XMPP Council - 2018-12-12

  1. dos has left
  2. Zash has left
  3. vanitasvitae has left
  4. vanitasvitae has joined
  5. moparisthebest has left
  6. moparisthebest has joined
  7. moparisthebest has left
  8. moparisthebest has joined
  9. 4 has joined
  10. 4 yellow vest revolutionary council : 🏦 🗼
  11. 4 join the revolution : giletsjaunes@muc.jeproteste.info 😡 🏃‍♀️ 👩‍👩‍👧‍👦 ✊ 🧡
  12. moparisthebest Aw man did they raise xsf membership tax
  13. labdsf has left
  14. labdsf has joined
  15. labdsf has left
  16. ralphm has left
  17. jonas’ theheck?
  18. SouL has left
  19. ralphm has left
  20. labdsf has joined
  21. guus.der.kinderen > Aw man did they raise xsf membership tax 🤣
  22. guus.der.kinderen Also, that avatar had a green shirt.
  23. Tobias has joined
  24. moparisthebest has left
  25. moparisthebest has joined
  26. Zash has left
  27. Zash has left
  28. Zash has left
  29. ralphm has left
  30. vanitasvitae has left
  31. vanitasvitae has joined
  32. akash has joined
  33. Tobias has joined
  34. akash has left
  35. Tobias has joined
  36. akash has joined
  37. akash has left
  38. akash has joined
  39. Tobias has left
  40. Tobias has joined
  41. daniel has left
  42. daniel has joined
  43. akash has left
  44. akash has joined
  45. akash has left
  46. vanitasvitae has left
  47. vanitasvitae has joined
  48. moparisthebest has joined
  49. moparisthebest has joined
  50. vanitasvitae has left
  51. vanitasvitae has joined
  52. vanitasvitae has left
  53. vanitasvitae has joined
  54. akash has joined
  55. akash has left
  56. akash has joined
  57. daniel has left
  58. daniel has joined
  59. Zash has left
  60. Zash has left
  61. vanitasvitae has left
  62. vanitasvitae has joined
  63. vanitasvitae has left
  64. vanitasvitae has joined
  65. akash has left
  66. vanitasvitae has left
  67. vanitasvitae has joined
  68. akash has joined
  69. Zash has left
  70. Zash has left
  71. akash has left
  72. akash has joined
  73. labdsf has left
  74. labdsf has joined
  75. Zash has left
  76. akash has left
  77. akash has joined
  78. vanitasvitae has left
  79. vanitasvitae has left
  80. vanitasvitae has joined
  81. Zash has left
  82. lnj has joined
  83. 4 has left
  84. 4 has joined
  85. akash has left
  86. akash has joined
  87. vanitasvitae has left
  88. vanitasvitae has joined
  89. Zash has left
  90. akash has left
  91. akash has joined
  92. Zash has left
  93. Zash has left
  94. ralphm has left
  95. Ge0rG has joined
  96. akash has left
  97. akash has joined
  98. Ge0rG Is it that time of the week again?
  99. jonas’ it is!
  100. jonas’ well, in 8 minutes
  101. Link Mauve And this time I’m here! Sorry again for last week.
  102. Ge0rG Link Mauve: you better have some beverages with you this time
  103. Link Mauve I have tea besides me, like always.
  104. jonas’ imagines Link Mauve with a cup of tea while protesting
  105. jonas’ that’s too british for you
  106. jonas’ I think?
  107. Zash Spent too long on that island?
  108. Link Mauve I had rooibos in my thermos last Saturday. ^^
  109. lnj has left
  110. Link Mauve In addition to a bottle of water, pretty much mandatory.
  111. jonas’ I bet that thermos is classified as weaponry.
  112. jonas’ because hard and such
  113. Link Mauve Damn, if I can’t import British customs anymore… Down with the Queen^Wpresident!
  114. Ge0rG you May have some problems.
  115. jonas’ oh my god.
