-
Ge0rG
Still a bunch of votes pending, deadline tomorrow EOB.
-
Ge0rG
or rather EOM?
-
jonas’
EOM?
-
Kev
We agreed 'end of Council', I believe.
-
Kev
End Of Meeting, I would assume.
-
Kev
I'm ready to vote on all of mine in the meeting, FWIW.
-
Ge0rG
End Of Meeting, indeed.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: 👍
-
dwd
Right.
-
dwd
1) Is there anybody out there?
- Ge0rG is out there
-
dwd
Kev, SamWhited, daniel ?
-
daniel
hi
-
Kev
I is definitely here.
-
dwd
OK.
-
dwd
2) Agenda
-
dwd
I am working on the assumption that the only items for a vote are anything outstanding from last week.
-
dwd
(And that nobody is mad enough to try adding new stuff).
-
dwd
So with that in mind:
-
dwd
3) Outstanding votes
-
Kev
I think it's everything from last week, yes.
-
Kev
i.e. just the same agenda again.
-
Ge0rG
I shortly considered adding items to vote on, but abstained.
-
dwd
I believe I'm up to date, as is Ge0rG.
-
Ge0rG
I've done all my on-list votes.
-
dwd
And SamWhited is too.
-
Kev
Alright. We did agree last week to have discussions on them all this week, rather than just treat them as purely on-list, but w/e.
-
Ge0rG
I anticipated objections to my requirement to make stanza @id = origin-id @id
-
dwd
We certainly can discuss.
-
Kev
3) Advance XEP-0357 (Push Notifications) to DRAFT - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html -1 4) Advance XEP-0359 (Unique and Stable Stanza IDs) to DRAFT - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0359.html -1 5) PR #692 - XEP-0060: correct "entity" to "<subscription/>" - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/692 +1 6) PR #693 - XEP-0060: Remove unused 'node' attribute on pubsub#event item - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/693 +1 7) PR #715 - XEP-0045: Add missing disco#info feature to example 4, 9, 78 and 218 - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/715 +1 8) PR #716 - XEP-0030: Clarify 'disco#info' feature in 'disco#info' responses - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/716 -1
-
dwd
Ge0rG, I suspect that's desirable, but also potentially difficult if the library sets the stanza's @id at the point of send.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: that lacks rejection rationale
-
daniel
> I anticipated objections to my requirement to make stanza @id = origin-id @id i think i suggested that a few times but the author always objected
-
Ge0rG
dwd: ideally, the library should be the one adding the origin-id then
-
Ge0rG
daniel: yes, I suggested that as well, and got the same reaction.
-
Ge0rG
There was no rationale, so I'm using my Council hat now.
-
Kev
I can't see a reason not to make stanza id = origin id.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Well, yes. But often, libraries bake in support after various apps have used them first.
-
jonas’
dwd, then it’ll take a while for libraries to adapt.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: I'm sure this is a problem easier to solve than multiple mismatching ids on a message
-
dwd
Ge0rG, That all said, I won't object very strongly whichever way it goes.
-
daniel
wasn’t the primary reason that smack can’t do it
-
Ge0rG
besides, we need to fix Receipts and LMC with origin-id in place.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Could a server just add in the origin-id, then?
-
Ge0rG
daniel: even the old version of smack I run makes it possible to extract and change stanza IDs
-
Ge0rG
dwd: that sounds like a reasonable proposal to solve some problem. I'm just not sure which one.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: also not sure whether the rules of 0359 allow injection of origin-id
-
dwd
Ge0rG, If a client wishing to add in origin-id has to add the same id twice, then a server could add in that as well.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Probably not, as written. My question was whether it made sense to do so.
-
Ge0rG
As already stated, I consider origin-id to be a hack to work around bad servers, so I'd rather burn it.
-
Ge0rG
I can see some benefit in <stanza-id/> for MAM purposes, because you have an independent entity defining _that_ id.
