https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/client-key.html would probably benefit from renaming as well.
Zash
Naming things
Ge0rG
Like user-invite?
Dave
Kev, Renaming?
Kev
I would expect a client to submit an automatically generated name for themselves in most instances, but have the user able to rename things in the event that they have, for example, two devices with Swift for iOS on.
Kev
That's how these things have typically worked in my limited experience.
Kev
Last-used is also useful in these instances.
Ge0rG
Kev: oh, renaming the client name.
Ge0rG
It might also make sense to differentiate long-term CLIENT-KEYs from short-term ones for resumption.
Ge0rG
It will be very confusing if a client name is present twice, with different keys, one for 24h and another for 30d.
Holgerhas left
Holgerhas joined
Ge0rG
If you read the proto-XEP in an unfortunate scrolling position, §3.2 reads like "Kev Revocation"
Ge0rGhas left
Dave
You can revoke Kev, but he has a TTL as well, as do we all.
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Holgerhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Davehas left
Davehas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
genofirehas joined
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas left
jerehas joined
genofirehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Davehas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
Dave
Are we sitting comfortably?
Ge0rG
Yes, sir!
Kev
Then let's begin.
Dave
Kev, Glad someone got that. :-)
Dave
1) Role Call - Who's here?
Kev
I seem to be.
daniel
here
Dave
SamWhited, ?
Ge0rG
still here
Ge0rGhas left
Dave
Green-ness from SamWhited but no response, so I'll assume absence for now.
Dave
We'll move on...
Dave
2) Agenda
Dave
As emailed, but we have one additional ProtoXEP to consider.
Kev
I suggest we don't, actually.
SamWhited
here now, sorry about that
Dave
As far as I can tell from the rules, I should open that vote now, but I'm happy to defer it if we think we ought to?
Kev
In as much as if we want to encourage people to be voting in meeting, rather than onlist (and I think we do), slipping things into the agenda without notice is counter to that.
Ge0rG
Dave: you skipped the initial #2 from your agenda email.
Dave
Ge0rG, I'm renumbering, sorry.
danielhas left
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
I have no strong opinions on hurrying my and MArc's protoXEP. It wasn't even yet officially announced to the ML.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
Kev, If everyone's happy with that, we can push it off until next week.
jonasw
(it will be once the mailman passes my mail through; I sent it just now)
genofirehas joined
Dave
Ge0rG, Oh, in which case it's missed this meeting, so perfect.
genofirehas joined
Kev
(When I'll probably be on the road and will have to onlist anyway, unhelpfully)
I do think client-key needs examples of it being used.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
Kev: examples in the XEP text?
Kev
Yes.
genofirehas joined
Dave
Kev, Yeah, I agree. Needs examples in the I-D too.
genofirehas joined
Dave
Kev, Same with TOTP.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
7) Deprecate XEP-0126: Invisibility
genofirehas joined
Kev
What was the background to this proposal?
genofirehas joined
Kev
(I'm almost certainly +1, but just for flavour...)
genofirehas joined
Dave
I'm +1 for this, we should be advising people to do invisibility via Privacy Lists anymore.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Kev
Insert negation of choice.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
Kev, I assumed this was SamWhited's general push toward deprecating old stuff.
genofirehas joined
Dave
Kev, And yes. Shouldn't be advising.
Davehas left
genofirehas joined
Davehas left
SamWhited
Yah, background is that privacy lists are deprecated and there are multiple ways to do invisibility which is confusing (I had this specifically brought up at a meetup by some random people)
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Kev
+1
SamWhited
+1
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
What is the encouraged way to do invisibility?
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Kev
Ge0rG: With a cloak from Hogwarts.
genofirehas joined
Dave
Ge0rG, XEP-0186 from memory. I may have the number wrong, but it's somewhere around there.
genofirehas joined
daniel
+1
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
Kev: that can be circumvented with the Marauder's Map.
SamWhited
Ge0rG: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html
Kev
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
Kev, Did I mention that Hogwart's is being closed? Or at least, the Great Hall part of it?
genofirehas joined
Dave
But anyway.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
I see a +1 from everyone except Ge0rG.
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
I suppose this is an "on list" from me then, I don't want to rush things without skimming through both XEPs
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
8) Trello Tidy
genofirehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
A few things in Trello I'm not clear about the status of:
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
BTW, who is taking notes?
