-
Kev
'tis time, 'tis time.
-
jonasw
the harpie cries
-
Kev
1) Bread products!
-
jonasw
I gotta leave at 1630Z, so I won’t be able to properly take minutes
-
Kev
jonasw: I can do minutes, it's ok ta.
-
Kev
Dave sends apologies. daniel, Ge0rG, SamWhited - you here?
-
jonasw
two out of those have spoken in other MUCs just a few minutes ago :)
- Ge0rG here
-
SamWhited
I'm here
-
daniel
hi
-
Kev
2) 186 LC
-
Kev
I'm +1
-
Kev
(This is a re-issue because the last one expired without Council voting)
-
SamWhited
What are we voting on?
-
SamWhited
Oops, too slow
-
SamWhited
I don't think we have to vote on this; editor will just reissue the LC
-
SamWhited
(but +1 FWIW)
-
Ge0rG
+1 for LC
-
Kev
I think that's right, as it happens.
-
daniel
+1
-
jonasw
editor will take notice that this is the councils opinion and re-issue the LC sometime tomorrow, maybe tonight (or somebody besides me does it)
-
Kev
And same for
-
Kev
3) 352 LC
-
Kev
jonasw: More than Council's opinion, it's what xep1 says :)
-
Kev
4) Deprecating 84
-
jonasw
Kev, we could also simply move it back to experimental, couldn’t we?
-
Kev
No, xep1 says that if there's a vote that wasn't completed, the Editors will re-issue an LC.
-
jonasw
ah okay
-
Kev
So, deprecating '84, which I think was Link Mauve's request.
-
Kev
(That's pubsub avatars, for anyone who needs to know)
-
daniel
has there been any argument on why?
-
Ge0rG
I haven't yet compared pubsub avatars to vcard avatars, so I'm impartial.
-
jonasw
IIRC, vcard works today✎ -
Kev
It just appeared on the Council board without an argument why.
-
jonasw
IIRC, the argument was "vcard works today" ✏
-
Kev
Link Mauve can probably say why, though.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: weren't there special cases where vcard doesn't work in MUCs?
-
Kev
Ge0rG: none that PEP does work in, I think.
-
SamWhited
I'd prefer to deprecate 0153. 0084 has its problems, but seems like a better more future-compatible platform, but I don't care as long as we move towards a single way to do avatars.
-
Ge0rG
0153 is Historical already.
-
Kev
Indeed, deprecating 153 is likely not the right thing to do.
-
SamWhited
I disagree; it appears right now that we're recommending two different ways to do avatars, which seems to be the main problem here to me.
-
Kev
I'm not convinced that we should be deprecating 84. I'm -1 for the moment, but in the minutes I'll invite an argument why it should happen.
-
Kev
No, I mean that a Historical XEP doesn't need deprecating, because of its nature :)
-
Kev
(Although we can do so, certainly)
-
Ge0rG
SamWhited: which are the two? 84 and 153?
-
SamWhited
Ge0rG: Yes
-
Ge0rG
SamWhited: and where are we recommending 153?
-
Ge0rG
(and for what reasons)
-
daniel
and the other two :-)
-
SamWhited
It's got a big green block of text that says "This is draft" at the top
-
Kev
Ge0rG: We're not, but it's the de facto standard.
-
jonasw
(which I learnt the hard way which I find annoying)
-
Kev
Anyway, with one -1 in place, let's gather votes for this and move on.
-
daniel
-1
-
Ge0rG
387 goes with 84, so it might be not smart to deprecate it.
-
SamWhited
Sounds good; I'll discuss on list if necessary.
-
Kev
SamWhited: "sounds good" is voting which way?
-
Kev
Same question for contestant number Ge0rG.
-
Ge0rG
-1 for now, until reasons for deprecation are provided
-
SamWhited
Kev: "let's move on" sounds good, I mean. On list.
-
Kev
Ta.
-
Kev
5) Reverting 48 to 49
-
Kev
That's reverting bookmarks to iq:private instead of private pubsub.
-
daniel
is there an argument on why?
-
SamWhited
I'm not sure why this one was brought up either; is there a problem with them as they are today?
-
Kev
This isn't a voting point, because there's no vote to be made.
-
jonasw
I did
-
Kev
But let's discuss.
-
jonasw
the argument is that the change from private XML to pubsub happened in draft state, which is a major breakage of the protocol. many deployments are still on Private XML
-
jonasw
which is indiscoverable to new developers
-
Kev
jonasw: So it's a point of process?