-
Ge0rG
Originally, <origin-id> was a payload you were supposed to stuff into messages you send into a MUC or into transports, in the hope to see the element reflected
-
Ge0rG
But then we got MUC changed to discourage that, and transports probably can't retain XML payloads anyway.
-
Ge0rG
So in my eyes, <origin-id/> could go away.
-
dwd
That I could go along with.
-
Ge0rG
(and if you have a transport that can maintain XML payloads internally, you surely can send a reflected message to the sending client with the same @id attribute)
-
jonas’
(for example, the transport implementation could inject its own version of the <origin-id/> thing into the "legacy" protocol and convert it back to the @id when the reflection comes back)
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Yes, I was just thinking that. So does that mean there's no point to origin-id excepting some old servers?
-
Ge0rG
the last reason to have <origin-id/> is that it's an indication that the client is using sufficiently-random @id's, and I think that can be signalled in an easier fashion, if needed at all
-
Ge0rG
dwd: that's my understanding, yes.
-
jonas’
I am amazed. will we really solve this battle in the last sitting of council? probably not because SW won’t be able to react in time...
-
dwd
Ge0rG, I'm not sure that *is* an indication of more than some vague intent.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: excepting some old MUC implementations, to be precise
-
Kev
I think this is a mailing list or after-Council discussion really. We've reached -1 point, I think.
-
dwd
Kev, I think you're right.
-
Kev
I think.
-
jonas’
aw pity
-
jonas’
how about "apply these changes and then +1"?
-
jonas’
where "these changes" points to a PR?
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: not gonna happen in the next 15 mins
-
dwd
Right.
-
Ge0rG
how about "take authorship away and do it right"?
-
Ge0rG
no, I don't volunteer.
-
jonas’
I do.
-
dwd
Anything else ... XEP-0357? Kev, you'll owe rejection reasons, but I guess those are in your mail to list?
-
Kev
We don't need to take authorship away to do it right, incidentally.
-
jonas’
I was about to write "challenge accepted!" and do a PR right away, but then I figured that the security considerations of stripping existing stanza-ids probably really can’t be figured out in 15 mins
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: my -1 was already conditioned on "make @id = origin-id", but now it looks like it's just -1
-
Kev
I think my mails today about both 357 and 359 are feedback enough on those.
-
Kev
Especially as I'm the person that needs to make the 357 changes.
-
dwd
True.
-
dwd
Congrats on rejecting your own XEP.
-
Ge0rG
Speaking of taking ownership away.
-
dwd
So, PR #716?
-
dwd
I was in favour of dropping the need to signal disco#info over disco#info.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: is #715 fully voted on already?
-
Ge0rG
dwd: re #716, last Council it was brought up that caps hash calculation would be inconsistent then
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Oh, no, daniel hasn't I don't think.
-
Ge0rG
also it's a MUST from a Final XEP
-
Kev
I think the normative change here is wrong at this stage. I think noting that it'll be elided from many examples is reasonable, and probably even that some implementations may elide it (although what the implications of that are isn't entirely clear. I think it doesn't affect 115, though).
-
dwd
Ge0rG, I think a client that includes it in disco#info includes it in XEP-0115, surely?
-
Ge0rG
I'm not quite sure what Florian was trying to make on the list responding to my -1.
-
jonas’
at the very least, doing it inconsistently will defeat some 115/390 caches
-
Ge0rG
dwd: I think that having it being defined implicitly leads to corner cases. Also Final XEP.
-
Kev
We /are/ allowed to modify Final XEPs.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, I'd be more convinced about the Final XEP argument if this affected interop, or indeed was actually followed.
-
Kev
"Every effort" not to, though.
-
Kev
dwd: I think the argument is that an implicit feature there might make future 115 bugs.
-
jonas’
dwd, I think most implementations do follow it
-
dwd
Ge0rG, The fact that many implementations *don't* include disco#info, and everything still works, really does suggest it's wrong.
