XMPP Council - 2018-11-21

  1. vanitasvitae has left
  2. vanitasvitae has left
  3. vanitasvitae has joined
  4. labdsf has left
  5. labdsf has joined
  6. labdsf has left
  7. labdsf has joined
  8. labdsf has left
  9. labdsf has joined
  10. vanitasvitae has left
  11. vanitasvitae has joined
  12. moparisthebest has left
  13. moparisthebest has joined
  14. moparisthebest has left
  15. moparisthebest has joined
  16. alex-ray has joined
  17. alex-ray has left
  18. lnj has left
  19. lnj has joined
  20. lnj has left
  21. Tobias has joined
  22. labdsf has left
  23. Remko has joined
  24. labdsf has joined
  25. moparisthebest has joined
  26. moparisthebest has joined
  27. Zash has joined
  28. pep. has left
  29. ralphm has left
  30. vanitasvitae has left
  31. vanitasvitae has joined
  32. daniel has left
  33. daniel has joined
  34. daniel has left
  35. daniel has joined
  36. Zash has left
  37. daniel has left
  38. daniel has joined
  39. moparisthebest has joined
  40. moparisthebest has joined
  41. Zash has left
  42. Zash has left
  43. Zash has left
  44. moparisthebest has joined
  45. moparisthebest has joined
  46. daniel has left
  47. daniel has joined
  48. SamWhited has left
  49. SamWhited has joined
  50. Zash has left
  51. labdsf has left
  52. labdsf has joined
  53. Zash has joined
  54. lnj has joined
  55. moparisthebest has left
  56. moparisthebest has joined
  57. Zash has left
  58. moparisthebest has left
  59. moparisthebest has joined
  60. moparisthebest has left
  61. moparisthebest has joined
  62. moparisthebest has left
  63. moparisthebest has joined
  64. Holger has left
  65. ralphm has left
  66. Holger has left
  67. Ge0rG Still a bunch of votes pending, deadline tomorrow EOB.
  68. Ge0rG or rather EOM?
  69. jonas’ EOM?
  70. Kev We agreed 'end of Council', I believe.
  71. Kev End Of Meeting, I would assume.
  72. dwd has joined
  73. Kev I'm ready to vote on all of mine in the meeting, FWIW.
  74. daniel has left
  75. Ge0rG End Of Meeting, indeed.
  76. Ge0rG Kev: 👍
  77. dwd Right.
  78. dwd 1) Is there anybody out there?
  79. Ge0rG is out there
  80. dwd Kev, SamWhited, daniel ?
  81. daniel hi
  82. peter has joined
  83. Kev I is definitely here.
  84. dwd OK.
  85. dwd 2) Agenda
  86. dwd I am working on the assumption that the only items for a vote are anything outstanding from last week.
  87. dwd (And that nobody is mad enough to try adding new stuff).
  88. dwd So with that in mind:
  89. dwd 3) Outstanding votes
  90. Kev I think it's everything from last week, yes.
  91. Kev i.e. just the same agenda again.
  92. Ge0rG I shortly considered adding items to vote on, but abstained.
  93. dwd I believe I'm up to date, as is Ge0rG.
  94. Ge0rG I've done all my on-list votes.
  95. dwd And SamWhited is too.
  96. 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.
  97. Ge0rG I anticipated objections to my requirement to make stanza @id = origin-id @id
  98. dwd We certainly can discuss.
  99. 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
  100. dwd Ge0rG, I suspect that's desirable, but also potentially difficult if the library sets the stanza's @id at the point of send.
  101. Ge0rG Kev: that lacks rejection rationale
  102. 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
  103. Ge0rG dwd: ideally, the library should be the one adding the origin-id then
  104. Ge0rG daniel: yes, I suggested that as well, and got the same reaction.
  105. Ge0rG There was no rationale, so I'm using my Council hat now.
  106. Kev I can't see a reason not to make stanza id = origin id.
  107. dwd Ge0rG, Well, yes. But often, libraries bake in support after various apps have used them first.
  108. jonas’ dwd, then it’ll take a while for libraries to adapt.
