Ge0rGSamWhited: from your XEP-0095 trello card, is "none of them supports SI but does not support Jingle" a typo?
SamWhitedGe0rG: I don't think so? I meant "none of them support only SI"
Ge0rGSamWhited: ah, it just took me multiple attempts to parse that sentence
SamWhitedYah, sorry, in retrospect that was very poorly worded
Ge0rGSamWhited: feel free to change ;)
GuusNew 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.
Ge0rGI'm not original enough to come up with something that's sufficiently different from Daniel's bio :(
GuusIt doesn't have to be sufficinetly different.
Guusas long as it describes you.
Guusbasically: what's your name, what do you do for a living, what nice XMPP affiliations do you have?
mathieuiGuus, say you’re a grumpy person that wants to make xmpp easier
GuusI'm a grumpy person tath wants to make xmpp easier.
mathieuidamn, I meant Ge0rG
ZashWe are all grumpy and wishing to improve XMPP on this blessed day.
Ge0rGZash: you need more coffee
HolgerMaybe you could ask zinid to write your bios :-)
Ge0rGHolger: Russian cursing would make me blush
jonaswI wouldn’t recognize it.
GuusOh, come on. "Georg Lukas is a <whatdoyoudoforaliving>. Active since <date> within the XMPP community, he's the author of <name same XEPS>"
Ge0rGis 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/).
Ge0rG"He is also the one eternally blocking XEP-0280 because the rules are too vague."
jonaswhe didn’t go for my suggestion, pity :)
jonaswI’d like to note that others do not have links to non-XMPP sites in their bios.
GuusWho's out? Daniel?
GuusTobi too, right?
Ge0rGjonasw: valid point. I saw a link to an employer and considered that valid, but of course it was a company working in XMPP
jonaswDaniel is still in, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot is out
jonaswbut Kevin is back
jonaswyou could just look at the members page somebody helpfully updated ;-)
Guusjonasw: you caught me being lazy :)
GuusI wonder if we have an old bio for Kev somehwere
jonaswGuus, git show aad70e88511b1ce523a09ea64070fceb5c8b147f
Guusyup, just found that
Guusfilling in the missing links now
jonaswI’d ask Kev beforehands though, to make sure everything is up-to-date :)
Guusunless Kev has another text in midn
Guus(I stripped the first sentence)
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).
jonaswisode has HTTPS now
Ge0rGI like how the only things staying in my linediff are "https://", "and" and "the"
KevIf you're suggesting text for my Council bio, that looks good to me (that's my stuff from last time, right?).
dwdI call this meeting to session, then. (says he, grandly)
dwd1) Role Call:
jonasw("'tis time", the harpie cries?)
dwdI see daniel, Kev, SamWhited - do we have a Ge0rG?
KevI be here.
dwdSamWhited, You *are* still here right?
dwdAce. Full house.
dwdSo, items for a vote:
dwd1) XEP-0387, vote to mvoe to Draft.
dwdI 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.
KevDepends if we much care about process.
Ge0rG+1 (I'm still against having Avatars in IM Core, but only because I'm a lazy client developer)
jonaswtechnically the LC ended before the council changeover, at least according to the announcement made by the editor.
Kevjonasw: There was no advancement, though, so it resets if we do things properly.
KevAnyway, I don't much care one way or the other, but I'll on-list if this is an advancement vote rather than LC.
dwdKev, 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?
jonaswI 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.
KevI'll on-list, then.
dwdI'm happy to +1 it, anyway.
Ge0rGI'm +1 with either re-LC or advance, with a preference to the latter.
dwd2) Vote on deprecating XEP-0095 (note incorrect XEP number in agenda, sorry).
dwdSamWhited wrote up some findings on deployment in the Trello card, if anyone's not noticed.
SamWhitedSo I went through a list of clients (see the trello issue) last night looking for support for this
SamWhitedI did not find any client that supported SI alone
SamWhitedThey all supported neither, Jingle, or Jingle and SI
KevI note that this is presumably deprecation in favour of 234, which is still Experimental, in case we care (I don't, immediately, I think).
danielSamWhited, i think there are some clients that only do SI
dwdIs it worth Last Calling Jingle FT, then?
Ge0rGAre there any technical reasons to favor 95 over 234? Complexity of implementation? Number of roundtrips?
danielbut i'm unprepared and didn't research this
SamWhitedI checked quite a few popular ones and didn't find any, but I'm sure at least one or two old clients exist
Ge0rGI haven't implemented either (as Sam rightfully pointed out in trello), so it's hard to decide right now.
KevI 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.
danielGe0rG, i think you can't fall back to ibb in SI
danieland the receiver can't suggest proxies
Ge0rGdaniel: is IBB still relevant in practice? Or is HTTP-Upload the new file transfer?
danieli'm just pointing out the differences between si and jingle
KevHTTP-Upload certainly can't replace the case where you need to fallback to IBB because you're crossing boundaries.