-
jonasw
no, also a point of usability by developers
-
Ge0rG
I think deployments are on private XML because some major XMPP server implementations lack persistent PEP.
-
Kev
I think 'indiscoverable' is pushing it a bit, when the XEP says this explicitly.
-
jonasw
so the point is, as a new developer, you see the XEP, you think "neat, PEP", implement it, and find no bookmarks
-
Kev
I think private pubsub is a better mechanism to be storing these data than iq:private, so reverting to say it should be iq:private seems wrong, and the XEP already says that existing implementations do iq:private, so implementors know that they'll want to consider at least read access to it.
-
jonasw
I agree that it is a better mechanism.
-
Kev
jonasw: Except you wouldn't, because the XEP notes that people used to do iq:private.
-
jonasw
"used to do" implies that it isn’t that way anymore
-
jonasw
and also, only read access isn’t sufficient, because there are enough clients and servers out there which still can only do private XML
-
Ge0rG
So maybe we should extend 48 with a compat behavior spec?
-
Ge0rG
0387 does not enforce the type of backend storage.
-
Kev
I think the note that we used to recommend iq:private is sufficient, but we could add an extra sentence to say "and it's still widely used" if it'll make people feel better, and then new implementors are forewarned.
-
Ge0rG
We might add both 49 and 223 to 0387 as well
-
Kev
But I don't think that saying "you SHOULD use iq:private" instead of the better private pubsub mechanism is right.
-
SamWhited
Agreed
-
Ge0rG
Kev: in theory, you are right. In practice, implementations of private pubsub will learn about the lack of persistence, the hard way.
-
jonasw
Kev, I agree with your second part, I disagree with the precedent this change sets
-
Ge0rG
...of private pubsub bookmarks
-
daniel
Ge0rG, more importantly the implementation you are talking about doesn't support making the node private
-
Kev
Ge0rG: I am not inclined to avoid doing the Right Thing here because one (popular!) server implementation doesn't have a feature.
-
daniel
which arguably is the bigger issue
-
Kev
Else we end up with all our XEPs saying "But instead you need to do X for Prosody".
-
Ge0rG
Kev: apparently we can not force implementations to do anything.
-
jonasw
I gotta run, see you later
-
Kev
I don't think I've successfully forced anyone to do anything in my life :)
-
Kev
Thanks Jonas.
-
Ge0rG
I'm not arguing in favor of "you SHOULD use iq:private", merely pointing out that usage of iq:private is self-reinforcing.
-
Kev
It is, certainly.
-
Kev
But not all deployments are based on Prosody.
-
Kev
I suggest that someone proposes an additional line as I did above to 48, and we vote on that once it's done.
-
Kev
I can do that.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: please do.
-
Kev
Moving on
-
Kev
6) Date of next.
-
Kev
I can't do next week, and I possibly can't do anything else until the new year, at this point, but will vote on list.
-
Kev
Does everyone else want to SBTSBC?
-
SamWhited
WFM
-
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
-
Kev
daniel?
-
daniel
next week works for me
-
Kev
7) AOB
-
SamWhited
I would like to ask that we vote on XEP-0286: Mobile Considerations for LTE Networks (or pull it in next week)
-
SamWhited
It's been sitting in the proposed agendums for a few weeks
-
Kev
I only grabbed for the Agenda today what Dave'd put on it, so I've not reviewed (and assume no-one else has) 286 and trying to vote on it now would be unhelpful.
-
Kev
So I propose I drag it to the Agenda for next week, and we look at it then.
-
SamWhited
Works for me; thanks.
-
Kev
Anything else?
-
Kev
Looks like not. Thanks all.
- Kev gangs the bavel
-
SamWhited
Thanks Kev
-
Ge0rG
Thanks Kev
-
SamWhited
Would anyone complain if I removed the "For Editors" column and asked people to move them straight to the editors board's TODO column? That way editors can get alerts
-
SamWhited
Everyone *should* have access to the editors board if you're already on the council one
-
Kev
I think it only affects Dave and the Editors.
-
Kev
Maybe check with him, but it seems sensible to me.
-
SamWhited
*nods* going to do it and if he doesn't like it or doesn't have access he can always unarchive it next week
-
Ge0rG
"Dave and the Editors" sounds like an awesome name for a Punk band.
-
moparisthebest
sounds boring
-
moparisthebest
"and then he consulted XEP-0001 for the proper procedure, dum dum dum"
-
moparisthebest
it sounds like blues in my brain
-
Kev
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/554 - 48 patch.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: 👍