  109. Ge0rG dwd: I'm sure this is a problem easier to solve than multiple mismatching ids on a message
  110. dwd Ge0rG, That all said, I won't object very strongly whichever way it goes.
  111. daniel wasn’t the primary reason that smack can’t do it
  112. Ge0rG besides, we need to fix Receipts and LMC with origin-id in place.
  113. dwd Ge0rG, Could a server just add in the origin-id, then?
  114. Ge0rG daniel: even the old version of smack I run makes it possible to extract and change stanza IDs
  115. Ge0rG dwd: that sounds like a reasonable proposal to solve some problem. I'm just not sure which one.
  116. Ge0rG dwd: also not sure whether the rules of 0359 allow injection of origin-id
  117. 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.
  118. dwd Ge0rG, Probably not, as written. My question was whether it made sense to do so.
  119. Ge0rG As already stated, I consider origin-id to be a hack to work around bad servers, so I'd rather burn it.
  120. Ge0rG I can see some benefit in <stanza-id/> for MAM purposes, because you have an independent entity defining _that_ id.
  121. 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
  122. Ge0rG But then we got MUC changed to discourage that, and transports probably can't retain XML payloads anyway.
  123. Ge0rG So in my eyes, <origin-id/> could go away.
  124. dwd That I could go along with.
  125. vanitasvitae has left
  126. 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)
  127. vanitasvitae has joined
  128. 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)
  129. dwd Ge0rG, Yes, I was just thinking that. So does that mean there's no point to origin-id excepting some old servers?
  130. 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
  131. Ge0rG dwd: that's my understanding, yes.
  132. 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...
  133. dwd Ge0rG, I'm not sure that *is* an indication of more than some vague intent.
  134. Ge0rG dwd: excepting some old MUC implementations, to be precise
  135. Kev I think this is a mailing list or after-Council discussion really. We've reached -1 point, I think.
  136. dwd Kev, I think you're right.
  137. Kev I think.
  138. jonas’ aw pity
  139. jonas’ how about "apply these changes and then +1"?
  140. jonas’ where "these changes" points to a PR?
  141. Ge0rG jonas’: not gonna happen in the next 15 mins
  142. dwd Right.
  143. Ge0rG how about "take authorship away and do it right"?
  144. Ge0rG no, I don't volunteer.
  145. jonas’ I do.
  146. dwd Anything else ... XEP-0357? Kev, you'll owe rejection reasons, but I guess those are in your mail to list?
  147. Kev We don't need to take authorship away to do it right, incidentally.
  148. 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
  149. Ge0rG jonas’: my -1 was already conditioned on "make @id = origin-id", but now it looks like it's just -1
  150. Kev I think my mails today about both 357 and 359 are feedback enough on those.
  151. Kev Especially as I'm the person that needs to make the 357 changes.
  152. dwd True.
  153. dwd Congrats on rejecting your own XEP.
  154. Ge0rG Speaking of taking ownership away.
  155. dwd So, PR #716?
  156. dwd I was in favour of dropping the need to signal disco#info over disco#info.
  157. Ge0rG dwd: is #715 fully voted on already?
  158. Ge0rG dwd: re #716, last Council it was brought up that caps hash calculation would be inconsistent then
  159. dwd Ge0rG, Oh, no, daniel hasn't I don't think.
  160. Ge0rG also it's a MUST from a Final XEP
  161. 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).
  162. dwd Ge0rG, I think a client that includes it in disco#info includes it in XEP-0115, surely?
  163. Ge0rG I'm not quite sure what Florian was trying to make on the list responding to my -1.
  164. jonas’ at the very least, doing it inconsistently will defeat some 115/390 caches
  165. Ge0rG dwd: I think that having it being defined implicitly leads to corner cases. Also Final XEP.
  166. Kev We /are/ allowed to modify Final XEPs.
  167. dwd Ge0rG, I'd be more convinced about the Final XEP argument if this affected interop, or indeed was actually followed.
  168. Kev "Every effort" not to, though.
  169. Kev dwd: I think the argument is that an implicit feature there might make future 115 bugs.
  170. jonas’ dwd, I think most implementations do follow it
  171. dwd Ge0rG, The fact that many implementations *don't* include disco#info, and everything still works, really does suggest it's wrong.