Dave
a) There's a bunch of stuff in Pending that I think has expired and/or been voted on.
genofirehas joined
Dave
Ge0rG, Yeah, nobody volunteered so I'll write something up later.
Ge0rG
Dave: thanks
Ge0rG
Are pep-vcard-conversion and "Deprecating 84" in conflict?
SamWhited
Yes, but even if we decide to deprecate one of the avatar formats I don't think it hurts to have the informational work around available for a while
Dave
In particular, I think we were bound by rules to repeat the Last Call for XEP-0387, but I don't see that as having happened.
Davehas left
Dave
But also, people have continued commenting on the previous Last Call thread.
SamWhited
I am not interested in addressing feedback that came in after the last call was over. Forcing it to be restarted and never getting this out the door is starting to drive me mad. Feedback will be addressed in a future version (lots of it is very good), but not in this one unless someone else wants to take over.
Ge0rG
The Last-but-one Call?
Dave
SamWhited, I'm fine with that.
Dave
SamWhited, I'm just trying to figure out if we can actually vote it through at this point.
Ge0rG
According to my mail log, the last Last Call was going from December 7th to December 21st, and there was no feedback after December 11th.
Dave
Ge0rG, I can't find that Last Call announced on the mailing list, which is my problem. Was it?
So yes, we *can* vote on this (and I should have put it on the agenda, sorry)
Ge0rG
So while the discussion was under the Last-but-one Call email thread, I don't think the content should be ignored.
Kev
We can vote, but I don't think the feedback there has been incorporated as of yet.
SamWhited
It will be incorporated in the 2019 suites since it came in after the LC had ended.
Kev
https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-December/034019.html - that last call?
Ge0rG
SamWhited: are you speaking of the October LC?
Dave
SamWhited, No, looks like there was a Last Call open at the time.
SamWhited
I don't recall. I'm reasonably sure I had all feedback addressed, then the council changed before the voting was finished and now we have another LC and more feedback.
Dave
SamWhited, Sounds about right. Can you incorporate that feedback and we'll vote (and hopfully publish) next week?
Kev
I think that flow of events is correct, but the implication that the more recent feedback doesn't need addressing doesn't seem right to me.
SamWhited
No, I would like us to vote on the current form. We can address anything else remaining in next years.
Kev
That seems to be a sake of process for the sake of process.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: are you going to keep a list of open feedback items for next year's Compliance Suite?
SamWhited
I disagree, restarting the LC seems to be process for the sake of process
SamWhited
I just want compliance suites to actually exist in the year that is in the title.
Ge0rG
I don't know, without re-reading the whole thread and the XEP, which feedback is still pending and needs to be carried over into 2019.
Kev
I mean issuing a vote when you already know that one of Council has outstanding feedback that isn't getting addressed seems to be a redundant action.
Kev
If I issue a PR to address my feedback, does that make this any easier?
Kev
Not that I have any spare cycles.
danielhas left
SamWhited
No, it doesn't, the point is to not go through multiple more weeks with multiple more changes which will just lead to more people having disagreements and more revisions. At some point we just have to say "this is good enough for this year". That *should* have happened before this year started, and it was on track to, then an excuse was made to continue putting it off and submit feedback late.
Ge0rGhas left
Kev
The way I see this, me being on Council requires me to do a thorough review of it before advancement. I did that, and found stuff that needs addressing. Whether that was given during the renewed LC, or at vote time, doesn't change that. But doing it during LC gives the opportunity to address it before the vote.
Dave
SamWhited, Yes, we do have to decide when to say it's good enough. And it's Council that does that, via the process in XEP-0001. I don't think ignoring feedback is a solution here.
Dave
ANyway, we're running out of time, so I'll move on for now.
Ge0rG
Kev: if your feedback is not incorporated before the vote, does that imply a -1?
Dave
I think we'll skip to:
Kev
Ge0rG: Well, yes. Unless the discussion leads to my feedback being wrong-or-such.
Dave
9) AOB
Ge0rG
Maybe we can arrange for a vote of the XEP as-is, _now_, and have Kev make the PR and Sam start a "Compliance Suite 2019" with the feedback incorporated in the next weeks?
Kev
No real AOB here. I'll send out a request for agenda for the Summit shortly, but nothing much for Council to do about that.
Ge0rG
We've had a Council re-election and holiday season block progress for some time already.
daniel
AOB: publish-options
daniel
can we vote on one of the PRs
daniel
preferably the latest one
Dave
daniel, We can; I saw these were voted on, but the vote was deferred for more feedback from the list - but I didn't see any discussion there.
