-
Kev
Do we have agenda for today?
-
moparisthebest
the proposal to write 2 MUC PRs I think
-
moparisthebest
the vote on whether someone should bother writing the PRs specifically :)
-
Kev
Pretty sure im-ng should be on there too.
-
Kev
Or should have been last week, but wasn't.
-
Dave
Kev, I've been busy, I do apologise. I'll knock this out. FWIW, im-ng was fractionally too late for last week, IIRC. Unless I'm thinking of the week before, and just forgot last week.
-
Kev
The latter.
-
jonasw
+1 for the latter because I’m fairly certain that I didn’t do any editor work last week
-
Dave
Oh. Whoops.
-
Dave
Right, time.
-
Kev
Think so.
-
Dave
1) Roll Call
-
daniel
hi
-
Ge0rG
🙋
-
Dave
SamWhited, ?
-
Dave
2) Agenda Bashing
-
Dave
So I've not managed to do an Agenda this week, for which I apologise.
-
Kev
I would love to bash an Agenda.
-
Dave
I think we have two CFEs, Kev's IM-NG protoXEP, and... anything else?
-
jonasw
.oO(piñarta agenda?)
-
jonasw
Dave, the GC1.0 abolishment vote
-
Dave
Oh, yes, of course.
-
Ge0rG
I also have a proposal for MUC self-ping
-
daniel
i want to register the muc config option for mam
-
daniel
or at least get the process going / clarify what the process is exactly
-
Dave
OK - I'm going to guess that between the protoXEP, CFEs, and GC-1.0 we'll probably fill the half hour, but we'll see.
-
SamWhited
sorry, I'm here
-
Ge0rG
No need to be sorry.
-
Ge0rG
Dave: 3) minute taker?
-
Dave
Ge0rG, Good plan.
-
Dave
3) Minute Taker
-
Dave
Either Tedd Sterr will do it or else I will.
-
Ge0rG
It looks like the abolition of Pidgin is a Board agendum now.
-
Dave
:-)
-
Ge0rG
<https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/425>
-
daniel
,oO(can you just get rid of pidgin be removing session support on the server?)
-
Ge0rG
daniel: it will probably break other clients as well
-
Dave
Right, bear with me while I figure out which CFEs have completed.
-
jonasw
Dave, 0131, 0141, 0229 AFAICT
-
Dave
jonasw, Thanks.
-
Dave
So with that:
-
jonasw
(provided you already voted on 0092 and 0122)
-
Dave
4) Advance XEP-0131 to Final
-
Dave
jonasw, Yes, we did.
-
jonasw
good
-
Dave
This one is SHIM, BTW.
-
Kev
-1, doesn't have the implementations (and other reasons).
-
SamWhited
Also -1, this doesn't feel like it fits a need in the ecosystem and doesn't have the implementations. We should kill it instead.
-
Dave
I'm going to vote on-list for all of these, I warn in advance - however, in the case of SHIM I can't help feeling I'd *like* to ditch it but it's referred to by other XEPs.
-
jonasw
isn’t it used by PubSub?
-
Dave
jonasw, Pubsub and XEP-0149.
-
daniel
i actually implemented this once. but i feel like this is so niche that who ever needs it can just make up their own syntax and/or use the deprecated one. so -1
-
Ge0rG
I've had a tough fight against generic headers in 0363. -1
-
Dave
5) Advance XEP-0141 to Final
-
Dave
Data forms layout, BTW.
-
Kev
-1 doesn't have the implementations
-
Ge0rG
is that referenced from others as well?
-
Dave
Ge0rG, Nope. I've seen it used, though, in XEP-0346 implementations.
-
daniel
-1
-
Ge0rG
-0
-
Kev
I'd like to advance 141, but we didn't have the numbers in the CfE, that I saw.
-
Kev
Someone tell me I'm wrong, by all means.
-
SamWhited
-1, same reason as Kev, but also think forms is too complex already and we don't need to shoehorn layout information into the document structure.
-
Dave
5) Advance XEP-0229 to Final
-
Dave
LZW stream compression
-
Dave
I do have a vote for this: -1 for implementations and also I don't see a driving need for it.
-
SamWhited
I have used this and have implementations, but it's underspecified so -1.
