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.
jonas’
do that, we need a chair
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).
pep.has left
vanitasvitaehas left
Zashhas left
Syndacehas left
ralphmhas left
lnjhas joined
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
Zashhas left
Zashhas left
Syndacehas joined
Zashhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
Zashhas left
Ge0rG
So it looks like we have two half-candidates.
Kev
I'd prefer Dave.
Ge0rG
So it looks like we have 0.75 candidates.
lnjhas left
lnjhas joined
dwdhas joined
Zashhas left
jonas’summons dwd and Link Mauve
dwd
Yeah.
dwd
1) Roll Call
dwd
Who do we have?
jonas’is here
Kev
Here
dwd
Is that a whole Kev?
Ge0rGis here
Kev
I'm running a retro, but I'm here.
dwd
jonas’ and Link Mauve?
jonas’
here
dwd
Link Mauve?
jonas’
unfortunately, we also don’t have an opinion from Link Mauve on the chair issue from last week...
dwd
Sigh.
jonas’
maybe we can use the waiting time to discuss an Any-Other-Business point from me?
jonas’
I don’t think we need a formal decision
dwd
Sure, let's do that first while we wait for Link Mauve.
jonas’
about the Compliance Suites
jonas’
I agreed to do the next iteration
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
jonas’
I’d prefer the latter, because there is a canonical point where the most recent suites can be found
Kev
Versioned, from me.
jonas’
and one can still link to a specific version via the attic
Ge0rG
I think we had that discussion 1+epsilon years ago, and decided to go with new XEPs
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.
Kev
Ah, I understood the question wrongly.
Kev
I'd do new XEPs, but versioned rather than yeared.
Ge0rG
XEP-2019
dwd
OIC.
jonas’
versioned rather than yeared, interesting
jonas’
but that’s weird to me
Ge0rG
Kev: what do you mean?
dwd
So we don't commit to having a new compliance suite per year?
Kev
Right.
dwd
But we still do them as a new XEP each time.
jonas’
I think that is very non-obvious
jonas’
to somebody who wants to look at the XEPs I mean
jonas’
with suite 2018, I know I’ll find at most 2019
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?
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? :/
Kev
People don't understand versioning of XEPs, but understand XEP numbers.
dwd
Ge0rGOh, +1.
jonas’
stable URI is an interesting idea, but, uh.
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).
dwd
Yeah, I like the idea that we bounce up the year if we don't get a new suite out.
jonas’
Zash, +1
dwd
Zash, Also +1.
Ge0rG
XEP-0387: XMPP Compliance Suites 2017-2019
jonas’
hmm
jonas’
would be fine with me
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.
Ge0rG
jonas’: not with me. It's missing 0184
jonas’
Ge0rG, conceptually, not this specific instance.
jonas’
(and see above)
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
Ge0rG
though maybe XEP is not the right tool for the job.
jonas’
ah, that was also discussed in the suites discussion last year
jonas’
but I don’t think we have a better tool at the moment, do we?
Ge0rG
A header in the official XEP list? It should also have a prominent link to the current Compliance Suite
jonas’
the wiki may be... for the vision statement
jonas’
I don’t think the header above the list is a good one
Kev
So, what was the argument for using a year?
jonas’
for using a year in which context?
Ge0rG
Kev: so readers can estimate freshness
dwdwonders if Link Mauveis coming.
Kev
We were talking about bumping years if we didn't publish new things.
Kev
But I was wondering why we wanted a year at all.
dwd
Kev, SO we can show we're exciting and Now.
jonas’
yeah
jonas’
I think that’s really a bit important
jonas’
having something to point at where a recent year is prominently shown is surely important to folks
dwd
Yes, as do I.
Ge0rG
Also to have disambiguation from "Compliance Suite 2012" etc.
Kev
The publishing year is still ther.
Kev
+e
jonas’
Kev, it’s not prominently in the title though
dwd
Kev, True, but without the same impact.
jonas’
if it’s not shown in the Facebook preview snippet when you post a link, it’s not there ;-)
dwd
Kev, The Compliance suites were always mostly about a markteting device.
Ge0rG
The XSF is bad at marketing.
dwd
Ge0rG, This is also true.
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.
dwd
Meanwhile:
dwd
2) Election of a Chair.
Kev
Dave
jonas’
(considering the timing, I’d make a call and go with "make a new XEP for 2019")
jonas’
Dave
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...
vanitasvitaehas left
jonas’
I agree.
dwd
Ge0rG, You voting now or on the list?
Ge0rG
Dave
Ge0rG
or is it "+Dave"?
dwd
I suppose I'd better stand now.
dwd
OK, four votes for me. Feel free to change your minds as usual until Link Mauve makes a final vote.
dwd
jonas’, Who do we have as Editors currently?
jonas’
doing actual git work? 99% me
jonas’
jcbrand does some good triaging on the repository
dwd
OK, so should we ask Board to find some more?
jonas’
doesn’t hurt
jonas’
bus factor and so on
Ge0rG
Are Guus and Sam still in the Editors team?
jonas’
Guus never was, I think?
jonas’
Sam is
jonas’
(and a bunch of other folks)
jonas’
https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/members.html
jonas’
I’ll make a PR against the data to update that page with new council
dwd
Sam nominally is, but I think he was caught up with Council last year. Ash, M&M, and co have all drifted off.
Ge0rG
Oh, sorry
dwd
jonas’, Any chance you could have a look through to see if anything's pending? Last Calls completed etc?
jonas’
dwd, will do
dwd
Thanks.
jonas’
there is a ProtoXEP in the queue, I hope to process the queue tomorrow
dwd
Any other any other business?
Ge0rG
I've had a deep look into Moved.
Ge0rG
If people are interested.
jonas’
(FYI: <https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/487>)
jonas’
Ge0rG, I am
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
Ge0rG
and then you could send <moved> payloads in messages to inform clients of the change.
jonas’
maybe we should stop trying to make this work without server support.
dwd
Well, that.
jonas’
at least on the moved-from server.
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.
Ge0rG
manipulate = merge / show cross-links
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?
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
Ge0rG
dwd: yes
dwd
OK, thanks. QUickly then:
dwd
N) Next Meeting
jonas’
Ge0rG, interesting point
jonas’
but on list seems fine by me
dwd
I'll assume this time next week works for everyone?
Ge0rG
I've arrived at a point where fixing Moved wll be a full rewrite anyway. All that remains is the wire format.
jonas’
dwd, wfm
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
jonas’
Ge0rG, wfm; it’s experimental & deferred. go ahead.
jonas’
I prefer that over yet-another-duplicated-xep
jonas’
ok, it’s not deferred anymore, but you get it
dwd
N+1) Ite, Meeting Est.
dwd
Thanks all.
jonas’
thanks, dave
Ge0rG
thanks Dave
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
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.