Ge0rG
daniel: IIRC you wanted to ask for comments from the community?
Ge0rG
As I lack experience with pubsub and understanding of the complexities of 0060, I'd like to hear from parties implementing this and/or impacted by the change.
daniel
Ge0rG, i wanted to ask for comments? i already did. that was mostly ignored. so i assume people either don't care or it's 'above their heads'/the don't have an opinion on that
daniel
not sure how waiting longer or bumping the thread will be any help
daniel
at some point council will have to make a decision
daniel
as you can't force 'the community' to have an opinion on that
Dave
daniel, OK, but the vote was explicitly deferred in order to gain feedback. Hence I didn't put it on this week's agenda.
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
I don't know of PubSub implementations outside of the ones represented by xsf@ lurkers.
genofirehas joined
daniel
Dave, how would you like me to gather feedback then?
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
daniel, If you're asking for a vote in the absence of community feedback, I think I'd want to vote on-list to find the time to really study these in any case.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
daniel, I'm not - I wasn't in that meeting. I'm just going by the decision made in my absence. Let's vote on this next week, feedback or not.
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
Do we have council members who are working on affected implementations, besides of daniel?
genofirehas joined
Kev
I think anything in AOB that's going to need Council to do reading to get context in their heads is going to result on on-list at best, so may as well be a formal item in the following meeting. But I can onlist.
genofirehas joined
Kev
Ge0rG: All pubsub implementations are affected, I think. So yes.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Ge0rG
Kev: it would be great to have feedback from those Council members, then. On list.
daniel
Dave, i'm more than fine with council members taking their time. i just want them to take that time and not prolong this for ages
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
SamWhited
I'm all for voting on list, this meeting or next. I don't think we're going to get any community feedback on this as XEP-0060 is just too complicated and very few people understand it and even fewer have implemented it.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
daniel
or come up with a strategy to gather feedback from people who work with pubsub
Dave
daniel, It'll be on next week. That's the first of the XEP-0060 trello cards, is it?
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
daniel
ok
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
So:
Kev
If someone starts a thread, or bumps the current thread, asking for feedback, I'll give mine there. Then maybe that will encourage others to give feedback on standards@. Or maybe it won't, but it's a chance.
genofirehas joined
Dave
10) Next meeting
genofirehas joined
Dave
Same time next week?
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
genofirehas joined
Kev
I can't do next week, but enjoy yourselves without me.
SamWhited
WFM
Dave
Kev has given apologies already, anyone else?
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Dave
I'll take that as a no.
genofirehas joined
Dave
So I think we're done.
Dave
11) Ite, Meeting Est.
genofirehas joined
Dave
Now I can go write the minutes.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Kev
Thanks all.
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
ralphmhas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
genofirehas joined
SamWhited
So, RE Compliance Suites: I think it is important to work to a deadline on these. The beginning of the year may be an arbitrary deadline, but if we're going to consistently issue guidelines we can't keep doing a repeat of the 2010 or 2012 ones where they end up being in experimental for 5 years (or even half of a year). This is not a normal XEP where we can never make changes again after final and once the community adopts it it's hard to change, we have another shot every year. I hope that clarifies my position a bit.
SamWhited
If a council member thinks that it would be harmful to issue these as guidelines, they can of course -1 but I don't think any of the problems with it are that serious.
Davehas left
Davehas left
danielhas left
Davehas left
Kev
I think missing things out, or recommending the 'wrong' thing (e.g. '84 instead of '153, not doing '49/'54) can be actively harmful for interop, as we expect new implementations to use these specs as a 'what do I need to implement at the moment', which is why I care. You've noted before that it's confusing when there are multiple options on the table and people don't know which to choose. If we point people in the wrong direction for the current reality with the compliance suites, that's adding to the confusion.
Kev
It's not the same as having some nice feature that we could include, but don't, for things like that, in my view.
jonasw
I think the argument was that the compliance suites should posit how things *should* be, not how they currently are?
Ge0rG
Isn't it somewhere in between? What is needed for interop, and what is needed for a nice future?
Kev
How far ahead? The 153/84 thing isn't clear at all. '49 has been the status quo for a decade and a half, and shows no signs of changing, etc.