-
jonas’
we do have the luck to have a huge stash of disco#info replies from both servers and (a bit outdated) clients if you want to make a survey
-
Kev
My inclination would be to leave the normative language, but note a) that examples don't include it, and b) some implementations elide it.
-
jonas’
I can modify the muclumubs ( https://search.jabber.network ) bot to make a stat on that
-
Ge0rG
+1 to what Kev suggested.
-
dwd
I can see I'm on the losing side here, and can go along with Kev's suggestion.
-
Kev
Otherwise I'm not strictly opposed to making it optional if we're very sure that the language we introduce couldn't cause caps weirdness with it being implicitly added.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: in my eyes, it's not about the language but about implementations that add it, then do caps, vs. implementations that just do caps.
-
dwd
Right - anyone want to discuss anything else?
-
Kev
I'd like to thank everyone for their work this term :)
-
dwd
Ge0rG, I think if implementations were inconsistent then caps would be failing for them and people would have noticed, FWIW.
-
Kev
I think dwd is right.
-
dwd
Kev, Yes, I was going to do this:
-
dwd
4) Thanks, All.
-
Kev
I'm worried that we might inadvertently make matters worse by adding language about optionalness. If we're sure we won't, I'm not strictly opposed.
-
dwd
Thanks to everyone for your efforts - not only Council, but jonas’s work on Editor stuff, too.
-
Kev
Indeed.
-
Ge0rG
Thanks to you too, Dave.
-
jonas’
thanks to council :-)
-
jonas’
this was a fun ride
-
Kev
And to the Chair.
-
jonas’
let’s see what the numbers tomorrow bring for next year
-
dwd
Also, this year, we've had a number of useful contributions from the floor, so thanks to anyone who's chipped in.
-
Ge0rG
I've heard we didn't pass that many XEPs to Draft, which is maybe a bit sad.
-
jonas’
exactly one.
-
jonas’
and it was the compliance suites
-
jonas’
three months late or something :)
-
jonas’
but whatever
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: I've heard you are already preparing Compliance Suite 2019.
-
jonas’
yeah, that cp sure takes a while...
-
Kev
It's not Council's job to make XEPs ready for advancement, mind, so I don't feel too bad about that.
-
jonas’
Kev, I didn’t mean to make anyone feel bad anyways
-
jonas’
just for the record :)
-
Kev
👍
-
Ge0rG
We have five minutes left. Any technical topics?
-
Kev
Happy for the 359 discussion to continue now I don't have to pay as much attention :)
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm not sure what's left to discuss there. I'd rather discuss Push.
-
jonas’
what are my chances that someone updates the spreadsheet of doom right now so that I don’t have to go over the emails?
-
Kev
359-2 then :)
-
Ge0rG
Besides, should we propose a meeting time for the new Council?
-
jonas’
new council will have to figure that out tomorrow night I think
-
Kev
Well, not tomorrow night, but yes.
-
jonas’
although we could agree on a time; in any case, we know the maximum set of people who’ll be on it anyways
-
SamWhited
oops, sorry, had guests and wasn't paying attention to the time
-
Ge0rG
it's probably overly optimistic to assume that all five candidates will actually receive a majority of votes.
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, sarcasm?
-
Ge0rG
SamWhited: are you missing any votes?
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Thankfully it needs people to vote against to actually lose.
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: no, just saing it's rather inappropriate to proclaim "I'll probably get reelected anyway"
-
jonas’
in any case, the wednesday 16:00Z slot wfm
-
Kev
dwd: Simple needs people to not vote for.
-
jonas’
for now.
-
SamWhited
No, I emailed mine and should be all caught up now
-
dwd
SamWhited, Ooops, soryr - didn't think, it's Turkey Day tomorrow, isn't it.
-
SamWhited
dwd: yup, don't worry, I forgot too and I live here…
-
dwd
Kev, Well, yes, but if they do not vote at all, that's not counted.
-
Kev
I'm not sure that's true.
