XMPP Council - 2018-12-05

gentle reminder of our meeting today

Yeah, I'll be in the middle of another meeting at the time, so will have to take my laptop in with me and stealth-Council.

do that, we need a chair

If for some reason I'm not here, and the only person standing is Dave, +1 to Dave. If for some reason people want me to stand, +1 to me (but I don't see why).

So it looks like we have two half-candidates.

I'd prefer Dave.

So it looks like we have 0.75 candidates.

Yeah.

1) Roll Call

Who do we have?

Here

Is that a whole Kev?

I'm running a retro, but I'm here.

jonas’ and Link Mauve?

here

Link Mauve?

unfortunately, we also don’t have an opinion from Link Mauve on the chair issue from last week...

Sigh.

maybe we can use the waiting time to discuss an Any-Other-Business point from me?

I don’t think we need a formal decision

Sure, let's do that first while we wait for Link Mauve.

about the Compliance Suites

I agreed to do the next iteration

I wonder, do we really want a XEP per year, or do we want to switch to a model where we have a single XEP which is versioned e.g. 2019.1.0

I’d prefer the latter, because there is a canonical point where the most recent suites can be found

Versioned, from me.

and one can still link to a specific version via the attic

I think we had that discussion 1+epsilon years ago, and decided to go with new XEPs

Given the cost of a XEP, I think we should have a XEP a year. But we could ask iTeam to generate a stable URI or something.

Ah, I understood the question wrongly.

I'd do new XEPs, but versioned rather than yeared.

XEP-2019

OIC.

versioned rather than yeared, interesting

but that’s weird to me

Kev: what do you mean?

So we don't commit to having a new compliance suite per year?

Right.

But we still do them as a new XEP each time.

I think that is very non-obvious

to somebody who wants to look at the XEPs I mean

with suite 2018, I know I’ll find at most 2019

if there is no update to the list of XEPs, why not keep the number and change the year, or introduce a year-range?

but if there’s a suite 23.1, how do I know whteher I need to look for 39.2 to find the newest? :/

People don't understand versioning of XEPs, but understand XEP numbers.

Ge0rGOh, +1.

stable URI is an interesting idea, but, uh.

(floor) I'd think it be cool if council could draft something like a vision statement (what we want xmpp to be like in the near future), as complement to the compliance suite (what it should be like right now).

Yeah, I like the idea that we bounce up the year if we don't get a new suite out.

Zash, +1

Zash, Also +1.

XEP-0387: XMPP Compliance Suites 2017-2019

hmm

would be fine with me

although I think this year brought some changes w.r.t. PEP which we should probably pick up, but I haven’t looked at '387 recently, so my memory might be fuzzy on what needs to be changed.

jonas’: not with me. It's missing 0184

Ge0rG, conceptually, not this specific instance.

(and see above)

Zash: with the usual position of council, it would be great if somebody from the floor submitted a proto-XEP of that vision statement

though maybe XEP is not the right tool for the job.

ah, that was also discussed in the suites discussion last year

but I don’t think we have a better tool at the moment, do we?

A header in the official XEP list? It should also have a prominent link to the current Compliance Suite

the wiki may be... for the vision statement

I don’t think the header above the list is a good one

So, what was the argument for using a year?

for using a year in which context?

Kev: so readers can estimate freshness

We were talking about bumping years if we didn't publish new things.

But I was wondering why we wanted a year at all.

Kev, SO we can show we're exciting and Now.

yeah

I think that’s really a bit important

having something to point at where a recent year is prominently shown is surely important to folks

Yes, as do I.

Also to have disambiguation from "Compliance Suite 2012" etc.

The publishing year is still ther.

+e

Kev, it’s not prominently in the title though

Kev, True, but without the same impact.

if it’s not shown in the Facebook preview snippet when you post a link, it’s not there ;-)

Kev, The Compliance suites were always mostly about a markteting device.

The XSF is bad at marketing.

Ge0rG, This is also true.

Anyway, if someone could write up these thoughts for the list (assuming we don't capture them as minutes), I think it'd be interesting to hear from the community on this one.

Meanwhile:

2) Election of a Chair.

Dave

(considering the timing, I’d make a call and go with "make a new XEP for 2019")

Dave

I suggest we open the vote, and let Link Mauvevote on list at this point. Usual rules apply - two week expiry etc. Though hopefully we don't need that...

I agree.

Ge0rG, You voting now or on the list?

Dave

or is it "+Dave"?

I suppose I'd better stand now.

OK, four votes for me. Feel free to change your minds as usual until Link Mauve makes a final vote.

jonas’, Who do we have as Editors currently?

doing actual git work? 99% me

jcbrand does some good triaging on the repository

OK, so should we ask Board to find some more?

doesn’t hurt

bus factor and so on

Are Guus and Sam still in the Editors team?

Guus never was, I think?

Sam is

(and a bunch of other folks)

https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/members.html

I’ll make a PR against the data to update that page with new council

Sam nominally is, but I think he was caught up with Council last year. Ash, M&M, and co have all drifted off.

Oh, sorry

jonas’, Any chance you could have a look through to see if anything's pending? Last Calls completed etc?

dwd, will do

Thanks.

there is a ProtoXEP in the queue, I hope to process the queue tomorrow

Any other any other business?

I've had a deep look into Moved.

If people are interested.

(FYI: <https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/487>)

Ge0rG, I am

okay. Moved is a mess. It relies on presence subscribe / unsubscribe stanzas, which are ephemeral. To make it work reliably, you'd need to have something like a tombstone hosted on the old account,e.g. in PEP

and then you could send <moved> payloads in messages to inform clients of the change.

maybe we should stop trying to make this work without server support.

Well, that.

at least on the moved-from server.

there are multiple sub-tasks to accomplish: 1. let other people who want to add your old JID know that you moved 2. change all your friends' rosters to your new JID 3. inform all your friends' clients of the binding between old and new jid, so they can manipulate the chat history.

manipulate = merge / show cross-links

Ge0rG, I am actually interested in this, but I'm also a bit busy - any chance we can continue afterward and/or on list?

ideally, I wanted a way to make a partial move possible (i.e. only move a certain roster group to a new account), but that'll break with PEP tombstones

dwd: yes

OK, thanks. QUickly then:

N) Next Meeting

Ge0rG, interesting point

but on list seems fine by me

I'll assume this time next week works for everyone?

I've arrived at a point where fixing Moved wll be a full rewrite anyway. All that remains is the wire format.

dwd, wfm

+1W WFM

Ge0rG, wfm; it’s experimental & deferred. go ahead.

I prefer that over yet-another-duplicated-xep

ok, it’s not deferred anymore, but you get it

N+1) Ite, Meeting Est.

Thanks all.

thanks, dave

thanks Dave

I thought that was going to be easy to follow with just one trivial vote, and it ended up all over the place, so no idea what just happened.

Sorry.

Kev, Blame the chair.