XMPP Council - 2017-12-20

  1. ralphm has left

  2. ralphm has joined

  3. peter has left

  4. SamWhited has left

  5. SamWhited has left

  6. genofire has left

  7. Tobias has joined

  8. Tobias has joined

  9. Zash has left

  10. SamWhited has left

  11. SamWhited has left

  12. SamWhited has joined

  13. ralphm has left

  14. ralphm has joined

  15. ralphm has joined

  16. Ge0rG has left

  17. Ge0rG has left

  18. Ge0rG has left

  19. ralphm has joined

  20. SouL has left

  21. Ge0rG has left

  22. daniel has left

  23. Ge0rG has left

  24. Ge0rG has left

  25. Ge0rG has left

  26. daniel has left

  27. Ge0rG has joined

  28. daniel has left

  29. jere has joined

  30. ralphm has left

  31. jere has joined

  32. jere has joined

  33. daniel has left

  34. ralphm has left

  35. Ge0rG has left

  36. jere has joined

  37. ralphm has left

  38. jonasw has left

  39. genofire has left

  40. vanitasvitae has left

  41. jonasw

    does council monitor PRs to the XEPs repository or do I have to forward that to council?

  42. jonasw

    and if so, what’s the current modus operandi to do that?

  43. daniel has left

  44. ralphm has joined

  45. ralphm has joined

  46. Flow

    jonasw, which kind of PRs are we talking about?

  47. jonasw

    anything which needs council 😺

  48. Flow

    So ProtoXEP submissions and Last Calls. But I think for those we have editor sending annoucement mails

  49. jonasw

    I'm talking about changes to Draft+ XEPs

  50. jonasw

    (sorry I'm on mobile. protoxeps can be merged instantly, last calls are issued by editors so they don't need council btw)

  51. Flow

    Ahh, not sure if I ever saw an editor annoucing a proposed change to a draft xep, probably a good idea to establish those though. I wouldn't want council to monitor PRs and such, plus xep1 wants a standards@ discussion of those changes too

  52. daniel has left

  53. daniel has joined

  54. daniel

    Maybe even provide a rendered version to the standards list.

  55. daniel

    Then it's easier for the broader community to follow

  56. daniel

    Arguably though it is also kinda the responsibility of who ever created the PR

  57. jonasw

    in this case, me 😺

  58. jonasw

    I suppose it has to wait for next year then 😺

  59. jere has joined

  60. Syndace has left

  61. daniel has left

  62. daniel has joined

  63. jere has joined

  64. genofire has joined

  65. jcbrand has joined

  66. Ge0rG has left

  67. daniel has left

  68. daniel has joined

  69. vanitasvitae has left

  70. jcbrand has left

  71. jcbrand has left

  72. Kev has left

  73. ralphm has left

  74. ralphm has left

  75. jonasw has joined

  76. daniel has left

  77. daniel has joined

  78. ralphm has left

  79. ralphm has left

  80. daniel has left

  81. daniel has joined

  82. SouL has left

  83. ralphm has joined

  84. SouL has left

  85. jcbrand has left

  86. daniel has left

  87. daniel has joined

  88. ralphm has left

  89. jonasw has left

  90. genofire has left

  91. ralphm has left

  92. ralphm has left

  93. ralphm has joined

  94. SamWhited has joined

  95. Ge0rG

    What are the criteria for a Council member to decide about the approval of a ProtoXEP? XEP-0001 §5 does not provide any hints except that we need to vote.

  96. Ge0rG

    The only reason I can immediately see to -1 a protoXEP is that it covers a use case that already was addressed by an existing XEP.

  97. jcbrand has joined

  98. vanitasvitae has left

  99. jcbrand has left

  100. jcbrand has joined

  101. SamWhited

    I generally think about whether or not it's implementable in its current form. If it's not I don't want it to end up sitting in experimental in an unusable state forever.

  102. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: I don't like the protoxep limbo we have, where the author has submitted something, and before it has been voted upon there is already a new revision on the author's homepage.

  103. Ge0rG

    So I'd rather tend to accept even very raw things, just to keep the wheels turning

  104. ralphm has joined

  105. SouL has left

  106. SamWhited has left

  107. Syndace has joined

  108. vanitasvitae has joined

  109. ralphm has joined

  110. Flow

    Ge0rG, so you would not have accepted MAM?

  111. Ge0rG

    Flow: I don't think it covers the exact same use case as 136

  112. SamWhited

    I don't mind "very raw things", it just needs to be in a state where every other section isn't a TODO.

  113. SamWhited

    But I agree about things that overlap in use case; sometimes things just need a replacement, but we don't need three alternatives to everything.

  114. SamWhited has left

  115. Ge0rG has left

  116. Ge0rG has left

  117. Ge0rG has left

  118. Ge0rG has left

  119. Ge0rG has left

  120. Ge0rG has joined

  121. Lance has joined

  122. ralphm has left

  123. ralphm has joined

  124. ralphm has left

  125. SamWhited has joined

  126. SamWhited has joined

  127. Syndace has left

  128. Syndace has joined

  129. Ge0rG has left

  130. Ge0rG has left

  131. jere has joined

  132. Ge0rG has left

  133. SamWhited has joined

  134. Tobias has joined

  135. Ge0rG has joined

  136. Lance has left

  137. SamWhited has left

  138. SamWhited has joined

  139. SamWhited has joined

  140. jere has joined

  141. daniel has left

  142. jcbrand has left

  143. ralphm has joined

  144. daniel has joined

  145. ralphm has left

  146. SamWhited has left

  147. genofire has left

  148. SamWhited has joined

  149. ralphm has left

  150. daniel has left

  151. ralphm has left

  152. ralphm has joined

  153. ralphm has joined

  154. jere has joined

  155. ralphm has left

  156. ralphm has left

  157. ralphm has left

  158. ralphm has left

  159. jere has left

  160. jere has joined

  161. daniel has left

  162. jere has joined

  163. pep. has left

  164. pep. has left

  165. pep. has joined

  166. pep. has left