XMPP Council - 2017-11-29

  1. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: from your XEP-0095 trello card, is "none of them supports SI but does not support Jingle" a typo?

  2. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: I don't think so? I meant "none of them support only SI"

  3. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: ah, it just took me multiple attempts to parse that sentence

  4. SamWhited

    Yah, sorry, in retrospect that was very poorly worded

  5. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: feel free to change ;)

  6. Guus

    New councileers, kindly supply me (via PR, mail, IM, carrier pidgeon) with a short bio for the website. To avoid procrastination, please take two minutes to come up with two or three lines of text describing yourself when you read this. I'd be happy to modify the website on your behalf - just send me the raw text.

  7. Ge0rG

    I'm not original enough to come up with something that's sufficiently different from Daniel's bio :(

  8. Guus

    It doesn't have to be sufficinetly different.

  9. Guus

    as long as it describes you.

  10. Guus

    basically: what's your name, what do you do for a living, what nice XMPP affiliations do you have?

  11. mathieui

    Guus, say you’re a grumpy person that wants to make xmpp easier

  12. jonasw

    itym Ge0rG

  13. Guus

    I'm a grumpy person tath wants to make xmpp easier.

  14. mathieui

    damn, I meant Ge0rG

  15. Guus


  16. Zash

    We are all grumpy and wishing to improve XMPP on this blessed day.

  17. Ge0rG

    Zash: you need more coffee

  18. Holger

    Maybe you could ask zinid to write your bios :-)

  19. jonasw


  20. mathieui


  21. Ge0rG

    Holger: Russian cursing would make me blush

  22. jonasw

    I wouldn’t recognize it.

  23. Guus

    Oh, come on. "Georg Lukas is a <whatdoyoudoforaliving>. Active since <date> within the XMPP community, he's the author of <name same XEPS>"

  24. Ge0rG is a full-time [IT security consultant](https://rt-solutions.de/en/home-2/), a vocal advocate of [Easy XMPP](https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Category:Easy_XMPP), the project janitor of [yaxim](https://yaxim.org) and the operator of the [public yax.im server](https://yaxim.org/yax.im/).

  25. Ge0rG

    Guus: ^

  26. Guus

    aweesome :)

  27. Ge0rG

    "He is also the one eternally blocking XEP-0280 because the rules are too vague."

  28. jonasw

    he didn’t go for my suggestion, pity :)

  29. jonasw

    I’d like to note that others do not have links to non-XMPP sites in their bios.

  30. Guus

    Who's out? Daniel?

  31. Guus

    Tobi too, right?

  32. Ge0rG

    jonasw: valid point. I saw a link to an employer and considered that valid, but of course it was a company working in XMPP

  33. jonasw

    Daniel is still in, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot is out

  34. jonasw

    but Kevin is back

  35. Guus

    ok, tx

  36. jonasw

    you could just look at the members page somebody helpfully updated ;-)

  37. Guus


  38. Guus

    jonasw: you caught me being lazy :)

  39. Guus

    I wonder if we have an old bio for Kev somehwere

  40. jonasw

    Guus, git show aad70e88511b1ce523a09ea64070fceb5c8b147f

  41. Guus

    yup, just found that

  42. Guus

    filling in the missing links now

  43. jonasw

    I’d ask Kev beforehands though, to make sure everything is up-to-date :)

  44. Guus

    unless Kev has another text in midn

  45. Guus

    (I stripped the first sentence)

  46. Guus

    __Kevin Smith__ works at [Isode](http://isode.com) where he’s responsible for the [M-Link server](http://www.isode.com/products/m-link.html), other XMPP projects and work on the open-source [Swift](https://swift.im/) XMPP client. He was formerly the project leader on [Psi](http://psi-im.org/). Kevin is also the author of several [XMPP extensions](/extensions) and co-authored [XMPP: The Definitive Guide](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596521271.do).

  47. jonasw

    isode has HTTPS now

  48. Ge0rG

    I like how the only things staying in my linediff are "https://", "and" and "the"

  49. Kev

    If you're suggesting text for my Council bio, that looks good to me (that's my stuff from last time, right?).

