XMPP Council - 2018-12-05

  1. jonas’

    gentle reminder of our meeting today

  2. Kev

    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.

  3. jonas’

    do that, we need a chair

  4. Kev

    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).

  5. Ge0rG

    So it looks like we have two half-candidates.

  6. Kev

    I'd prefer Dave.

  7. Ge0rG

    So it looks like we have 0.75 candidates.

  8. jonas’ summons dwd and Link Mauve

  9. dwd


  10. dwd

    1) Roll Call

  11. dwd

    Who do we have?

  12. jonas’ is here

  13. Kev


  14. dwd

    Is that a whole Kev?

  15. Ge0rG is here

  16. Kev

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

  17. dwd

    jonas’ and Link Mauve?

  18. jonas’


  19. dwd

    Link Mauve?

  20. jonas’

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

  21. dwd


  22. jonas’

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

  23. jonas’

    I don’t think we need a formal decision

  24. dwd

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

  25. jonas’

    about the Compliance Suites

  26. jonas’

    I agreed to do the next iteration

  27. jonas’

    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

  28. jonas’

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

  29. Kev

    Versioned, from me.

  30. jonas’

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

  31. Ge0rG

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

  32. dwd

    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.

  33. Kev

    Ah, I understood the question wrongly.

  34. Kev

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

  35. Ge0rG


  36. dwd


  37. jonas’

    versioned rather than yeared, interesting

  38. jonas’

    but that’s weird to me

  39. Ge0rG

    Kev: what do you mean?

  40. dwd

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

  41. Kev


  42. dwd

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

  43. jonas’

    I think that is very non-obvious

  44. jonas’

    to somebody who wants to look at the XEPs I mean

  45. jonas’

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

  46. Ge0rG

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

  47. jonas’

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

  48. Kev

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

  49. dwd

    Ge0rGOh, +1.

  50. jonas’

    stable URI is an interesting idea, but, uh.

  51. Zash

    (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).

  52. dwd

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

  53. jonas’

    Zash, +1

  54. dwd

    Zash, Also +1.

  55. Ge0rG

    XEP-0387: XMPP Compliance Suites 2017-2019

  56. jonas’


  57. jonas’

    would be fine with me

  58. jonas’

    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.

  59. Ge0rG

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

  60. jonas’

    Ge0rG, conceptually, not this specific instance.

  61. jonas’

    (and see above)

  62. Ge0rG

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

  63. Ge0rG

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

  64. jonas’

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

  65. jonas’

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

  66. Ge0rG

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

  67. jonas’

    the wiki may be... for the vision statement

  68. jonas’

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

  69. Kev

    So, what was the argument for using a year?

  70. jonas’

    for using a year in which context?

  71. Ge0rG

    Kev: so readers can estimate freshness

  72. dwd wonders if Link Mauveis coming.

  73. Kev

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

  74. Kev

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

  75. dwd

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

  76. jonas’


  77. jonas’

    I think that’s really a bit important

  78. jonas’

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

  79. dwd

    Yes, as do I.

  80. Ge0rG

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

  81. Kev

    The publishing year is still ther.

  82. Kev


  83. jonas’

    Kev, it’s not prominently in the title though

  84. dwd

    Kev, True, but without the same impact.

  85. jonas’

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

  86. dwd

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

  87. Ge0rG

    The XSF is bad at marketing.

  88. dwd

    Ge0rG, This is also true.

  89. dwd

    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.

  90. dwd


  91. dwd

    2) Election of a Chair.

  92. Kev


  93. jonas’

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

  94. jonas’


  95. dwd

    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...

  96. jonas’

    I agree.

  97. dwd

    Ge0rG, You voting now or on the list?

  98. Ge0rG


  99. Ge0rG

    or is it "+Dave"?

  100. dwd

    I suppose I'd better stand now.

  101. dwd

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

  102. dwd

    jonas’, Who do we have as Editors currently?

  103. jonas’

    doing actual git work? 99% me

  104. jonas’

    jcbrand does some good triaging on the repository

  105. dwd

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

  106. jonas’

    doesn’t hurt

  107. jonas’

    bus factor and so on

  108. Ge0rG

    Are Guus and Sam still in the Editors team?

  109. jonas’

    Guus never was, I think?

  110. jonas’

    Sam is

  111. jonas’

    (and a bunch of other folks)

  112. jonas’


  113. jonas’

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

  114. dwd

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

  115. Ge0rG

    Oh, sorry

  116. dwd

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

  117. jonas’

    dwd, will do

  118. dwd


  119. jonas’

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

  120. dwd

    Any other any other business?

  121. Ge0rG

    I've had a deep look into Moved.

  122. Ge0rG

    If people are interested.

  123. jonas’

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

  124. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I am

  125. Ge0rG

    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

  126. Ge0rG

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

  127. jonas’

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

  128. dwd

    Well, that.

  129. jonas’

    at least on the moved-from server.

  130. Ge0rG

    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.

  131. Ge0rG

    manipulate = merge / show cross-links

  132. dwd

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

  133. Ge0rG

    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

  134. Ge0rG

    dwd: yes

  135. dwd

    OK, thanks. QUickly then:

  136. dwd

    N) Next Meeting

  137. jonas’

    Ge0rG, interesting point

  138. jonas’

    but on list seems fine by me

  139. dwd

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

  140. Ge0rG

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

  141. jonas’

    dwd, wfm

  142. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  143. jonas’

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

  144. jonas’

    I prefer that over yet-another-duplicated-xep

  145. jonas’

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

  146. dwd

    N+1) Ite, Meeting Est.

  147. dwd

    Thanks all.

  148. jonas’

    thanks, dave

  149. Ge0rG

    thanks Dave

  150. Kev

    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.

  151. Ge0rG


  152. dwd

    Kev, Blame the chair.