-
Kev
-1
-
daniel
0
-
Ge0rG
-1 for the security issues of mixing different data classes into a compressed stream
-
daniel
Ge0rG, that argument applies to compression in general though?
-
daniel
not to that particular xep
-
SamWhited
Either way, we need to figure out what we're doing with 0138 and then this should probably just follow whatever happens with that.
-
Ge0rG
daniel: it applies to compression in general and thus to this XEP by extension
-
Dave
6) Adopt "IM Routingng"
-
Dave
ProtoXEP: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/im-ng.html
-
Kev
This is clearly going to need to adapt as we make further decisions, but I'd like to get it under XSF control.
-
Ge0rG
How could I have missed that submission? on-list
-
Kev
So I'm +1.
-
daniel
Ge0rG, I'm just saying it feels 'unfair' to punish the lzw xep instead of 138
-
Dave
I worry that this might end up the bike shed of bike sheds, but I'm not going to veto, so 0.
-
Ge0rG
daniel: I agree. Please put 0138 on the next agenda.
-
Kev
Dave: It might, but I think it's something we have to work on, and there was reasonable (not particularly rough) consensus at the Summit, I think.
-
daniel
+1 to get it under xsf control. but i'm not really sure i like it in it's current form
-
Ge0rG
I've heard somebody gave a speech, or somesuch.
-
SamWhited
+1
-
Kev
daniel: Sure, that's fine (not liking the current form) - but I thought step one was getting some words down that people can disagree with.
-
Dave
7) Kill GC-1.0
-
Dave
Kev, "Get a number". :-)
-
Ge0rG
obviously +1
-
Kev
I am, in principle, ok with removing gc1 from 45, but only if we can do so in a way that makes everything better.
-
daniel
link to pr?
-
Kev
daniel: There's no PR, this is just raising the idea up a flagpole and seeing who salutes.
-
Dave
daniel, There's no PR, so this is a vote on the principle.
-
Kev
i.e. this is a vote on position, rather than standards advancement.
-
Ge0rG
I promise to prepare a PR if this vote is accepted. Although I don't promise *when* I will be able to submit it.
-
SamWhited
I am tentatively +1 on the general idea; can't hurt to see a PR either way.
-
Kev
I'm fine with seeing a PR, and if you *can* produce one that doesn't break anything I'll be ok with it, but I think that's a big ask and I'm not sure it's possible.
-
Dave
I'm fine with removing "bare" presence as a mechanism for joining a chatroom. However, I worry about what existing clients would do is they fall out of sync and *inadvertantly* join using GC-1.0, and have that then perform a different action.
-
Ge0rG
We have ~two weeks worth of numbers from prosody.im and yax.im, showing that there was only one client not supporting MUC protocol
-
Dave
Ge0rG, Right, but that is a different problem to the one I outline.
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Yes, that's why I'm in principle ok with the idea, as long as it can be done such that nothing existing breaks.
-
Ge0rG
Dave: yes. My position is that it's better to uncover to the user that they were gone than to silently re-join a MUC and probably missing a part of history.
-
Dave
Ge0rG, In any case, I think I'm keen to see what this would do in practise, so +1 to someone else writing a PR. :-)
-
daniel
+1
-
Dave
Ge0rG, Ah. So yes. But that presumes a client will gracefully handle an unexpected join rejection to a presence stanza they didn't think was a join in the first place.
-
Ge0rG
Dave: I hope that sane clients will handle a presence error from a MUC as "you are not there anymore"
-
Dave
Ge0rG, As such, when I see what you're aiming to do, it might nudge me into a couter-proposal.
-
Dave
Ge0rG, That is extremely optimistic of you. Possibly right, too. But certainly optimistic.
-
Ge0rG
Dave: I don't have a proposal beyond what I wrote on standards@
-
Ge0rG
Dave: I'm not sure I'm sane enough to fix insane clients. Nor that I want to volunteer my sanity for that goal.
-
Dave
Ge0rG, Sure. But it might be fun to trial any change and see what clients do.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm not sure whether your position boils down to a -1 essentially, because I can't fix what is broken with MUCs getting out of sync, and GC1 is just a cover-up for it.
-
Dave
Anyway, as I say, I'm in favour of doing this given your evidence thus far.
