XMPP Council - 2018-01-10

  1. Kev

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/client-key.html would probably benefit from renaming as well.

  2. Zash

    Naming things

  3. Ge0rG

    Like user-invite?

  4. Dave

    Kev, Renaming?

  5. 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.

  6. Kev

    That's how these things have typically worked in my limited experience.

  7. Kev

    Last-used is also useful in these instances.

  8. Ge0rG

    Kev: oh, renaming the client name.

  9. Ge0rG

    It might also make sense to differentiate long-term CLIENT-KEYs from short-term ones for resumption.

  10. Ge0rG

    It will be very confusing if a client name is present twice, with different keys, one for 24h and another for 30d.

  11. Ge0rG

    If you read the proto-XEP in an unfortunate scrolling position, §3.2 reads like "Kev Revocation"

  12. Dave

    You can revoke Kev, but he has a TTL as well, as do we all.

  13. Dave

    Are we sitting comfortably?

  14. Ge0rG

    Yes, sir!

  15. Kev

    Then let's begin.

  16. Dave

    Kev, Glad someone got that. :-)

  17. Dave

    1) Role Call - Who's here?

  18. Kev

    I seem to be.

  19. daniel


  20. Dave

    SamWhited, ?

  21. Ge0rG

    still here

  22. Dave

    Green-ness from SamWhited but no response, so I'll assume absence for now.

  23. Dave

    We'll move on...

  24. Dave

    2) Agenda

  25. Dave

    As emailed, but we have one additional ProtoXEP to consider.

  26. Kev

    I suggest we don't, actually.

  27. SamWhited

    here now, sorry about that

  28. 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?

  29. 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.

  30. Ge0rG

    Dave: you skipped the initial #2 from your agenda email.

  31. Dave

    Ge0rG, I'm renumbering, sorry.

  32. Ge0rG

    I have no strong opinions on hurrying my and MArc's protoXEP. It wasn't even yet officially announced to the ML.

  33. Dave

    Kev, If everyone's happy with that, we can push it off until next week.

  34. jonasw

    (it will be once the mailman passes my mail through; I sent it just now)

  35. Dave

    Ge0rG, Oh, in which case it's missed this meeting, so perfect.

  36. Kev

    (When I'll probably be on the road and will have to onlist anyway, unhelpfully)

  37. Dave

    So, moving on.

  38. Dave

    3) Did everyone have a nice Christmas?

  39. Kev

    So, long story...

  40. Kev

    But for the sake of brevity, yes thank you.

  41. Ge0rG

    Yes, without further detail.

  42. SamWhited

    On list.

  43. Dave

    4) ProtoXEP: PEP Avatar to vCard conversion.

  44. SamWhited

    ahem, I mean, "yes, thank you"

  45. Kev


  46. Dave

    Kev, Thanks.

  47. Ge0rG

    on list

  48. Kev

    I've got a few quibbles with this that I'll try to send out on standards@, but nothing to block publication.

  49. SamWhited


  50. Kev


  51. daniel


  52. Dave

    +1 from me.

  53. Dave

    I read that as everyone +1, and an on list from Ge0rG.

  54. Kev


  55. Dave

    5) Client Key Support: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/client-key.html

  56. Dave

    I'm obviously +1.

  57. Kev

    Could do with some extra stuff, I think, mentioned earlier, but good for publication. +1

  58. Ge0rG

    +1, even though we need to put some more thought into the network-interruption-during-auth issue.

  59. SamWhited


  60. Dave

    daniel, ?

  61. daniel

    on list

  62. Dave


  63. Dave

    6) TOTP 2FA - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/totp-2fa.html

  64. Kev


  65. Ge0rG

    on list.

  66. daniel

    on list as well

  67. Dave

    +1 from me too.

  68. SamWhited

    on list

  69. Kev

    I do think client-key needs examples of it being used.

  70. Ge0rG

    Kev: examples in the XEP text?

  71. Kev


  72. Dave

    Kev, Yeah, I agree. Needs examples in the I-D too.

  73. Dave

    Kev, Same with TOTP.

  74. Dave

    7) Deprecate XEP-0126: Invisibility

  75. Kev

    What was the background to this proposal?

  76. Kev

    (I'm almost certainly +1, but just for flavour...)

  77. Dave

    I'm +1 for this, we should be advising people to do invisibility via Privacy Lists anymore.

  78. Kev

    Insert negation of choice.

  79. Dave

    Kev, I assumed this was SamWhited's general push toward deprecating old stuff.

  80. Dave

    Kev, And yes. Shouldn't be advising.

  81. 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)

  82. Kev


  83. SamWhited


  84. Ge0rG

    What is the encouraged way to do invisibility?

  85. Kev

    Ge0rG: With a cloak from Hogwarts.

