I think Kev is right regarding the typo, but the typo is in the XEP and not in the PR, and the PR is self-consistent.
Ge0rG
Also the PR removes the typo.
Kev
I don't like several things about FSN, and think we could almost certainly do it a better way, but I don't see anything preventing Experimental, so +1.
Ge0rG
I don't like that there is no enumeration of all possible FSN states, and that there is no example of how to stop FSN. But I like the idea, so +1
Dave
I think a protocol in this space would be useful (even if this changes quite a bit on the way). +1.
Ge0rG
It might be good to put FSN as a payload into CSN, but I have no strong opinion on that.
SamWhited
what kev said, except that I'm not sure if I think it should go to experimental or not. on list though.
Dave
Ge0rG, There was some discussion around that, but I forget what.
Ge0rG
Dave: it was in the xsf@ MUC
jonasw
Ge0rG, reasons against doing that: (a) (weak) CSN is final, (b) FSN states should be orthogonal to CSN states (see the business rules)
Dave
3c) XEP-0065, XEP-0363: Document exposing the service on the user’s domain #682
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/682
Dave
FWIW, I understand why this is a single PR against multiple XEPs, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. XEP-0001 suggests these two changes should be voted upon distinctly by Council.
Kev
I think the intention here is right, but I'm afraid I think the way this is formulated is adding confusion rather than resolving it. I think you lead with "Here's how you see a domain has the feature" and then go with "And here's how you check the subdomains if it doesn't>
jonasw
Dave, council doesn’t need to vote on the second change, because '363 isn’t draft yet
jonasw
council only needs to vote on the change to '65, and if you reject that one, I guess Link Mauve will split
SamWhited
oh interesting, I mussed this one. on list, but looking forward to reading it.
Dave
jonasw, Yes, true, good point.
SamWhited
missed, even.
Dave
SamWhited, Mussed you have mist it?
kasper.dementhas joined
SamWhited
Ain't phones great?
Ge0rG
onlist.
Dave
I think I'll vote on list with this one as well, mostly to take on board Kev's comment and see if I agree.
Dave
Kev, Is that a -1?
Ge0rG
I don't understand the PR against 65 as is, will have to research the context first.
Kev
I feel that -1 sends not quite the right message, because I agree with the change in principle, just not the execution, but yes. I'd at least like to be persuaded I'm wrong before it's merged.
I have comments on this, but nothing that'd prevent it going onto Experimental.
Ge0rG
This was discussed in October last year already on standards@
guus.der.kinderenhas left
guus.der.kinderenhas joined
jonasw
.oO(what if another MSN-client changes your nickname while your ping is in-flight and you get an item-not-found or whatever back because your ping target vanished…)
SamWhited
My only imediate concern is the title. Assuming it's changed to something more discoverable before going to experimental I'm +1
Ge0rG
jonasw: that's a very interesting one. Do you know of implementations that will change your nickname with MSN?
Ge0rG
SamWhited: is that a -1?
Kev
I think I might quibble about the 'sometimes, without warning, intercept, optionally', but otherwise it seems sane enough. +1
SamWhited
yes, I suppose it's a temporary -1
Kev
(Other than the name, but I'm not blocking on that even if it pushes the envelope of silliness too far for me)
Ge0rG
I liked the proposal by Zash, "Schrödinger's chat (Or, how I learned to stop worrying and self-ping in MUCs)"
guus.der.kinderenhas left
guus.der.kinderenhas joined
jonasw
Ge0rG, same can happen if you’re changing your nickname yourself (although this can probably be solved by deferring the ping for some time after requesting a nick change)
danielhas joined
guus.der.kinderenhas left
Dave
Kev, It's far, far too late for you to pretend to be the sensible one.
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm sure you won't first change the nick and then send a ping to your old nick
guus.der.kinderenhas joined
Kev
I wouldn't dare. I'm suggesting I'm not sensible, and this is too far even for me.
jonasw
Ge0rG, why not, I have to wait until I get the server ack for my nickchange before I update internal records…
jonasw
Ge0rG, so which name would you like to have?
Ge0rG
jonasw: want to document that in the Business Considerations?
jonasw
"MUC Self-Ping (Schrödinger’s Chat)"?
jonasw
ah, we have to wait for daniel anyways
Ge0rG
jonasw: I like the existing name and I'm sad that some Council members consider it silly.
Dave
4) Outstanding Votes
jonasw
Ge0rG, for the record, I consider it silly (not in a bad way) and undiscoverable (bad) too
Dave
Ge0rG, I also consider the name silly. I'm just basically fine with that.
Kev
I would far prefer jonasw's suggestion.
jonasw
Dave, you have lost any ground to argue with "Bookmarks 2 (This time it’s serious)"✎
Ge0rG
I don't think having "Schrödinger's Chat" in parens will have the desired effect, so my only sane option is "MUC Self-Ping". But I demand a record of the rename in the changelog
Dave
So, outstanding - I think given the skip, everything has expired.
Kev
I don't mind silliness, but I think it's obsfucating here, and that's bad.
Dave
5) Next Meeting
Dave
Next week, same time, same place?
jonasw
Dave, you have lost any right to argue since "Bookmarks 2 (This time it’s serious)" ✏
SamWhited
wfm
Kev
*obfuscating
Ge0rG
Unless Sam and Kev would agree on "Schrödinger's Chat (MUC Self-Ping)", which would be my second best choice.
Dave
Kev, That's a fair point.
Kev
WFM
jonasw
Ge0rG, do it yourself then :)
SamWhited
bookmarks 2 still tells you what it does
Ge0rG
SamWhited: having numbers in titles is... not optimal.
SamWhited
please make 'MUC self ping' the first bit.
jonaswhides behind Entity Capabilities 2.0
Ge0rG
we already have numbered namespaces.
Davecoughs
jonasw
let’s not open this can of worms
Dave
Anyone any objections to next week?
jonasw
Ge0rG, you need to "wfm" next week
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
Dave
6) AOB
Dave
... Assuming none.
SamWhited
Nothing here.
Ge0rG
okay, so I'll go with "MUC Self-Ping (Schrödinger's Chat)" then.