  50. Guus

    I've updated https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/386

  51. Guus

    Kev, yes. I left out the part referencing your past roles (as you were chair then, not sure if you are now)

  52. jonasw

    Guus, HTTPS the isode links and I thnik we’re good to go

  53. Guus

    jonasw: did you check if they worked? One link (I thnk psy) didn't.

  54. jonasw

    I did

  55. Kev

    I'm not chair now, no.

  56. jonasw

    (which is why I only mentioned "isode" :))

  57. Guus

    thanks :)

  58. Kev

    Thanks both.

  59. jonasw

    hit the large green button

  60. Guus

    Some checks haven’t completed yet

  61. jonasw


  62. jonasw

    hm, I miss a "merge when checks complete" button, I think gitlab has that

  63. Guus

    I think I can simply merge

  64. Guus

    but it'd be nice to merge only if the checks are ok

  65. Guus


  66. Ge0rG

    [Merge automatically at the least sensible moment]

  67. Guus

    thanks all.

  68. Guus

    You have now beat last years board by approximately 48 weeks. :)

  69. mathieui


  70. jonasw

    in last years boards defense: they didn’t have such a keen SCAM/PR team leader :-)

  71. jonasw

    (at the beginning of their term)

  72. Ge0rG

    That the SCAM/PR team has been established is also partially in the responsibility of the old Board ;)

  73. jcbrand

    Hi folks. I can't be in the meeting today, but I can take minutes afterwards by reading the chat logs.

  74. jcbrand

    Tobias ^

  75. Kev

    jcbrand: dwd's the chair :)

  76. jcbrand

    Thanks Kev

  77. jcbrand

    dwd ^^^

  78. dwd

    jcbrand, If you're happy to do that, that'd be great.

  79. jonasw

    if the meeting will be at 16:00Z, I now know that I can do it too

  80. jonasw

    (that is, in six minutes or so)

  81. jcbrand

    the meeting of the minutes?

  82. jcbrand


  83. Ge0rG

    ETA -5min, yeah.

  84. jonasw

    jcbrand, the meeting

  85. jonasw

    but do the minutes, yes

  86. jcbrand

    ok, I'll do the minutes then dwd

  87. jonasw


  88. jonasw


  89. jcbrand


  90. jcbrand


  91. jonasw

    I mean I can do the minutes live today, if that helps.

  92. jcbrand

    You're welcome to do them if you want to jonasw, or if you think it's more efficient

  93. jonasw

    I don’t know if it’s more efficient, but I’m certainly around and plan to follow the meeting anyways

  94. SamWhited

    Thanks! Live is good (IMO) since it means context doesn't get lost and you can ask for clarification if needed.

  95. jcbrand

    ok, let's do it live!

  96. dwd

    jonasw, Oh, even better.

  97. jonasw

    it’s settled then

  98. jcbrand

    thanks jonasw

  99. Kev

    Time for me to grab a water and get ready for the show, I guess.

  100. dwd

    Indeed: Kev, SamWhited, daniel, Ge0rG - 5 minute warning.

  101. dwd

    Well, three now.

  102. SamWhited

    Thank you 3

  103. peter waves

  104. SamWhited


  105. dwd


  106. Kev

    'tis time.

  107. dwd

    I call this meeting to session, then. (says he, grandly)

  108. daniel


  109. dwd

    1) Role Call:

  110. jonasw

    ("'tis time", the harpie cries?)

  111. dwd

    I see daniel, Kev, SamWhited - do we have a Ge0rG?

  112. Kev

    I be here.

  113. Ge0rG


  114. dwd

    SamWhited, You *are* still here right?

  115. SamWhited


  116. dwd

    Ace. Full house.

  117. dwd

    So, items for a vote:

  118. dwd

    1) XEP-0387, vote to mvoe to Draft.

  119. SamWhited


  120. SamWhited


  121. daniel


  122. dwd

    I note that Kev thought we should restart the Last Call, but I believe that ended and I'm not convinced we need to revisit it.

  123. Kev

    Depends if we much care about process.

  124. Ge0rG

    +1 (I'm still against having Avatars in IM Core, but only because I'm a lazy client developer)

  125. jonasw

    technically the LC ended before the council changeover, at least according to the announcement made by the editor.

  126. Kev

    jonasw: There was no advancement, though, so it resets if we do things properly.