SamWhited
Then that feedback should have been sent when it was in LC
Kev
If we have compliance suites where implementing the suggestions means that you can't interoperate with the same features as everyone else does them, that seems deeply unhelpful unless we're very clear that it's aspirational.
Ge0rGhas left
Kev
SamWhited: There's two things with that. 1) There has been a new LC, triggered by the change of Council, since. 2) Council's review on advancement is not the same as LC feedback from the public.
SamWhited
1 is process for processes sake and I don't think ever should have happened
SamWhited
2 I disagree, council should have gotten their feedback in before it came to them for a vote so that it could have been addressed
Kev
I wasn't Council for the previous LC, and it hasn't been voted yet. Which is one of the reasons for (1).
SamWhited
If there is disagreement and it's not addressed they are obviously free to -1, but we should still get feedback to the author in a timely manner instead of giving it when we -1
SamWhited
I don't see why your feedback would change because you are or are not council
Kev
Did you do the same level of review of all XEPs going through the process before you were on Council, honestly?
Kev
The level of review expected by Council is not the same as that expected by every other person in the community.✎
SamWhited
I suppose that's fair; if I reviewed them at all I gave the same amount, but I didn't review all of them before I was council.
Kev
The level of review expected by Council is not the same as that expected from every other person in the community. ✏
Kev
The reason I took a break from Council, as it happens, was purely because I couldn't afford to spend the many hours every week it often takes me to be on Council.
SamWhited
Either way, this is about deadlines and I think we should have made the deadline and should still get these out as quickly as possible even if they're not perfect. I don't see any major problems with them as they are now (for compatibility or otherwise) so I would like to have it voted on. If it's -1ed because someone disagrees then so be it.
jonasw
(FWIW, this was the final argument which convinced me to issue the LC, I didn’t do that for process’ sake)
Ge0rG
So how can we move on from here?
Kev
If this had made it through previous Council, this wouldn't have come up, but as things stand, the XEP is in front of me and as Council I do have to make the vote I think is appropriate - and I do think some of the recommendations in there will add to confusion and therefore be potentially harmful.
Kev
I have offered to propose the changes I think are needed myself, to try to unstall this, but I can't force that.
SamWhited
More harmful than continuing to not have compliance suites even though we could immediately fix them in the experimental suites for next year?
Kev
(I really don't want to, because I'm time-poor, but I will).
Kev
We could immediately fix them in the suites for this year, and have them advanced, too.
Kev
The time to write the changes for the current text is presumably shorter than to write a new protoXEP, and we've not voted on either yet.
SamWhited
But that will take multiple more weeks and I think it's much more important to have compliance suites issued in a timely manner.
Kev
Does it need to?
Kev
It would be uncomfortable for me to fit submitting a patch in before next meeting, but I will if that's the only way to unstick this.
jonasw
FWIW, there’s no need for a new LC if changes are incorporated
Kev
Vote happens next Wednesday. Everyone other than me votes in meeting. I vote onlist at the start of the following week. 12 days and it's done.
Kev
jonasw: I know.
jonasw
if I’m reading XEP-0001 correctly
jonasw
I’m not sure that SamWhited knows.
SamWhited
I am aware
jonasw
so I don’t see how this will take weeks.
jonasw
update today, vote next week, 1w exactly, done.
SamWhited
I am just sick to death of us having to have everything be perfect and not being able to meet a simple deadline.
SamWhited
As soon as there are new changes there will be someone else mad about it and we'll bike shed for another month. I hope to be proven wrong on that, of course.
Kev
I think the only deadline is actually the Author having addressed feedback before Council votes on it ;)
jonasw
SamWhited, no, they won’t be asked
SamWhited
And that was done, then the council didn't vote for weeks and made up an excuse to put it back into LC again.
jonasw
well, okay, they will be asked implicitly, but I doubt that there will be much going on w.r.t. to that.
Kev
I think you're wrongly fixating on LC here.
Kev
The only thing the LC has meant is that my feedback went to list as LC feedback, rather than as justification for -1.
moparisthebest
as an aside I think SamWhited is right, for instance the new https://dino.im/ website advertises "compliant with the official XMPP Compliance Suites 2016." and to someone not deeply involved in XSF that looks like it's 2 years out-dated
Ge0rG
With the LC over, one way or another, Council are the only ones who are allowed (and required) to provide feedback now.
Kev
In both cases the Author's expected to address it to the satisfaction of Council.
Kev
Ge0rG: Well, that's not true. Anyone is allowed to provide feedback at any time.