-
Kev
Someone can submit their vote, for no candidates.
-
Ge0rG
Let's postpone this until after the election.
-
Kev
If a majority of people did that, we'd have no Council.
-
dwd
Kev, True. But that counts as voting.
-
jonas’
> Third, the individuals elected shall be those receiving the highest percentage of votes cast, up to the limit set by the Members and with the proviso that no individual receiving less than a majority of votes cast shall be elected.
-
Ge0rG
Does memberbot allow that?
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, yes
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Yes.
-
jonas’
you can abstain for all five
-
Kev
dwd: Yes,t hat's what I said. It just needs people to not vote 'for'.
-
dwd
Anyway. I think we may be done.
-
jonas’
thanks again y’all
-
dwd
Kev, Yeah, I just think it's more likely they won't vote at all.
-
dwd
So, for the final time this Council:
-
Kev
Our voting rules are actually broken, because all we need is for enough (non-joke) candidates to apply and we can't form a Council.
-
dwd
5) Ite, Meeting Est
-
Kev
Diolch, pawb.
-
Zash
Thanks all
-
jonas’
Kev, as long as this doesn’t happen to board (or whoever has power to fix bylaws), we’re good!
-
Ge0rG
Kev: so we need to define a second ballot process with at most 10 candidates?
-
dwd
Kev, I suspect that it's memberbot breaking. The way the bylaws are written, one could argue that each council candidate is voted for/against individually.
-
Kev
jonas’: I think that for Board we're probably already covered.
-
Kev
dwd: True.
-
jonas’
dwd, I agree
-
jonas’
I was a tad surprised to see the memberbot process after reading the bylaws more carefully this time
-
dwd
Meeting's tomorrow night at 1900Z, right?
-
jonas’
yes
-
jonas’
also, I don’t think that we need to have an elected board to fix the bylaws... we could have an all-member-vote about the change :)
-
Kev
ISTR (without checking) that in the case that we somehow had no Board elected, Peter could pick his own.
-
dwd
jonas’, We did that one time in a meeting when we realised we'd catastrophically f**ked up. Ah, it was fun.
-
dwd
jonas’, Strangely, XSF Meetings were very well attended for the next few.
-
jonas’
:D
-
jonas’
storytime?
- SouL is paying attention.
-
Kev
There was a thing. Hopefully there isn't a thing again.
-
peter
Kev: I can't do any such thing because I'm no longer the executive director.
-
Kev
Ah, ok. I thought you still were until they found a new one :)
-
peter
Seems to me we're doing fine with just the council. And as noted the members can always call a special meeting to fix things.
-
peter
er, board
-
Kev
I prefered your first version :)
-
peter
heh
-
Ge0rG
Kev: accidentally candidated for the wrong panel?
-
dwd
I hope not, otherwise Council's short.
-
peter
even if the Council were short, it could presumably nominate another member after the election, no?
-
Kev
Yeah.
-
Kev
I think we've entered silly territory now.
-
Kev
"now".
-
Ge0rG
I thought the Council is allowed to be short.
-
jonas’
tallism!✎ -
jonas’
heightism! ✏
-
peter
:-)
-
Zash
xnyphs for new ED?✎ -
Zash
xnyhps for new ED? ✏
-
Link Mauve
Re the discussion about XEP-0359 here, what you actually want is to revive https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/689 right?
-
Kev
Without reading and just going on the title, maybe :)
-
Ge0rG
Discussion on the editor issue tracker.
-
jonas’
nooo
-
Ge0rG
> XEP-0359: Replace tabs with spaces. WHY?!
-
Ge0rG
I like #689, except the implementation note says "to be set by the emitting client on every message to a MUC" - I don't see <origin-id/> as a MUC-only thing.
-
Ge0rG
Link Mauve: you could have confused the Council by bringing up #689 right in time for today's Agenda.
-
Kev
Council don't need to be more connfused than usual :p
-
jonas’
next week, he might be able to confuse himself with that