-
Kev
Ge0rG: I am trying to be open that I think it's an impossible job, while not wanting to stop you trying if you're convinced you can.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm pretty sure I can't fulfill your requirement. And I still think that it's based on a flawed assumption
-
Dave
SamWhited, I don't think I have a vote from you on this one.
-
Kev
My requirement basically being that it's a Draft XEP so we shouldn't break anything that's currently deployed against it?
-
SamWhited
> I am tentatively +1 on the general idea; can't hurt to see a PR either way.
-
Dave
SamWhited, Oh, sorry - just spotted that.
-
Kev
I think it'll come down to what breaks and where.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: do you consider sending an error to non-joined clients a "break"?
-
Dave
So we're unanimously in favour of Georg writing a PR we can vote on. :-)
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Maybe, depending how clients react to it.
-
Kev
If all clients do a sensible thing, I can probably be talked into it.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: Alright. Could you please perform a study of the clients that you care about?
-
Kev
Not likely.
-
Ge0rG
I mean, realistically we'll have to reduce the subset of clients.
-
Dave
Ge0rG, I know I don't have access to all the clients I'd want to know about.
-
Ge0rG
I suggest we test all clients that comply with this year's Compliance Suite.
-
daniel
lol
-
Dave
Ge0rG, I don't know how clients I actually work with would react.
-
Dave
Anyway, we've voted, so:
-
Dave
8) AOB
-
daniel
whats the process for registering a new muc config option?
-
Ge0rG
I'd like to put the MUC self-ping suggestion up for a vote-on-principal✎ -
daniel
can we take a vote and order the registry to include it?
-
Ge0rG
I'd like to put the MUC self-ping suggestion up for a vote-on-principle ✏
-
Ge0rG
The one from here: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-April/034763.html
-
daniel
(since changing the xep45 has been rejected by council members who still serve this year)
-
Dave
daniel, Do you know, I've actually no idea. I'll look into the process. I'd expect it's a matter of "document it".
-
Ge0rG
This one is at least less probable to break all clients.
-
Dave
daniel, I don't think "changing xep45" is quite the same as "adding a new option". Servers add new options all the time, so unless it's changing existing behaviour, a XEP defining the additional behaviour should be uncontentious.
-
Dave
Ge0rG, Looks fine to me. Feels like it could be documented in a new XEP, too.
-
Ge0rG
Dave: what's wrong with adding a use-case into 0045?
-
Kev
I'm fine with adding a self-ping to MUC to check you're there. I'm not ok with intercepting 199 pings to users and replying from the server.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: not to users, to yourself.
-
Dave
Kev, Not to users, to occupants.
-
Dave
Kev, You already have to implement vcard IQs, after all.
-
Kev
Only to your own occupant JID might be ok.
-
daniel
i'm ok with specifying that a ping to self should be handled (and responded to) by the server
-
Dave
9) Next Meeting
-
Dave
Same time next week?
-
SamWhited
WFM
-
Kev
WFM
-
daniel
wfm
-
Ge0rG
WFM
-
Dave
10) Ite, Meeting est
-
Ge0rG
The self-ping-to-occupant was the only useful and O(1) way for a client to check whether it's still joined, anyway.
-
Dave
Once again, sorry for the disorganised lack of agenda,, and thanks for bearing with me.
-
Ge0rG
Dave: next time we expect an organised lack of agenda
-
Kev
Thanks all.
-
Ge0rG
Thanks!
-
daniel
> I don't think "changing xep45" is quite the same as "adding a new option". Servers add new options all the time, so unless it's changing existing behaviour, a XEP defining the additional behaviour should be uncontentious. well you vetod https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/204 last time. that’? what i meant by 'changing the xep'
-
daniel
(re config option for muc)
-
daniel
so apparently this is not the right way to do it
-
daniel
would you like me to create a full new xep just for this config option?
-
Dave
That was a long time ago, no wonder I'd forgotten.
-
daniel
i would just like to find the 'correct way' and then just do it. instead of bike shedding it to death again
-
Dave
daniel, Registry is at https://xmpp.org/registrar/formtypes.html#http:--jabber.org-protocol-mucroomconfig and the submission process is https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0068.html#registrar-reg-formtypes-process
-
daniel
and it's up to the registrar to decide whether to accept this?
-
flow
daniel, appears so