  127. jonasw

    I see

  128. Kev

    Anyway, I don't much care one way or the other, but I'll on-list if this is an advancement vote rather than LC.

  129. dwd

    Kev, Well, I do. But it's not clear to me that we would be following process by repeating a last call. It's surely in Proposed state, now?

  130. jonasw

    I don’t see a logical reason why council would be forced to re-start a last call; I wouldn’t expect new input just because council switched.

  131. Kev

    I'll on-list, then.

  132. dwd

    Kev, OK.

  133. dwd

    I'm happy to +1 it, anyway.

  134. Ge0rG

    I'm +1 with either re-LC or advance, with a preference to the latter.

  135. dwd

    2) Vote on deprecating XEP-0095 (note incorrect XEP number in agenda, sorry).

  136. dwd

    SamWhited wrote up some findings on deployment in the Trello card, if anyone's not noticed.

  137. SamWhited

    So I went through a list of clients (see the trello issue) last night looking for support for this

  138. SamWhited

    I did not find any client that supported SI alone

  139. SamWhited

    They all supported neither, Jingle, or Jingle and SI

  140. Kev

    I note that this is presumably deprecation in favour of 234, which is still Experimental, in case we care (I don't, immediately, I think).

  141. daniel

    SamWhited, i think there are some clients that only do SI

  142. dwd

    Is it worth Last Calling Jingle FT, then?

  143. Ge0rG

    Are there any technical reasons to favor 95 over 234? Complexity of implementation? Number of roundtrips?

  144. daniel

    but i'm unprepared and didn't research this

  145. SamWhited

    I checked quite a few popular ones and didn't find any, but I'm sure at least one or two old clients exist

  146. Ge0rG

    I haven't implemented either (as Sam rightfully pointed out in trello), so it's hard to decide right now.

  147. Kev

    I think an LC on 234 might be useful in informing deprecation of 95/96. Which isn't to say that I'm gating approval of deprecation on advancement.

  148. daniel

    Ge0rG, i think you can't fall back to ibb in SI

  149. daniel

    and the receiver can't suggest proxies

  150. Ge0rG

    daniel: is IBB still relevant in practice? Or is HTTP-Upload the new file transfer?

  151. daniel

    i'm just pointing out the differences between si and jingle

  152. Kev

    HTTP-Upload certainly can't replace the case where you need to fallback to IBB because you're crossing boundaries.

  153. SamWhited

    I do think it makes sense to consider pushing Jingle forward as well, but it seems clear to me that SI is functionally deprecated (Pidgin and Gajim both do Jingle, which is probably the vast majority of users), so we might as well recommend one thing IMO.

  154. daniel

    pidgin does jingle? file transfer!?

  155. Kev

    SamWhited: I agree, I just think we may as well wait a couple of weeks and see what LC on 234 comes up with.

  156. SamWhited

    daniel: it looked like it from browsing their source code, but I could be wrong

  157. Kev

    Equally, I don't object to deprecating 95/96 and LCing 234 concurrently, if that's what the general feeling is for.

  158. SamWhited

    Kev: I don't think we're in any rush, but I also think they're completely orthogonal and am generally for deprecating old things that look like recommendations but which aren't good for compatibility

  159. SamWhited

    I hadn't considered LCing 234, but I would also be for doing that as part of this if it's something people want.

  160. Kev

    LCs are cheap, and generally the best way to bring out feedback.

  161. SamWhited


  162. Ge0rG

    Kev: do you know of any practical use cases for IBB?

  163. Ge0rG

    Is there a way to have an LC for deprecating an XEP?

  164. Ge0rG

    Or can we piggy-back the deprecation warning of 95 on the 234-LC?

  165. Kev

    We can send out a mail, sure.

  166. dwd

    Ge0rG, I do - when crossing very tight network boundaries, there's a preference to having everything within a single TCP stream.

  167. Kev

    We can also un-deprecate if we've made a mistake.

  168. Kev

    So, meh, +1 on deprecating 95/96 and also on the AOB to LC 234 :)

  169. SamWhited

    I don't really see the point in seeking feedback on deprecation; that's why we're the council, to make recommenations, although in this case I think we're documenting what the community has decided, not really changing anything.

