SamWhited: from your XEP-0095 trello card, is "none of them supports SI but does not support Jingle" a typo?
danielhas left
danielhas left
ralphmhas left
jerehas left
Zashhas joined
Zashhas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
Zashhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
ralphmhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
SamWhited
Ge0rG: I don't think so? I meant "none of them support only SI"
Ge0rG
SamWhited: ah, it just took me multiple attempts to parse that sentence
SamWhited
Yah, sorry, in retrospect that was very poorly worded
Ge0rG
SamWhited: feel free to change ;)
jerehas joined
Kevhas left
Guushas joined
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.
Ge0rG
I'm not original enough to come up with something that's sufficiently different from Daniel's bio :(
Guus
It doesn't have to be sufficinetly different.
Guus
as long as it describes you.
Guus
basically: what's your name, what do you do for a living, what nice XMPP affiliations do you have?
mathieui
Guus, say you’re a grumpy person that wants to make xmpp easier
danielhas left
jonasw
itym Ge0rG
Guus
I'm a grumpy person tath wants to make xmpp easier.
mathieui
damn, I meant Ge0rG
Guus
:)
Zash
We are all grumpy and wishing to improve XMPP on this blessed day.
Ge0rG
Zash: you need more coffee
Holger
Maybe you could ask zinid to write your bios :-)
jonasw
lol
mathieui
lol
Ge0rG
Holger: Russian cursing would make me blush
jonasw
I wouldn’t recognize it.
Guus
Oh, 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
Guus: ^
Guus
aweesome :)
Ge0rG
"He is also the one eternally blocking XEP-0280 because the rules are too vague."
jonasw
he didn’t go for my suggestion, pity :)
jonasw
I’d like to note that others do not have links to non-XMPP sites in their bios.
Guus
Who's out? Daniel?
Guus
Tobi too, right?
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
jonasw
Daniel is still in, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot is out
jonasw
but Kevin is back
Guus
ok, tx
jonasw
you could just look at the members page somebody helpfully updated ;-)
danielhas left
Guus
https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/386
Guus
jonasw: you caught me being lazy :)
Guus
I wonder if we have an old bio for Kev somehwere
Kevhas joined
jonasw
Guus, git show aad70e88511b1ce523a09ea64070fceb5c8b147f
Guus
yup, just found that
Guus
filling in the missing links now
jonasw
I’d ask Kev beforehands though, to make sure everything is up-to-date :)
Guus
unless 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).
jonasw
isode has HTTPS now
Ge0rG
I like how the only things staying in my linediff are "https://", "and" and "the"
Kev
If you're suggesting text for my Council bio, that looks good to me (that's my stuff from last time, right?).
I call this meeting to session, then. (says he, grandly)
daniel
Hi
dwd
1) Role Call:
jonasw
("'tis time", the harpie cries?)
dwd
I see daniel, Kev, SamWhited - do we have a Ge0rG?
Kev
I be here.
Ge0rG
👋
dwd
SamWhited, You *are* still here right?
SamWhited
Indeed
dwd
Ace. Full house.
dwd
So, items for a vote:
dwd
1) XEP-0387, vote to mvoe to Draft.
SamWhited
+1
SamWhited
(naturally)
daniel
+1
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.
Kev
Depends 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)
jonasw
technically the LC ended before the council changeover, at least according to the announcement made by the editor.
Kev
jonasw: There was no advancement, though, so it resets if we do things properly.
jonasw
I see
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.
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?
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.
Kev
I'll on-list, then.
dwd
Kev, OK.
moparisthebesthas joined
dwd
I'm happy to +1 it, anyway.
Ge0rG
I'm +1 with either re-LC or advance, with a preference to the latter.
dwd
2) Vote on deprecating XEP-0095 (note incorrect XEP number in agenda, sorry).
dwd
SamWhited wrote up some findings on deployment in the Trello card, if anyone's not noticed.
