KevOther than the typo, I don't think this is harmful (but do agree it should have gone to Council vote).
Kev+1 sans typo
Ge0rGThere is a typo in that patch. "there still exist*s* server implementations"
Ge0rG+1 sans typo from me as well
Dave4) PR #672 - XEP-0059: Add 'exact(-index)' attribute to RSM's <count/> and <first/> - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/672
KevI've missed the context on this - anyone got the subject line from standards@ to look at?
KevI'm -1 regardless, but I'd like to see the discussion that prompted it.
jonaswI think the discussion was in xsf@
DaveI think I have to be on-list for this, I've not seen the discussion and it seems non-trivial.
KevI 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.
Ge0rGI think it's overdoing. Add complexity for a very specific corner-case. Not that I'm not guilty of that myself.
jonaswKev, huh, why?
SamWhitedI'm on list as well, but am leaning towards -1. I need to reread 0059 again first though.
DaveKev, Hmmm. Surely the absence means unspecified, as is the case now?
jonaswabsence signals "server doesn’t know, doesn’t want to, or does not support this"
jonaswI don’t see anything wrong with that conceptually
KevIt is currently not unspecified, it's currently specified that it may be inexact, and therefore anyone receiving it has to treat it as inexact.
Kevi.e. the current is default exact=false.
Ge0rGthe current default is exact=maybe.
DaveKev, Ah... Interesting. I see your logic there.
Davedaniel, Anything to say/vote before we move on?
KevRegardless, adding a SHOULD for new protocol to a Draft XEP seems like it needs to be done carefully.
danielI don't really have an opinion yet
Ge0rGon list from me as well
Dave5) Stagnant Votes
flowI'd like to note that the commit message tries to provide a motivation
KevAm I the only one who thinks that thanking yourself in your own patch is terribly bad form too?
Ge0rGflow: "may use an optimized algorithm" is a rather weak motivation.
DaveI think at least a few of my votes have expired due to my absence, and I've no idea what else might be outstanding.
KevI 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.
DaveI'll commit to updating the Spreadsheet Of Doom over the next couple of days.
Ge0rGKev: yes it is, but we don't have a better way to add contributors to an XEP, or do we?
KevI see comments from Goffi without a response, at least.
KevGe0rG: I would expect the author or Editor to add a thanks in that case.
Ge0rGKev: 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
KevI have NAOB.
SamWhitedgit blame will list you as a contributor if it's terribly important to you
Ge0rGMaybe we need to add it to the XEP Editor README
Ge0rGbegins translocation now.
DaveSo 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).
KevWe coped, mostly.
DaveOn the plus side, I taught myself double-entry ledger book-keeping, which is something.
DaveBut in any case, I'll commit to being more around as from now.
Ge0rGThat's a bold commitment
Dave7) Next Meeting
DaveNormal time next week?
Ge0rGShould be fine
DaveI'll actually be on a train, but it should be OK.
Dave8) Ite, Meeting Est.
flowGe0rG, would it help if I'd elaborate the algorithm for the exact=true case?
Ge0rGflow: it sounds like you should do that, on standards@
flowI dunno, appears the thing already got -1'ed
Daveflow, It'd be more useful if there were some concrete cases where exactitude was essential.
jonaswflow, modify the PR, re-submit to council, new vote
Daveflow, Well. -1 means "do not advance", and not "never advance".
Ge0rGflow: it seems nobody in the council quite grasped why the extension is needed.
Ge0rGSo 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