  86. Dave

    Ge0rG, XEP-0186 from memory. I may have the number wrong, but it's somewhere around there.

  87. daniel


  88. Ge0rG

    Kev: that can be circumvented with the Marauder's Map.

  89. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html

  90. Kev


  91. Dave

    Kev, Did I mention that Hogwart's is being closed? Or at least, the Great Hall part of it?

  92. Dave

    But anyway.

  93. Dave

    I see a +1 from everyone except Ge0rG.

  94. Ge0rG

    I suppose this is an "on list" from me then, I don't want to rush things without skimming through both XEPs

  95. Dave

    8) Trello Tidy

  96. Dave

    A few things in Trello I'm not clear about the status of:

  97. Ge0rG

    BTW, who is taking notes?

  98. Dave

    a) There's a bunch of stuff in Pending that I think has expired and/or been voted on.

  99. Dave

    Ge0rG, Yeah, nobody volunteered so I'll write something up later.

  100. Ge0rG

    Dave: thanks

  101. Ge0rG

    Are pep-vcard-conversion and "Deprecating 84" in conflict?

  102. 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

  103. 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.

  104. Dave

    But also, people have continued commenting on the previous Last Call thread.

  105. 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.

  106. Ge0rG

    The Last-but-one Call?

  107. Dave

    SamWhited, I'm fine with that.

  108. Dave

    SamWhited, I'm just trying to figure out if we can actually vote it through at this point.

  109. 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.

  110. Dave

    Ge0rG, I can't find that Last Call announced on the mailing list, which is my problem. Was it?

  111. Dave

    Oh, wait, yes it was.

  112. Dave

    Title changed, of course.

  113. Ge0rG

    Dave: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-December/034019.html

  114. Dave

    So yes, we *can* vote on this (and I should have put it on the agenda, sorry)

  115. Ge0rG

    So while the discussion was under the Last-but-one Call email thread, I don't think the content should be ignored.

  116. Kev

    We can vote, but I don't think the feedback there has been incorporated as of yet.

  117. SamWhited

    It will be incorporated in the 2019 suites since it came in after the LC had ended.

  118. Kev

    https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-December/034019.html - that last call?

  119. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: are you speaking of the October LC?

  120. Dave

    SamWhited, No, looks like there was a Last Call open at the time.

  121. 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.

  122. Dave

    SamWhited, Sounds about right. Can you incorporate that feedback and we'll vote (and hopfully publish) next week?

  123. 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.

  124. SamWhited

    No, I would like us to vote on the current form. We can address anything else remaining in next years.

  125. Kev

    That seems to be a sake of process for the sake of process.

  126. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: are you going to keep a list of open feedback items for next year's Compliance Suite?

  127. SamWhited

    I disagree, restarting the LC seems to be process for the sake of process

  128. SamWhited

    I just want compliance suites to actually exist in the year that is in the title.

  129. 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.

  130. 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.

  131. Kev

    If I issue a PR to address my feedback, does that make this any easier?

  132. Kev

    Not that I have any spare cycles.

  133. 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.

  134. 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.

  135. 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.

  136. Dave

    ANyway, we're running out of time, so I'll move on for now.

  137. Ge0rG

    Kev: if your feedback is not incorporated before the vote, does that imply a -1?

  138. Dave

    I think we'll skip to:

  139. Kev

    Ge0rG: Well, yes. Unless the discussion leads to my feedback being wrong-or-such.

  140. Dave

    9) AOB

  141. 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?

  142. 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.

  143. Ge0rG

    We've had a Council re-election and holiday season block progress for some time already.

  144. daniel

    AOB: publish-options

  145. daniel

    can we vote on one of the PRs

  146. daniel

    preferably the latest one

  147. 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.

  148. Ge0rG

    daniel: IIRC you wanted to ask for comments from the community?

  149. 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.

  150. 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

  151. daniel

    not sure how waiting longer or bumping the thread will be any help

  152. daniel

    at some point council will have to make a decision

  153. daniel

    as you can't force 'the community' to have an opinion on that

  154. 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.

  155. Ge0rG

    I don't know of PubSub implementations outside of the ones represented by xsf@ lurkers.

  156. daniel

    Dave, how would you like me to gather feedback then?

  157. 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.

  158. 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.

  159. Ge0rG

    Do we have council members who are working on affected implementations, besides of daniel?

  160. 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.

  161. Kev

    Ge0rG: All pubsub implementations are affected, I think. So yes.

  162. Ge0rG

    Kev: it would be great to have feedback from those Council members, then. On list.

  163. 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

  164. 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.

  165. daniel

    or come up with a strategy to gather feedback from people who work with pubsub

  166. Dave

    daniel, It'll be on next week. That's the first of the XEP-0060 trello cards, is it?

  167. daniel


  168. Dave


  169. 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.

  170. Dave

    10) Next meeting

  171. Dave

    Same time next week?