Ge0rG
Kev: damn.
Kev
LC is a request for a specific type of feedback, at a specific time. But standards@ is not muted the rest of the time.
jonasw
but council does not need to issue a new LC
jonasw
council is free to advance a XEP in its current state, no matter which pending feedback there is
ralphmhas joined
SamWhited
It was addressed to the satisfaction of council as far as I understood it, then the goalposts shifted and here we are over a week into 2018 and we still only have 2016 compliance suites.
Kev
If it was addressed to the satisfaction of old Council, surely it would have been advanced by now?
Kev
But regardless, current state is, I think:
SamWhited
One would think. These are also the same compliance suites that should have been 2017 ones but we kept bikeshedding details until eventually I just renamed them 2018.
Kev
Sam wants a compliance suite 2018 to be advanced.
Ge0rGhas left
Kev
Kev wants changes made to compliance suites 2018. Kev wants compliance suites 2018 advanced.
Kev
OK. So old Council failed. That can be a thing.
Kev
New Council are here, and there is a clear path to how to get this advanced imminently.
Kev
I don't currently understanding why you don't want to take it.
Kev
I also don't English, obviously.
Kev
If it's that you think the changes I'm proposing are actively wrong, I don't think that was reflected in your replies to date.
SamWhited
We should have voted weeks ago, we should have voted this week, etc. every time there is some excuse why we should vote later. More changes will just lead to more delays.
SamWhited
But I do think the feedback was good, FWIW, just not worth spending more time on until next years.
Kev
I don't think it was on Dave's agenda for voting this week.
jonasw
SamWhited, do you really think that people are actively making up excuses to sabotage the compliance suites to be published?✎
SamWhited
There has been a card on trello for months asking for a vote.
jonasw
SamWhited, do you really think that people are actively making up excuses to sabotage the compliance suites from being published? ✏
SamWhited
jonasw: not in a malicious way, but yes
Kev
I get, I totally get, the frustration in this dragging on. But I'm offering an out here by doing the work needed to get this through.
jonasw
what is a non-malicious way of doing that?
Kev
And entirely not because I love doing XEP work.
Kev
So, separating 'how we got here' from 'where we go next', I'm not currently clear why you would rather it go to vote next week in a form it'll be rejected, rather than go to vote next week in a form I have no reason to anticipate won't be accepted.
jonasw
Kev, if you can summarize in two sentences what changes you want, I’ll make a PR for you.
Kev
jonasw: Thanks. I think at the point I've trawled my previous comments and got it down to two sentences, I may as well submit the PR, but I very much appreciate the sentiment.
jonasw
k
SamWhited
(just got pulled into an actual work meeting, sorry, maybe be unresponsive for an hour or so)
Davehas left
Davehas left
Davehas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
SamWhitedhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
jerehas joined
Kev
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/554 seems to be stuck in limbo, after we agreed on needing it in Council last year. I think that needs a Council vote too.
Kevadds to agenda.
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rG
Kev: thanks
Davehas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Tobiashas joined
Tobiashas joined
Davehas left
Ge0rGhas left
Davehas left
Davehas left
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Kev
I have submitted a PR that addresses my feedback, and which I will happily +1 if merged.
Kev
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/569
Kev
From the PR message:
Kev
This addresses, I believe, all the issues I raised. Where I was wrong (84), or it was contentious (220), I've dropped the point. Where Sam felt it was worth watering down (needing 153, but only read-only), I've done so.
Kev
If other Council folks would be kind enough to review this and check if I've screwed anything up, or this would alter their +1 of the spec, please let me know early. Ideally before Sam reviews it, to make this painless for him.
Kev
Assuming this gets merged in time, I suggest a vote on advancement next week.
Kev
daniel, Ge0rG, Dave: ^
Kev
I will be mostly out of action between morning Friday and next meeting, so if people have things I need to address, please let me know by then.
Kevhas left
Ge0rG
Damn. Reading those diffs is really a painful excercise in following up indirections.
Ge0rG
We should add aliases &yes; and &no; for the #1000x codes
Zash
The what
Ge0rGhas left
Davehas left
Davehas left
Ge0rG
So ✓ is "yes" and ✕ is "no", and you need to know the order of the columns from elsewhere in the document
Zashhas left
Ge0rG
Kev: so you've added 223 to the "IM / Advanced Server" profile, but not 222.