  172. 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
  173. 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.
  174. jonas’ I can modify the muclumubs ( https://search.jabber.network ) bot to make a stat on that
  175. Ge0rG +1 to what Kev suggested.
  176. dwd I can see I'm on the losing side here, and can go along with Kev's suggestion.
  177. 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.
  178. 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.
  179. dwd Right - anyone want to discuss anything else?
  180. Kev I'd like to thank everyone for their work this term :)
  181. dwd Ge0rG, I think if implementations were inconsistent then caps would be failing for them and people would have noticed, FWIW.
  182. Kev I think dwd is right.
  183. dwd Kev, Yes, I was going to do this:
  184. dwd 4) Thanks, All.
  185. 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.
  186. dwd Thanks to everyone for your efforts - not only Council, but jonas’s work on Editor stuff, too.
  187. Kev Indeed.
  188. Ge0rG Thanks to you too, Dave.
  189. jonas’ thanks to council :-)
  190. jonas’ this was a fun ride
  191. Kev And to the Chair.
  192. jonas’ let’s see what the numbers tomorrow bring for next year
  193. dwd Also, this year, we've had a number of useful contributions from the floor, so thanks to anyone who's chipped in.
  194. Ge0rG I've heard we didn't pass that many XEPs to Draft, which is maybe a bit sad.
  195. jonas’ exactly one.
  196. jonas’ and it was the compliance suites
  197. jonas’ three months late or something :)
  198. jonas’ but whatever
  199. Ge0rG jonas’: I've heard you are already preparing Compliance Suite 2019.
  200. jonas’ yeah, that cp sure takes a while...
  201. Kev It's not Council's job to make XEPs ready for advancement, mind, so I don't feel too bad about that.
  202. jonas’ Kev, I didn’t mean to make anyone feel bad anyways
  203. jonas’ just for the record :)
  204. Kev 👍
  205. Ge0rG We have five minutes left. Any technical topics?
  206. Kev Happy for the 359 discussion to continue now I don't have to pay as much attention :)
  207. Ge0rG Kev: I'm not sure what's left to discuss there. I'd rather discuss Push.
  208. 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?
  209. Kev 359-2 then :)
  210. Ge0rG Besides, should we propose a meeting time for the new Council?
  211. jonas’ new council will have to figure that out tomorrow night I think
  212. Kev Well, not tomorrow night, but yes.
  213. jonas’ although we could agree on a time; in any case, we know the maximum set of people who’ll be on it anyways
  214. SamWhited oops, sorry, had guests and wasn't paying attention to the time
  215. Ge0rG it's probably overly optimistic to assume that all five candidates will actually receive a majority of votes.
  216. jonas’ Ge0rG, sarcasm?
  217. Ge0rG SamWhited: are you missing any votes?
  218. dwd Ge0rG, Thankfully it needs people to vote against to actually lose.
  219. Ge0rG jonas’: no, just saing it's rather inappropriate to proclaim "I'll probably get reelected anyway"
  220. jonas’ in any case, the wednesday 16:00Z slot wfm
  221. Kev dwd: Simple needs people to not vote for.
  222. jonas’ for now.
  223. SamWhited No, I emailed mine and should be all caught up now
  224. dwd SamWhited, Ooops, soryr - didn't think, it's Turkey Day tomorrow, isn't it.
  225. SamWhited dwd: yup, don't worry, I forgot too and I live here…
  226. dwd Kev, Well, yes, but if they do not vote at all, that's not counted.
  227. daniel has left
  228. Kev I'm not sure that's true.
  229. Kev Someone can submit their vote, for no candidates.
  230. Ge0rG Let's postpone this until after the election.
  231. Kev If a majority of people did that, we'd have no Council.
  232. dwd Kev, True. But that counts as voting.
  233. 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.
  234. Ge0rG Does memberbot allow that?
  235. jonas’ Ge0rG, yes
  236. dwd Ge0rG, Yes.