  170. daniel

    +1 on deprecating SI

  171. Ge0rG

    daniel: 234 mandates IBB as a MUST have feature

  172. Ge0rG

    +1 on deprecating

  173. Ge0rG


  174. daniel

    Ge0rG, ?

  175. dwd

    Yes, I think +1 on deprecating both and a LC. Which I'll come to later.

  176. SamWhited

    +1 on deprecating 95/96 and to LC

  177. dwd

    OK. Unanimous on deprecating '95.

  178. dwd

    3) ... and XEP-0096?

  179. Ge0rG

    +1 on deprecating

  180. Kev


  181. dwd

    I think we're all +1 there, but speak now if not.

  182. SamWhited

    oops, was getting ahead of myself…

  183. daniel


  184. SamWhited

    +1 to that too

  185. dwd

    And because I'm doing this out of the agenda order:

  186. dwd

    4) Issue Last Call for XEP-0363 for advancement to Draft:

  187. SamWhited


  188. Kev

    +1 (which isn't to say I won't have feedback onlist)

  189. daniel


  190. dwd


  191. dwd

    Ge0rG, ?

  192. Ge0rG

    +1 for LC

  193. dwd

    Great, thanks.

  194. Ge0rG

    I've already written a comment re 363 to standards@ yesterday

  195. dwd

    5) Trello Triage

  196. dwd

    Folks, if you look at the "Proposed Agendums" column, you'lkl notice two things.

  197. dwd

    Firstly, the plural of agendums is agenda, and that irritates me every time I see it. :-)

  198. Kev

    Please don't remove that bit of history.

  199. dwd

    Secondly, there's a lot of stuff here and much of it has been there a long time.

  200. dwd

    Kev, I have a keen sense of tradition as well as Latin grammar.

  201. daniel

    dwd, i think you can remove 280 and odr

  202. daniel

    oh for the 280 we wanted to ask Ge0rG for permission :-)

  203. Kev

    It's neither tradition or grammar, it's a reference to an old Council discussion, between me and Peter IIRC, about the singular of Agenda. It's terribly important for culture's sake :)

  204. Kev

    I think Datums may also have been involved.

  205. Ge0rG

    -1 on whatever you want to do to 280

  206. daniel

    Ge0rG, removing it from the agenda

  207. dwd

    Ge0rG, Well, I wanted to do nothing. So what should we do now you've vetod that?

  208. SamWhited

    I guess we have to do something to 0280?

  209. jonasw

    ( Kev, maybe add "[sic!]" to the column then, so that at least everybody knows that there’s some good story to know :))

  210. Kev

    280 should go from our Agenda.

  211. Ge0rG

    dwd: there is a pending PR with "improved" rule wording. Merge it?

  212. daniel

    i just noticed 280 is on the agenda twice

  213. dwd

    Ge0rG, Is there consensus to?

  214. Ge0rG

    dwd: of course not

  215. SamWhited

    That was closed since Kev was going to work on a document WRT new routing rules

  216. SamWhited

    There is no longer a PR matching that agenda item, so it should go

  217. Ge0rG

    I've also investigated the current and potential routing rules extensively, and updated my slides at https://op-co.de/tmp/whats-wrong-with-xmpp-2017.pdf accordingly.

  218. jonasw

    cf. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434#issuecomment-344918631

  219. dwd

    OK. Moving on, then, in the absence of agreement.

  220. Ge0rG

    I still can't promise I will make it to the Summit, but maybe I can tele-present it.

  221. Ge0rG

    And I think it doesn't make sense to move on with 280 or 313 before that.

  222. dwd

    I see '186 and '352 are both out of last call but not advanced.

  223. dwd

    Ge0rG, I mean, I'm moving on with the meeting.

  224. SamWhited

    0168 was waiting on some changes that peter wanted to make, IIRC?

  225. dwd

    Ge0rG, I'd like to finish this meeting before February.

  226. Ge0rG

    dwd: nothing wrong with that

  227. Ge0rG

    dwd: my "moving on" was unrelated to your "moving on", sorry for the confusion

  228. dwd

    Ge0rG, I thought it might be. :-)

  229. dwd

    SamWhited, WHat were the changes? Are they in a PR or on the list somewhere?