SamWhited
So I went through a list of clients (see the trello issue) last night looking for support for this
SamWhited
I did not find any client that supported SI alone
SamWhited
They all supported neither, Jingle, or Jingle and SI
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).
daniel
SamWhited, i think there are some clients that only do SI
dwd
Is it worth Last Calling Jingle FT, then?
Ge0rG
Are there any technical reasons to favor 95 over 234? Complexity of implementation? Number of roundtrips?
daniel
but i'm unprepared and didn't research this
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
Ge0rG
I haven't implemented either (as Sam rightfully pointed out in trello), so it's hard to decide right now.
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.
daniel
Ge0rG, i think you can't fall back to ibb in SI
daniel
and the receiver can't suggest proxies
Ge0rG
daniel: is IBB still relevant in practice? Or is HTTP-Upload the new file transfer?
daniel
i'm just pointing out the differences between si and jingle
Kev
HTTP-Upload certainly can't replace the case where you need to fallback to IBB because you're crossing boundaries.
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.
daniel
pidgin does jingle? file transfer!?
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.
SamWhited
daniel: it looked like it from browsing their source code, but I could be wrong
Kev
Equally, I don't object to deprecating 95/96 and LCing 234 concurrently, if that's what the general feeling is for.
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
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.
Kev
LCs are cheap, and generally the best way to bring out feedback.
SamWhited
Indeed
Ge0rG
Kev: do you know of any practical use cases for IBB?
Ge0rG
Is there a way to have an LC for deprecating an XEP?
Ge0rG
Or can we piggy-back the deprecation warning of 95 on the 234-LC?
Kev
We can send out a mail, sure.
dwd
Ge0rG, I do - when crossing very tight network boundaries, there's a preference to having everything within a single TCP stream.
Kev
We can also un-deprecate if we've made a mistake.
Kev
So, meh, +1 on deprecating 95/96 and also on the AOB to LC 234 :)
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.
Yes, I think +1 on deprecating both and a LC. Which I'll come to later.
SamWhited
+1 on deprecating 95/96 and to LC
dwd
OK. Unanimous on deprecating '95.
dwd
3) ... and XEP-0096?
Ge0rG
+1 on deprecating
Kev
^
dwd
I think we're all +1 there, but speak now if not.
SamWhited
oops, was getting ahead of myself…
daniel
+1
SamWhited
+1 to that too
dwd
And because I'm doing this out of the agenda order:
dwd
4) Issue Last Call for XEP-0363 for advancement to Draft:
SamWhited
+1
Kev
+1 (which isn't to say I won't have feedback onlist)
daniel
+1
dwd
+1
dwd
Ge0rG, ?
Ge0rG
+1 for LC
dwd
Great, thanks.
Ge0rG
I've already written a comment re 363 to standards@ yesterday
dwd
5) Trello Triage
dwd
Folks, if you look at the "Proposed Agendums" column, you'lkl notice two things.
dwd
Firstly, the plural of agendums is agenda, and that irritates me every time I see it. :-)
Kev
Please don't remove that bit of history.
dwd
Secondly, there's a lot of stuff here and much of it has been there a long time.
dwd
Kev, I have a keen sense of tradition as well as Latin grammar.
daniel
dwd, i think you can remove 280 and odr
daniel
oh for the 280 we wanted to ask Ge0rG for permission :-)
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 :)
Kev
I think Datums may also have been involved.
Ge0rG
-1 on whatever you want to do to 280
daniel
Ge0rG, removing it from the agenda
dwd
Ge0rG, Well, I wanted to do nothing. So what should we do now you've vetod that?
SamWhited
I guess we have to do something to 0280?
jonasw
( Kev, maybe add "[sic!]" to the column then, so that at least everybody knows that there’s some good story to know :))
Kev
280 should go from our Agenda.
Ge0rG
dwd: there is a pending PR with "improved" rule wording. Merge it?
daniel
i just noticed 280 is on the agenda twice
dwd
Ge0rG, Is there consensus to?
Ge0rG
dwd: of course not
SamWhited
That was closed since Kev was going to work on a document WRT new routing rules
SamWhited
There is no longer a PR matching that agenda item, so it should go
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.