Zash
How was it you fetched PRs from git?
SamWhited
Ge0rG: if you know XML-y things I would love suggestions on how to fix that… I constantly put things in the wrong place because I couldn't remember what the number of each one was.
Although, it's always UTF-8 encoded no? Maybe I just don't need to escape them… not sure why I didn't think of that before, I should try that.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: might be as easy as this:
`<!ENTITY yes "✓">`
SamWhited
oh, that's a good idea too…
SamWhited
Thanks, I'll update that in next years.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: great!
Ge0rG
SamWhited: I hope you keep track of the pending changes for 2019.
Kev
Kev: so you've added 223 to the "IM / Advanced Server" profile, but not 222.
Yes, because 223 is needed for 48, but this might not be clear. It was already required, I just called it out.
Ge0rG
Kev: 48 RECOMMENDs 223, but it does not REQUIRE it.
Ge0rG
I still think it is good to call out support for 223, but then we should also add 222.
Ge0rG
Anyway, I'm okay with any subset, including the empty one, of {222, 223} be part of CS2018.
Kev
Ge0rG: I'm trying to keep the diff as small as possible while addressing my comments. If you really want 222 if 223 is added, I'd be inclined to remove 223, but I think what I've got there is helpful.
Kev
Ok, thanks. In that case, I'd go with what's there.
Ge0rGhas left
Kev
I was pondering whether to have 223 as a client or not. I'm happy to make that change if people want.
Ge0rG
Kev: my feeling tells me to replace the "N/A", but then again I haven't implemented PEP yet anyway.
Davehas left
Davehas left
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Davehas left
Davehas left
ralphmhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas joined
pep.
ooi, why are the compliance suites dated by year, and not versioned? Is there a rationale somewhere?
pep.
I think that forces imaginary deadlines for no reason
daniel
pep.: so people see that this is recent and is actively being worked on
daniel
Come the year 2022 you have no idea whether version 3 of the compliance suite is still current or something that hasn't been worked on in years
pep.
I see your point, but I don't know if end-users need to know or care. I don't think they should even have to know about XMPP in the first place
pep.
Developers will know what version X of XEP-Y means
daniel
I wasn't talking about end users
daniel
And no developers don't know
Zash
Weren't compliance suites supposed to be for marketing or certification?
pep.
daniel, that is sad :/
daniel
Zash: they can if you want them to
daniel
I have a course you can let your employer pay for
pep.
But yes that makes sense for marketing etc.
daniel
That makes you a certified xmpp developer
pep.
You give them a medal? :P
daniel
Certificate
pep.
Same
daniel
People love certificates. HR loves certificates
daniel
Everyone has a masters degree these days. But a certificate will set you apart
pep.
I don't, and most at work here don't
pep.
Still I think we're doing ok
pep.
But yes sadly I get that's how it is
moparisthebest
I'm positive it's not universal at all, but I've worked with 2 devs that had masters degrees and both were the worst devs I've ever worked with 😛
moparisthebest
compared to the rest of the devs I work with with only bachelors degrees or no degrees
Ge0rGhas left
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
daniel
But in all seriousness: most normale developers (normal as in outside the xsf) believe xmpp an unnavigateable jungle of XEPs. Telling them here are the 8 xeps you should implement if you want your product to be compatible is really useful. And has nothing to do with just marketing
pep.
daniel, don't get me wrong, I know compliance suites are useful✎
daniel
You can't assume that the average developer will know 400 xeps or do the research into what xeps are implemented by other clients
pep.
daniel, don't get me wrong, I also think compliance suites are useful ✏
pep.
I would hope developers would aim for some interoperability with other clients and servers
pep.
If their product is out in the open
moparisthebest
but also used for marketing I think is good, but can also go wrong, dino.im mentions it's compliant with 2016 suites, which to everyone not in XSF makes it look 2 years behind
pep.
They could say "the latest compliance suite"
pep.
That already looks better
moparisthebest
but then where would it link? and it might not always be true 🙂
pep.
Yes people have to keep up-to-date, it's a fact
pep.
They can change the text if it's not true anymore, or change the link to point to the newer versoin✎
pep.
They can change the text if it's not true anymore, or change the link to point to the newer version ✏
Davehas left
pep.
Or they can keep "2016" if they don't care about people thinking what you said above
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
SamWhitedhas joined
Zashhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Kev
Scrolling backwards a bit, I don't have a Masters. That makes me great, right?