  230. SamWhited

    dwd: I don't recall

  231. dwd

    SamWhited, No, me neither.

  232. Ge0rG

    186 was last addressed in http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-02-08#16:00:55

  233. SamWhited

    0352 does not appear to have received any feedback; still looking for the mail about 0168

  234. SamWhited

    oops, too late. Ge0rG got it.

  235. dwd

    So, I propose that for both 186 and 352, we consider repeating a Last Call.

  236. Kev


  237. SamWhited

    I think we've done that already at least once, maybe twice for 352. I don't think we're likely to get more feedback the second (or third?) time

  238. Ge0rG

    I have a vague feeling that 352 is also related to the message routing Big Picture, in the context of "urgent" messages

  239. daniel

    csi received a lot of feedback

  240. SamWhited

    oh no, I'm sorry, this was an older LC, maybe it was unrelated

  241. SamWhited

    daniel: did it? I was just looking at see no replies to the LC email

  242. dwd

    Well, I'm going to put them on for next week's agenda for a LC vote.

  243. daniel

    i'm looking at an older thread from februrary 9th

  244. daniel

    no idea why the LC was repeated

  245. dwd

    We've got XEP-0084 deprecation, and also some stuff about reverting bookmarks to private XML. Anyone any idea on those?

  246. daniel

    there haven't been any changes and the old thread has positive feedback

  247. jonasw

    dwd, XEP-0084 isn’t really used in the wild and it is confusing for developers (I certainly was confused) because everybody™ uses vcards, apparently.

  248. SamWhited

    Link Mauve: care to elaborate on those?

  249. jonasw

    regarding bookmarks, I think the argument was that the change to PEP was a major break which should not have happened in a Draft XEP, it should’ve been a new XEP.

  250. jonasw

    I think that both are valid things for the council to discuss.

  251. dwd

    OK, on for next week.

  252. dwd

    So I think I understand the XHTML-IM and XEP-0286 ones. They can go on next week as well.

  253. dwd

    So, quickly since we're running short on time - AOB.

  254. dwd

    I think we agreed to vote on XEP-0234 for Last Call?

  255. dwd

    ... for which I'm +1.

  256. daniel


  257. SamWhited


  258. Ge0rG


  259. Kev

    Already +1d.

  260. dwd

    OK. Any other Any other Business?

  261. jonasw

    dwd, the LC mail I sent you

  262. jonasw

    but that’s not urgent I believe

  263. SamWhited

    XEP-0286 also had a LC end with minor feedback (all editorial things, IIRC) that was addressed.

  264. jonasw

    but in fact I think that was fully adressed, nevermind, dwd

  265. dwd

    jonasw, I know you wanted feedback on hash choices for the colour XEP, too. Can we discuss that next time?

  266. jonasw

    ah, yes

  267. jonasw


  268. dwd

    Right. Assuming no other business, then:

  269. dwd

    7) Time of next

  270. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  271. SamWhited


  272. dwd

    I cannot, unfortunately, make next week's meeting - I'll be stepping off stage after a talk at the time.

  273. Kev

    What Foxes Move.

  274. dwd

    Kev, Can you chair next week's?

  275. Kev


  276. dwd

    I'll *try* to join late, if possible.

  277. dwd

    Right, in that case we're done. Thanks all.

  278. Kev

    Thanks all.

  279. dwd

    8) Ite, Meeting Est.

  280. jonasw

    the minutes go to which addresses? council@ and standards@?

  281. Kev


  282. Ge0rG


  283. jonasw

    minutes sent, thanks everyone

  284. peter

    SamWhited: Yes, there was list discussion about XEP-0186 early this year, and I have not yet made those changes. I think the changeset will be somewhat small, but I need to do that soon before my new job starts. Thanks for the reminder.

  285. SamWhited

    peter: thanks! I'll update the card so we don't forget again

  286. peter

    OK, great.

  287. jonasw

    peter, you’ll have noticed that the tooling for sending emails etc. changed quite a bit. if you don’t mind, it’d be great if you familiarize yourself with it or make PRs for your changes, so that e.g. I can take care of that.

  288. jonasw

    damn, I wanted to write that in the editors muc.