unless that was the last one.

  126. Tobias

    7) Date of next

  127. Link Mauve

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

  128. Kev

    We live and learn.

  129. Link Mauve

    Tobias, there were two other cards there.

  130. Link Mauve

    Namely my proposal to deprecate 0084, and fixing 0048.

  131. Tobias

    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

  132. Link Mauve

    Namely my proposals to deprecate 0084, and fixing 0048.

  133. Link Mauve

    Oh, go ahead then. :)

  134. Link Mauve

    +1W works for me.

  135. SamWhited

    WFM too

  136. Tobias

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

  137. Link Mauve

    One left, next week.

  138. Kev

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

  139. Tobias


  140. dwd

    We have a flagpole?

  141. Tobias

    8) AOB

  142. dwd

    AOB: We should totally get a flag.

  143. SamWhited


  144. Link Mauve

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

  145. Link Mauve

    I’m +1 on that.

  146. Tobias

    that probably makes sense

  147. SamWhited

    I am still definitely +1

  148. daniel


  149. dwd


  150. Tobias


  151. Tobias

    Any further AOB?

  152. Kev

    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.

  153. Kev

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

  154. SamWhited

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

  155. Tobias

    sounds sensible to me

  156. Tobias

    historically XEPs have been more tolerant to disk failure than wikis

  157. dwd

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

  158. daniel

    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

  159. Link Mauve

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

  160. daniel

    even if it's just an 'informal' xep

  161. Kev

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

  162. jonasw

    so let’s choose a different title

  163. jonasw

    "Message Routing Improvements"

  164. Link Mauve

    daniel, informational*

  165. Link Mauve

    It would be formal.

  166. Kev

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

  167. jonasw

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

  168. dwd

    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.

  169. Kev

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

  170. jonasw

    Kev, don’t be

  171. Link Mauve


  172. jonasw

    I’m dehydrated

  173. Link Mauve

    Oh, thanks for reminding me I’m too.

  174. Tobias

    Any further AOB?

  175. SamWhited

    0280 changes and OMEMO have been cards forever

  176. SamWhited

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

  177. Tobias

    yeah we should

  178. Tobias

    don't know what though

  179. jonasw

    OMEMO is dealt with I think?

  180. Tobias

    i'm not so sure about that

  181. Tobias

    maybe Remko knows or so

  182. dwd

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

  183. daniel

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

  184. daniel

    so we can probably just dismiss that

  185. SamWhited

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

  186. jonasw

    seems reasonable

  187. daniel

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

  188. Tobias

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

  189. Tobias

    what daniel said

  190. jonasw

    they could always reopen if they are not

  191. Link Mauve

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

  192. SamWhited

    Sounds good

  193. Tobias

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

  194. dwd

    So what happens to XEP-0280 in the meantime?

  195. Tobias

    probably on ML or GH

  196. daniel

    end the last call. let it go back to experimental

  197. Tobias

    what daniel said

  198. Tobias


  199. daniel

    i feel like it's too early to deprecate

  200. Link Mauve

    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.

  201. dwd

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

  202. Tobias

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

  203. Kev

    The weasel words were so it could go to Draft.

  204. Kev

    Because we're free to set concrete rules later.

  205. SamWhited

    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.

  206. SamWhited

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

  207. dwd

    What SamWhited says.

  208. Kev


  209. Link Mauve

    I would be fine with advancing it too.

  210. daniel

    me too

  211. Tobias

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

  212. Tobias bangs the gavel

  213. SamWhited

    I'll add a card for next week

  214. Tobias

    thanks everybody

  215. Tobias

    thanks jcbrand for taking the notes

  216. Link Mauve

    Is 0280 still technically in LC, despite the expiration?

  217. Link Mauve

    If so we could vote on it right now.

  218. Kev

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

  219. Flow

    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

  220. Link Mauve

    Damn, network outage right at the wrong time…

  221. Tobias

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

  222. Link Mauve


  223. dwd

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

  224. SamWhited

    Sent an email about 0313 not going to draft.

  225. Tobias


  226. SamWhited

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

  227. SamWhited

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