  237. jonas’ you can abstain for all five
  238. Kev dwd: Yes,t hat's what I said. It just needs people to not vote 'for'.
  239. dwd Anyway. I think we may be done.
  240. jonas’ thanks again y’all
  241. dwd Kev, Yeah, I just think it's more likely they won't vote at all.
  242. dwd So, for the final time this Council:
  243. 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.
  244. dwd 5) Ite, Meeting Est
  245. Kev Diolch, pawb.
  246. Zash Thanks all
  247. jonas’ Kev, as long as this doesn’t happen to board (or whoever has power to fix bylaws), we’re good!
  248. Ge0rG Kev: so we need to define a second ballot process with at most 10 candidates?
  249. 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.
  250. Kev jonas’: I think that for Board we're probably already covered.
  251. Kev dwd: True.
  252. jonas’ dwd, I agree
  253. jonas’ I was a tad surprised to see the memberbot process after reading the bylaws more carefully this time
  254. dwd Meeting's tomorrow night at 1900Z, right?
  255. jonas’ yes
  256. daniel has left
  257. daniel has left
  258. 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 :)
  259. Kev ISTR (without checking) that in the case that we somehow had no Board elected, Peter could pick his own.
  260. dwd jonas’, We did that one time in a meeting when we realised we'd catastrophically f**ked up. Ah, it was fun.
  261. dwd jonas’, Strangely, XSF Meetings were very well attended for the next few.
  262. jonas’ :D
  263. jonas’ storytime?
  264. SouL is paying attention.
  265. Kev There was a thing. Hopefully there isn't a thing again.
  266. daniel has left
  267. daniel has left
  268. daniel has left
  269. vanitasvitae has left
  270. vanitasvitae has joined
  271. peter Kev: I can't do any such thing because I'm no longer the executive director.
  272. Kev Ah, ok. I thought you still were until they found a new one :)
  273. 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.
  274. peter er, board
  275. daniel has left
  276. Kev I prefered your first version :)
  277. peter heh
  278. lnj has joined
  279. Ge0rG Kev: accidentally candidated for the wrong panel?
  280. dwd I hope not, otherwise Council's short.
  281. daniel has left
  282. peter even if the Council were short, it could presumably nominate another member after the election, no?
  283. Kev Yeah.
  284. Kev I think we've entered silly territory now.
  285. Kev "now".
  286. Ge0rG I thought the Council is allowed to be short.
  287. jonas’ tallism!
  288. jonas’ heightism!
  289. ralphm has left
  290. peter :-)
  291. dwd has left
  292. Zash xnyphs for new ED?
  293. Zash xnyhps for new ED?
  294. moparisthebest has left
  295. Link Mauve Re the discussion about XEP-0359 here, what you actually want is to revive https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/689 right?
  296. moparisthebest has joined
  297. Kev Without reading and just going on the title, maybe :)
  298. Ge0rG Discussion on the editor issue tracker.
  299. jonas’ nooo
  300. Ge0rG > XEP-0359: Replace tabs with spaces. WHY?!
  301. Holger has left
  302. 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.
  303. Zash has left
  304. Ge0rG Link Mauve: you could have confused the Council by bringing up #689 right in time for today's Agenda.
  305. Kev Council don't need to be more connfused than usual :p
  306. jonas’ next week, he might be able to confuse himself with that
  307. moparisthebest has left
  308. moparisthebest has joined
  309. vanitasvitae has left
  310. Syndace has joined
  311. labdsf has left
  312. moparisthebest has joined
  313. moparisthebest has joined
  314. Syndace has joined
  315. lnj has left
  316. labdsf has joined
  317. pep. has left
  318. pep. has left
  319. peter has left
  320. labdsf has left
  321. labdsf has joined
  322. moparisthebest has left
  323. moparisthebest has joined
  324. peter has joined
  325. lnj has left
  326. SamWhited has left
  327. Remko has left
  328. lnj has left
  329. Holger has left
  330. Holger has left
  331. moparisthebest has left
  332. moparisthebest has joined
  333. Tobias has joined
  334. labdsf has left
  335. labdsf has joined
  336. peter has left
  337. vanitasvitae has left
  338. Zash has left