SamWhitedI 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.
danielpidgin does jingle? file transfer!?
KevSamWhited: I agree, I just think we may as well wait a couple of weeks and see what LC on 234 comes up with.
SamWhiteddaniel: it looked like it from browsing their source code, but I could be wrong
KevEqually, I don't object to deprecating 95/96 and LCing 234 concurrently, if that's what the general feeling is for.
SamWhitedKev: 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
SamWhitedI hadn't considered LCing 234, but I would also be for doing that as part of this if it's something people want.
KevLCs are cheap, and generally the best way to bring out feedback.
Ge0rGKev: do you know of any practical use cases for IBB?
Ge0rGIs there a way to have an LC for deprecating an XEP?
Ge0rGOr can we piggy-back the deprecation warning of 95 on the 234-LC?
KevWe can send out a mail, sure.
dwdGe0rG, I do - when crossing very tight network boundaries, there's a preference to having everything within a single TCP stream.
KevWe can also un-deprecate if we've made a mistake.
KevSo, meh, +1 on deprecating 95/96 and also on the AOB to LC 234 :)
SamWhitedI 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.
daniel+1 on deprecating SI
Ge0rGdaniel: 234 mandates IBB as a MUST have feature
dwdOK. Moving on, then, in the absence of agreement.
Ge0rGI still can't promise I will make it to the Summit, but maybe I can tele-present it.
Ge0rGAnd I think it doesn't make sense to move on with 280 or 313 before that.
dwdI see '186 and '352 are both out of last call but not advanced.
dwdGe0rG, I mean, I'm moving on with the meeting.
SamWhited0168 was waiting on some changes that peter wanted to make, IIRC?
dwdGe0rG, I'd like to finish this meeting before February.
Ge0rGdwd: nothing wrong with that
Ge0rGdwd: my "moving on" was unrelated to your "moving on", sorry for the confusion
dwdGe0rG, I thought it might be. :-)
dwdSamWhited, WHat were the changes? Are they in a PR or on the list somewhere?
SamWhiteddwd: I don't recall
dwdSamWhited, No, me neither.
Ge0rG186 was last addressed in http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-02-08#16:00:55
SamWhited0352 does not appear to have received any feedback; still looking for the mail about 0168
SamWhitedoops, too late. Ge0rG got it.
dwdSo, I propose that for both 186 and 352, we consider repeating a Last Call.
SamWhitedI 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
Ge0rGI have a vague feeling that 352 is also related to the message routing Big Picture, in the context of "urgent" messages
danielcsi received a lot of feedback
SamWhitedoh no, I'm sorry, this was an older LC, maybe it was unrelated
SamWhiteddaniel: did it? I was just looking at see no replies to the LC email
dwdWell, I'm going to put them on for next week's agenda for a LC vote.
danieli'm looking at an older thread from februrary 9th
danielno idea why the LC was repeated
dwdWe've got XEP-0084 deprecation, and also some stuff about reverting bookmarks to private XML. Anyone any idea on those?
danielthere haven't been any changes and the old thread has positive feedback
jonaswdwd, XEP-0084 isn’t really used in the wild and it is confusing for developers (I certainly was confused) because everybody™ uses vcards, apparently.
SamWhitedLink Mauve: care to elaborate on those?
jonaswregarding 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.
jonaswI think that both are valid things for the council to discuss.
dwdOK, on for next week.
dwdSo I think I understand the XHTML-IM and XEP-0286 ones. They can go on next week as well.
dwdSo, quickly since we're running short on time - AOB.
dwdI think we agreed to vote on XEP-0234 for Last Call?
dwd... for which I'm +1.
dwdOK. Any other Any other Business?
jonaswdwd, the LC mail I sent you
jonaswbut that’s not urgent I believe
SamWhitedXEP-0286 also had a LC end with minor feedback (all editorial things, IIRC) that was addressed.
jonaswbut in fact I think that was fully adressed, nevermind, dwd
dwdjonasw, I know you wanted feedback on hash choices for the colour XEP, too. Can we discuss that next time?
dwdRight. Assuming no other business, then:
dwd7) Time of next
dwdI cannot, unfortunately, make next week's meeting - I'll be stepping off stage after a talk at the time.
KevWhat Foxes Move.
dwdKev, Can you chair next week's?
dwdI'll *try* to join late, if possible.
dwdRight, in that case we're done. Thanks all.
dwd8) Ite, Meeting Est.
jonaswthe minutes go to which addresses? council@ and standards@?
jonaswminutes sent, thanks everyone
peterSamWhited: 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.
SamWhitedpeter: thanks! I'll update the card so we don't forget again
jonaswpeter, 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.
jonaswdamn, I wanted to write that in the editors muc.