Other than the typo, I don't think this is harmful (but do agree it should have gone to Council vote).
Kev
+1 sans typo
Ge0rG
There is a typo in that patch. "there still exist*s* server implementations"
Ge0rG
+1 sans typo from me as well
daniel
+1
SamWhited
+1
Dave
+1
Dave
4) PR #672 - XEP-0059: Add 'exact(-index)' attribute to RSM's <count/> and <first/> - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/672
Kev
I've missed the context on this - anyone got the subject line from standards@ to look at?
Kev
I'm -1 regardless, but I'd like to see the discussion that prompted it.
jonasw
I think the discussion was in xsf@
Dave
I think I have to be on-list for this, I've not seen the discussion and it seems non-trivial.
Kev
I think the presence of an optional attribute that has no default in case it's missing is enough for me to -1 it in current form, regardless of intent.
Ge0rG
I think it's overdoing. Add complexity for a very specific corner-case. Not that I'm not guilty of that myself.
jonasw
Kev, huh, why?
SamWhited
I'm on list as well, but am leaning towards -1. I need to reread 0059 again first though.
Dave
Kev, Hmmm. Surely the absence means unspecified, as is the case now?
jonasw
absence signals "server doesn’t know, doesn’t want to, or does not support this"
jonasw
I don’t see anything wrong with that conceptually
Kev
It is currently not unspecified, it's currently specified that it may be inexact, and therefore anyone receiving it has to treat it as inexact.
Kev
i.e. the current is default exact=false.
Ge0rG
the current default is exact=maybe.
Dave
Kev, Ah... Interesting. I see your logic there.
Dave
daniel, Anything to say/vote before we move on?
Kev
Regardless, adding a SHOULD for new protocol to a Draft XEP seems like it needs to be done carefully.
daniel
I don't really have an opinion yet
daniel
On list
Ge0rG
on list from me as well
Dave
5) Stagnant Votes
flow
I'd like to note that the commit message tries to provide a motivation
Kev
Am I the only one who thinks that thanking yourself in your own patch is terribly bad form too?
Ge0rG
flow: "may use an optimized algorithm" is a rather weak motivation.
Dave
I think at least a few of my votes have expired due to my absence, and I've no idea what else might be outstanding.
Kev
I still owe a vote on HTTP Upload, which may have expired, but I think there's unaddressed feedback on list that I'd like to see discussed before it advances.
Dave
I'll commit to updating the Spreadsheet Of Doom over the next couple of days.
Ge0rG
Kev: yes it is, but we don't have a better way to add contributors to an XEP, or do we?
Kev
I see comments from Goffi without a response, at least.
Kev
Ge0rG: I would expect the author or Editor to add a thanks in that case.
Dave
6) AOB
Ge0rG
Kev: I haven't seen that happen in practice, yet.
daniel
> Am I the only one who thinks that thanking yourself in your own patch is terribly bad form too?
Yes. But I get where this is coming from and we don't have a good alternative for being listed as a conttubor
Kev
I have NAOB.
SamWhited
git blame will list you as a contributor if it's terribly important to you
Ge0rG
Maybe we need to add it to the XEP Editor README
Ge0rGbegins translocation now.
Dave
So apologies for my extended absence - I've had a collision of things (including a new treasurer appeared and then vanishing on me across an accounts deadline for a charity I help with).
Kev
We coped, mostly.
Ge0rGhas left
Dave
On the plus side, I taught myself double-entry ledger book-keeping, which is something.
Dave
But in any case, I'll commit to being more around as from now.
Ge0rG, would it help if I'd elaborate the algorithm for the exact=true case?
Ge0rG
flow: it sounds like you should do that, on standards@
flow
I dunno, appears the thing already got -1'ed
Dave
flow, It'd be more useful if there were some concrete cases where exactitude was essential.
jonasw
flow, modify the PR, re-submit to council, new vote
Dave
flow, Well. -1 means "do not advance", and not "never advance".
Ge0rG
flow: it seems nobody in the council quite grasped why the extension is needed.
Ge0rG
So providing a deeper motivation on the list will probably increase your chances, or at least shift the feedback from "lack of understanding" to practical / formal issues