XMPP Council - 2018-10-03

It looks like this day of the week again, and I'm more gone than here.

I'm more gone than here, but I just started a cup of coffee so I should be here in the next 9 minutes

SamWhited: your timing is awesome. I don't have coffee, so nothing is going to change with my situation.

For once, it's spot on

Here.

dwd?

Here as well

o/

That's quorum, but not a Chair, maybe.

Let me dig out the agenda.

1) Roll call

Me, Daniel, Sam. Ge0rG more not here than here.

2) Agenda bashing.

Cool

3) https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bookmarks-conversion.html

I'm not sure about the implication in the intro that BM2 isn't widely adopted, but that PEP BMs are.

(But that's not a blocking comment, naturally)

On list

I think there are 3 client implementations actually.

+1

I'll be inclined to go straight to BM2, rather than ever implementing BM/PEP in Swift.

Kev: I have so many issues with BM2...

But I'm not blocking the protoXEP.

(+1)

But that's probably a discussion for another day

daniel: I don't necessarily mean BM2 as-written, so that might be fair.

+1

4) LC on 359 (stanza IDs)

I see no harm in issuing LCs in general, so +1.

+1 for LC

+1

5) LC on 357 (push).

Again, I see no harm in an LC (even if I don't think it's ready for advancement)

+1

I don't think it will make it

But yeah we can issue it

+1 for both LCs

The main reason not to is if we're convinced Council is going to -1 advancement, and we can save the Editor some work, I think.

I suspect, rather than am convinced, that that's the case.

SamWhited?

Hiya, sorry - things a little hectic. :-(

err, sorry +1 on LC for 357 too

I'm fairly convinced that push will be -1 after the lc

But still +1 for the lc

k

If nothing else it will help flush out feedback from the community, which isn't necessarily bad

6) Date of next.

(Sam: Indeed)

SBTSBC?

WFM

7) AOB?

AOB from the floor: what is still missing for the MUC avatars ProtoXEP? ✏

I fear I missed that one while I was on my nearly-a-month holiday of bliss :)

(So I don't know)

Anyone else?

AFAICs, that had three +1s, and two on-lists a month ago.

So unless someone vetod on-list, it's ready to publish.

Let's see...

Ah, Sam vetod.

Do you have a link to that email? I'm struggling to find it

"Re: [Standards] XMPP Council Meeting 2018-09-05" if that helps.

It's the one in which you start by saying it's a great protoxep, and that you're vetoing it :)

Found it, thanks

ah yah, that's why, yup, I agree with myself still.

FWIW, I think delaying things that make life a little bit better with avatars, in the hope that some day everything gets sorted out, is probably not the best way here.

If people are doing this stuff anyway, interop is better than not, and provides a clear spec to deprecate later.

That was my reason for not going full on PEP and postpone this even more.

I think it's as simple as mentioning that it can be done in one of the other avatar specs instead of completely re-hashing all of vcard-temp

I'd rather, I think, we could say at some point in the future "Here are all the ways people do it already. We're now deprecating them all in favour of the One True Ring" than "Here are some of the ways, we're deprecating those, but lots of people did other things and we can't say anything about those".

SamWhited, so basically I should remove the examples, and only leave the disco and notification parts?

Link Mauve: I don't think it should be a separate XEP at all

I rather liked edhelas's suggestions for expanding this in such a way that it can do pubsub nodes and all sorts, personally.

Having 4 or 5 different avatar specs already, I don't think adding another reduces that confusion.

You’d be in favour of adding discovery and MUC-specific notifications to e.g. XEP-0153?

Dave, so moving discovery to another XEP-0128 dataform?

I think we've moved beyond Council discussion here and I'm inclined to close the meeting. Any objections?

None from me.

Link Mauve: I'm not sure where the best place is; 0153 might be it. Or MUC itself.

Kev: oops, one more AOB

Is this a matter for council? https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/706

There was some confusion about this a few weeks ago, updating to the new language would have fixed it and we've been doing it this way anyways

I think that should be an agenda item, yes. For the next meeting.

WFM, thanks.

AOAOAOB?

Right, we're done then. Thanks all!