  172. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  173. Kev

    I can't do next week, but enjoy yourselves without me.

  174. SamWhited


  175. Dave

    Kev has given apologies already, anyone else?

  176. Dave

    I'll take that as a no.

  177. Dave

    So I think we're done.

  178. Dave

    11) Ite, Meeting Est.

  179. Dave

    Now I can go write the minutes.

  180. Kev

    Thanks all.

  181. 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.

  182. 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.

  183. 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.

  184. 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.

  185. jonasw

    I think the argument was that the compliance suites should posit how things *should* be, not how they currently are?

  186. Ge0rG

    Isn't it somewhere in between? What is needed for interop, and what is needed for a nice future?

  187. 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.

  188. SamWhited

    Then that feedback should have been sent when it was in LC

  189. 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.

  190. 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.

  191. SamWhited

    1 is process for processes sake and I don't think ever should have happened

  192. 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

  193. Kev

    I wasn't Council for the previous LC, and it hasn't been voted yet. Which is one of the reasons for (1).

  194. 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

  195. SamWhited

    I don't see why your feedback would change because you are or are not council

  196. Kev

    Did you do the same level of review of all XEPs going through the process before you were on Council, honestly?

  197. Kev

    The level of review expected by Council is not the same as that expected by every other person in the community.

  198. 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.

  199. Kev

    The level of review expected by Council is not the same as that expected from every other person in the community.

  200. 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.

  201. 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.

  202. jonasw

    (FWIW, this was the final argument which convinced me to issue the LC, I didn’t do that for process’ sake)

  203. Ge0rG

    So how can we move on from here?

  204. 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.

  205. Kev

    I have offered to propose the changes I think are needed myself, to try to unstall this, but I can't force that.

  206. SamWhited

    More harmful than continuing to not have compliance suites even though we could immediately fix them in the experimental suites for next year?

  207. Kev

    (I really don't want to, because I'm time-poor, but I will).

  208. Kev

    We could immediately fix them in the suites for this year, and have them advanced, too.

  209. 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.

  210. 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.

  211. Kev

    Does it need to?

  212. 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.

  213. jonasw

    FWIW, there’s no need for a new LC if changes are incorporated

  214. 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.

  215. Kev

    jonasw: I know.

  216. jonasw

    if I’m reading XEP-0001 correctly

  217. jonasw

    I’m not sure that SamWhited knows.

  218. SamWhited

    I am aware

  219. jonasw

    so I don’t see how this will take weeks.

  220. jonasw

    update today, vote next week, 1w exactly, done.

  221. SamWhited

    I am just sick to death of us having to have everything be perfect and not being able to meet a simple deadline.

  222. 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.

  223. Kev

    I think the only deadline is actually the Author having addressed feedback before Council votes on it ;)

  224. jonasw

    SamWhited, no, they won’t be asked

  225. 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.

  226. jonasw

    well, okay, they will be asked implicitly, but I doubt that there will be much going on w.r.t. to that.

  227. Kev

    I think you're wrongly fixating on LC here.

  228. Kev

    The only thing the LC has meant is that my feedback went to list as LC feedback, rather than as justification for -1.

  229. 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

  230. Ge0rG

    With the LC over, one way or another, Council are the only ones who are allowed (and required) to provide feedback now.

  231. Kev

    In both cases the Author's expected to address it to the satisfaction of Council.

  232. Kev

    Ge0rG: Well, that's not true. Anyone is allowed to provide feedback at any time.

  233. Ge0rG

    Kev: damn.

  234. 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.

  235. jonasw

    but council does not need to issue a new LC

  236. jonasw

    council is free to advance a XEP in its current state, no matter which pending feedback there is

  237. 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.

  238. Kev

    If it was addressed to the satisfaction of old Council, surely it would have been advanced by now?

  239. Kev

    But regardless, current state is, I think:

  240. 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.

  241. Kev

    Sam wants a compliance suite 2018 to be advanced.

  242. Kev

    Kev wants changes made to compliance suites 2018. Kev wants compliance suites 2018 advanced.

  243. Kev

    OK. So old Council failed. That can be a thing.

  244. Kev

    New Council are here, and there is a clear path to how to get this advanced imminently.

  245. Kev

    I don't currently understanding why you don't want to take it.

  246. Kev

    I also don't English, obviously.

  247. 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.

  248. 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.

  249. SamWhited

    But I do think the feedback was good, FWIW, just not worth spending more time on until next years.

  250. Kev

    I don't think it was on Dave's agenda for voting this week.

  251. jonasw

    SamWhited, do you really think that people are actively making up excuses to sabotage the compliance suites to be published?

  252. SamWhited

    There has been a card on trello for months asking for a vote.

  253. jonasw

    SamWhited, do you really think that people are actively making up excuses to sabotage the compliance suites from being published?

