XMPP Council - 2018-07-11

My calendar reminded me.

Well done Ge0rG's calendar.

I appear to actually be in the room this week

Even I'm here.

I’m, too!

!ping SamWhited

oh wow, I sent that and there was a *lot* of lag, briefly thought it wasn't working after all.

I'll have to translocate starting in 20mins, but maybe my crappy mobile client app will suffice for after that.

!summon daniel ✏

Hi

council@muc.xmpp.org/SamWhited responded to ping after 0.6988s

My lag is fine

"I’m not 15 minutes late, my lag is just high"

Ge0rG: second message was fine, so no idea what that was about

and that one

s2s establishment probably?

Are we part of the establishment?

... didn’t check the clock and was wondering why everyone is here but not talking

and was about to check whether *my* link to this muc was broken

Somebody should write a self-ping XEP.

Oh, wait. That's on my TODO already.

16:00, golly.

Dave: you were 9 seconds too early.

Pfft.

1) Role Call

Yma

Kev, Diolch.

Here

Here

Cool.

2) Agenda Fiddling

Whoops, there is an agenda today. I totally missed that.

Any suggestions? Otherwise I'll go along with what Tedd Sterr has provided, since it seems OK.

No bashing here.

SGTM

3) PR #664 - XEP-0045: Add implementation note about {jabber:x:conference}x payload - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/664

Other than the typo, I don't think this is harmful (but do agree it should have gone to Council vote).

+1 sans typo

There is a typo in that patch. "there still exist*s* server implementations"

+1 sans typo from me as well

+1

+1

+1

4) PR #672 - XEP-0059: Add 'exact(-index)' attribute to RSM's <count/> and <first/> - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/672

I've missed the context on this - anyone got the subject line from standards@ to look at?

I'm -1 regardless, but I'd like to see the discussion that prompted it.

I think the discussion was in xsf@

I think I have to be on-list for this, I've not seen the discussion and it seems non-trivial.

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.

I think it's overdoing. Add complexity for a very specific corner-case. Not that I'm not guilty of that myself.

Kev, huh, why?

I'm on list as well, but am leaning towards -1. I need to reread 0059 again first though.

Kev, Hmmm. Surely the absence means unspecified, as is the case now?

absence signals "server doesn’t know, doesn’t want to, or does not support this"

I don’t see anything wrong with that conceptually

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.

i.e. the current is default exact=false.

the current default is exact=maybe.

Kev, Ah... Interesting. I see your logic there.

daniel, Anything to say/vote before we move on?

Regardless, adding a SHOULD for new protocol to a Draft XEP seems like it needs to be done carefully.

I don't really have an opinion yet

On list

on list from me as well

5) Stagnant Votes

I'd like to note that the commit message tries to provide a motivation

Am I the only one who thinks that thanking yourself in your own patch is terribly bad form too?

flow: "may use an optimized algorithm" is a rather weak motivation.

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.

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.

I'll commit to updating the Spreadsheet Of Doom over the next couple of days.

Kev: yes it is, but we don't have a better way to add contributors to an XEP, or do we?

I see comments from Goffi without a response, at least.

Ge0rG: I would expect the author or Editor to add a thanks in that case.

6) AOB

Kev: I haven't seen that happen in practice, yet.

> 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

I have NAOB.

git blame will list you as a contributor if it's terribly important to you

Maybe we need to add it to the XEP Editor README

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).

We coped, mostly.

On the plus side, I taught myself double-entry ledger book-keeping, which is something.

But in any case, I'll commit to being more around as from now.

That's a bold commitment

7) Next Meeting

Normal time next week?

WFM

Wfm

WFM

Should be fine

I'll actually be on a train, but it should be OK.

8) Ite, Meeting Est.

Thanks all.

Thanks all. ✏

Ge0rG, would it help if I'd elaborate the algorithm for the exact=true case?

flow: it sounds like you should do that, on standards@

I dunno, appears the thing already got -1'ed

flow, It'd be more useful if there were some concrete cases where exactitude was essential.

flow, modify the PR, re-submit to council, new vote

flow, Well. -1 means "do not advance", and not "never advance".

flow: it seems nobody in the council quite grasped why the extension is needed.

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