XMPP Council - 2018-05-02

  1. Dave

    I've spent the last 24 hours, it seems in meetings (last one last night finished at 10pm), and I have more to go - I'm sadly going to miss this week again.

  2. Kev

    So, without Dave, who've we got?

  3. Ge0rG !

  4. Kev

    That's two. Anyone else?

  5. jonasw

    daniel, SamWhited?

  6. daniel

    I'm. Here

  7. SamWhited

    oops, partially here.

  8. SamWhited

    heading to my desk now.

  9. Kev

    Not that we have agenda, but, you know, quorum :)

  10. Kev

    1) Roll call I think we've done this

  11. Kev

    I can't see anything obvious on the mailing list either.

  12. jonasw

    has the xep-0050 debate been resolveds

  13. Kev

    So 2) Date of next Next Wed?

  14. jonasw

    *resolved?

  15. SamWhited

    WFM

  16. Kev

    jonasw: Not exactly, but it's that neither of the curretn patches are getting merged.

  17. Kev

    And I think you've skipped to AOB early ;)

  18. jonasw

    Kev, I thought it’s AOB -> Date of next, not Date of next -> AOB, sorry :)

  19. Ge0rG

    I'd like to discuss 0050 some more indeed.

  20. Kev

    Anyway, no-one's complaining about SBTSBC, so

  21. Kev

    3) AOB

  22. Ge0rG

    I'm pretty sure I won't be able to attend next week

  23. Kev

    No other AOB?

  24. Ge0rG

    Re 0050: the original design of having both an action and an attribute for what is the default action is sub-optimal.

  25. daniel

    none from my side

  26. Kev

    Ge0rG: Yes, that's why Dave's suggested, and I've agreed with, nuking it.

  27. Ge0rG

    Kev: nuking the default action, you mean?

  28. Kev

    If no-one here's disagreeing, I think we just need to move ahead and someone write words.

  29. Ge0rG

    it was brought up that it would be a breaking change.

  30. Kev

    All options are a breaking change at this point.

  31. Ge0rG

    And also that the <execute> action is still needed for initiating the flow

  32. Kev

    Becuase the current text is broken.

  33. Kev

    Yes.

  34. Kev

    So you'd have <execute> as the initiator, and not afterwards.

  35. Ge0rG

    I suppose I could live with that.

  36. Ge0rG

    The current text is broken, but maybe there are already in-the-wild workarounds around its brokenness, which we would be breaking.

  37. Kev

    I think we can easily leave a note explaining what the old text said about <execute/> as a non-initiator, so implementations can be aware and do what they want to deal with that.

  38. Ge0rG

    great!

  39. Kev

    But this whole thread was started by the observation that things are broken in the wild because of the current text, so I think we do need to fix something.

  40. Ge0rG

    Yeah.

  41. Kev

    Anyone else for anything else?

  42. Kev

    I'll take that as a "no". Thanks all.

  43. Ge0rG

    Thanks Kev