I still can't promise I will make it to the Summit, but maybe I can tele-present it.
Ge0rG
And I think it doesn't make sense to move on with 280 or 313 before that.
dwd
I see '186 and '352 are both out of last call but not advanced.
dwd
Ge0rG, I mean, I'm moving on with the meeting.
SamWhited
0168 was waiting on some changes that peter wanted to make, IIRC?
dwd
Ge0rG, I'd like to finish this meeting before February.
Ge0rG
dwd: nothing wrong with that
Ge0rG
dwd: my "moving on" was unrelated to your "moving on", sorry for the confusion
dwd
Ge0rG, I thought it might be. :-)
dwd
SamWhited, WHat were the changes? Are they in a PR or on the list somewhere?
SamWhited
dwd: I don't recall
dwd
SamWhited, No, me neither.
Ge0rG
186 was last addressed in http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-02-08#16:00:55
SamWhited
0352 does not appear to have received any feedback; still looking for the mail about 0168
SamWhited
oops, too late. Ge0rG got it.
dwd
So, I propose that for both 186 and 352, we consider repeating a Last Call.
Kev
+1
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
Ge0rG
I have a vague feeling that 352 is also related to the message routing Big Picture, in the context of "urgent" messages
daniel
csi received a lot of feedback
SamWhited
oh no, I'm sorry, this was an older LC, maybe it was unrelated
SamWhited
daniel: did it? I was just looking at see no replies to the LC email
dwd
Well, I'm going to put them on for next week's agenda for a LC vote.
daniel
i'm looking at an older thread from februrary 9th
daniel
no idea why the LC was repeated
dwd
We've got XEP-0084 deprecation, and also some stuff about reverting bookmarks to private XML. Anyone any idea on those?
daniel
there haven't been any changes and the old thread has positive feedback
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.
SamWhited
Link Mauve: care to elaborate on those?
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.
jonasw
I think that both are valid things for the council to discuss.
dwd
OK, on for next week.
dwd
So I think I understand the XHTML-IM and XEP-0286 ones. They can go on next week as well.
dwd
So, quickly since we're running short on time - AOB.
dwd
I think we agreed to vote on XEP-0234 for Last Call?
dwd
... for which I'm +1.
daniel
+1
SamWhited
+1
Ge0rG
+1
Kev
Already +1d.
dwd
OK. Any other Any other Business?
jonasw
dwd, the LC mail I sent you
jonasw
but that’s not urgent I believe
SamWhited
XEP-0286 also had a LC end with minor feedback (all editorial things, IIRC) that was addressed.
jonasw
but in fact I think that was fully adressed, nevermind, dwd
dwd
jonasw, I know you wanted feedback on hash choices for the colour XEP, too. Can we discuss that next time?
jonasw
ah, yes
jonasw
sure
dwd
Right. Assuming no other business, then:
dwd
7) Time of next
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
SamWhited
WFM
dwd
I cannot, unfortunately, make next week's meeting - I'll be stepping off stage after a talk at the time.
Kev
What Foxes Move.
dwd
Kev, Can you chair next week's?
Kev
Sure.
dwd
I'll *try* to join late, if possible.
dwd
Right, in that case we're done. Thanks all.
Kev
Thanks all.
dwd
8) Ite, Meeting Est.
jonasw
the minutes go to which addresses? council@ and standards@?
Kev
Please.
Ge0rG
Thanks.
jonasw
minutes sent, thanks everyone
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.
SamWhited
peter: thanks! I'll update the card so we don't forget again
peter
OK, great.
jerehas joined
jerehas joined
ralphmhas joined
SamWhitedhas left
Guushas left
Tobiashas joined
jonaswhas left
ralphmhas left
SouLhas left
SouLhas joined
genofirehas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
ralphmhas joined
jerehas left
genofirehas left
genofirehas left
jerehas joined
genofirehas joined
danielhas left
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
danielhas left
ralphmhas left
genofirehas joined
Tobiashas joined
danielhas left
genofirehas joined
Tobiashas left
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.