  254. SamWhited

    jonasw: not in a malicious way, but yes

  255. 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.

  256. jonasw

    what is a non-malicious way of doing that?

  257. Kev

    And entirely not because I love doing XEP work.

  258. 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.

  259. jonasw

    Kev, if you can summarize in two sentences what changes you want, I’ll make a PR for you.

  260. 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.

  261. jonasw


  262. SamWhited

    (just got pulled into an actual work meeting, sorry, maybe be unresponsive for an hour or so)

  263. 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.

  264. Kev adds to agenda.

  265. Ge0rG

    Kev: thanks

  266. Kev

    I have submitted a PR that addresses my feedback, and which I will happily +1 if merged.

  267. Kev


  268. Kev

    From the PR message:

  269. 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.

  270. 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.

  271. Kev

    Assuming this gets merged in time, I suggest a vote on advancement next week.

  272. Kev

    daniel, Ge0rG, Dave: ^

  273. 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.

  274. Ge0rG

    Damn. Reading those diffs is really a painful excercise in following up indirections.

  275. Ge0rG

    We should add aliases &yes; and &no; for the #1000x codes

  276. Zash

    The what

  277. Ge0rG

    So ✓ is "yes" and ✕ is "no", and you need to know the order of the columns from elsewhere in the document

  278. Ge0rG

    Kev: so you've added 223 to the "IM / Advanced Server" profile, but not 222.

  279. Zash

    How was it you fetched PRs from git?

  280. 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.

  281. Ge0rG

    Zash: `git fetch <remote> pull/25/head:<localname>`

  282. SamWhited

    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.

  283. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: might be as easy as this: `<!ENTITY yes "&#10003;">`

  284. SamWhited

    oh, that's a good idea too…

  285. SamWhited

    Thanks, I'll update that in next years.

  286. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: great!

  287. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: I hope you keep track of the pending changes for 2019.

  288. 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.

  289. Ge0rG

    Kev: 48 RECOMMENDs 223, but it does not REQUIRE it.

  290. Ge0rG

    I still think it is good to call out support for 223, but then we should also add 222.

  291. Ge0rG

    Anyway, I'm okay with any subset, including the empty one, of {222, 223} be part of CS2018.

  292. 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.

  293. Kev

    Ok, thanks. In that case, I'd go with what's there.

  294. Kev

    I was pondering whether to have 223 as a client or not. I'm happy to make that change if people want.

  295. Ge0rG

    Kev: my feeling tells me to replace the "N/A", but then again I haven't implemented PEP yet anyway.

  296. pep.

    ooi, why are the compliance suites dated by year, and not versioned? Is there a rationale somewhere?

  297. pep.

    I think that forces imaginary deadlines for no reason

  298. daniel

    pep.: so people see that this is recent and is actively being worked on

  299. 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

  300. 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

  301. pep.

    Developers will know what version X of XEP-Y means

  302. daniel

    I wasn't talking about end users

  303. daniel

    And no developers don't know

  304. Zash

    Weren't compliance suites supposed to be for marketing or certification?

  305. pep.

    daniel, that is sad :/

  306. daniel

    Zash: they can if you want them to

  307. daniel

    I have a course you can let your employer pay for

  308. pep.

    But yes that makes sense for marketing etc.

  309. daniel

    That makes you a certified xmpp developer

  310. pep.

    You give them a medal? :P

  311. daniel


  312. pep.


  313. daniel

    People love certificates. HR loves certificates

  314. daniel

    Everyone has a masters degree these days. But a certificate will set you apart

  315. pep.

    I don't, and most at work here don't

  316. pep.

    Still I think we're doing ok

  317. pep.

    But yes sadly I get that's how it is

  318. 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 😛

  319. moparisthebest

    compared to the rest of the devs I work with with only bachelors degrees or no degrees

  320. 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

  321. pep.

    daniel, don't get me wrong, I know compliance suites are useful

  322. 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

  323. pep.

    daniel, don't get me wrong, I also think compliance suites are useful

  324. pep.

    I would hope developers would aim for some interoperability with other clients and servers

  325. pep.

    If their product is out in the open

  326. 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

  327. pep.

    They could say "the latest compliance suite"

  328. pep.

    That already looks better

  329. moparisthebest

    but then where would it link? and it might not always be true 🙂

  330. pep.

    Yes people have to keep up-to-date, it's a fact

  331. pep.

    They can change the text if it's not true anymore, or change the link to point to the newer versoin

  332. pep.

    They can change the text if it's not true anymore, or change the link to point to the newer version

  333. pep.

    Or they can keep "2016" if they don't care about people thinking what you said above

  334. Kev

    Scrolling backwards a bit, I don't have a Masters. That makes me great, right?

  335. Tobias

    No wizard hat?

  336. Kev

    I had a floppy hat, which is better.