  116. akash has left
  117. akash has joined
  118. Kev 'tis time.
  119. jonas’ 'tis time.
  120. Kev And we seem at first glance to not have a chair.
  121. Kev pokes Dave.
  122. Ge0rG Does the XSF have a furniture budget?
  123. dwd has joined
  124. dwd Afternoon.
  125. jonas’ woo
  126. dwd Sorry, just dashed back from an external meeting across the city.
  127. Ge0rG Kev: your magic worked!
  128. dwd So:
  129. dwd 1) Roll Call:
  130. jonas’
  131. Link Mauve /me
  132. Link Mauve
  133. Ge0rG
  134. dwd XEP-0245
  135. Kev I is still here, naturally.
  136. dwd Full House!
  137. dwd 2) Items for a vote:
  138. jonas’ (not sure if dwd is waiting for suggestions or searching in his documents)
  139. jonas’ (we did have a ProtoXEP submission at least)
  140. dwd a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Simple Buttons Inbox
  141. dwd https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buttons.html
  142. dwd (Searching and fighting with a MacBook. Awful things)
  143. jonas’ soo... I’m not happy with the things quality editor wise
  144. dwd Tempting to veto this until the examples are funnier.
  145. dwd jonas’, How so?
  146. jonas’ e.g. the "OPTIONAL." thing which is left over below the Glossary heading
  147. jonas’ section 9 is questionable too
  148. jonas’ and such
  149. jonas’ but I’m not here with my editor’s hat
  150. Ge0rG Do we have other comparable XEPs in place?
  151. jonas’ Ge0rG, in terms of functionality or in terms of editorial quality?
  152. Kev We have accepted very raw XEPs in the past, if that's the question.
  153. Ge0rG in terms of functionality.
  154. dwd We've had a number of early Experimental XEPs in similar condition over the years, I think.
  155. Kev Often mine. Although I'm not sure I've gone quite this far.
  156. Link Mauve Ge0rG, we do have 0050, it’s mentioned already.
  157. jonas’ Ge0rG, not that I know. the closest is data forms and ad-hoc, but they don’t do quite the same thing.
  158. Ge0rG I wonder if embedding a data form into a message would make sense instead.
  159. Kev They do so dangerously close to the same thing that a new mechanism seems wrong to me.
  160. Zash There's precedent for dataforms in messages in eg 0045
  161. jonas’ Kev, which?
  162. Kev (xep4 in messages)
  163. jonas’ indeed, kind of
  164. Zash I did a draft of that but it was ugly and horrifying and let's not go that way
  165. dwd Do we have buttons in dataforms?
  166. Ge0rG I kind of fear data-forms indeed.
  167. Kev I appreciate forms don't quite do buttons yet, but extending them for that and i18n seems more appropriate at first glance than a new mechanism that we'll later need to extend for other form things.
  168. akash has left
  169. jonas’ dwd, no, but they could be handled with a list-single
  170. Zash dwd: not really
  171. Link Mauve dwd, we have list-single, which is close enough.
  172. Ge0rG aren't actions akin to buttons?
  173. Link Mauve It already is represented by buttons in some clients when there are few choices.
  174. Zash Ge0rG: those are fixed at next/prev/cancel/complete
  175. dwd Well, maybe - but with ad-hoc we did actions, as Ge0rG implies, not in dataforms.
  176. jonas’ Ge0rG, they’re a Ad-Hoc thing, not a Data Forms thing
  177. akash has joined
  178. Zash dataforms in message: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-79
  179. jonas’ vanilla Ad-Hoc does not allow passing the context of the conversation in which this is happening
  180. jonas’ which this ProtoXEP does
  181. jonas’ and which any solution which wants to have this needs to
  182. Ge0rG jonas’: I don't see context in this protoXEP
  183. jonas’ Ge0rG, @from
  184. jonas’ you can distinguish whether a reply from a user comes via a MUC or not
  185. dwd Ge0rG, There's context of conversation, not of message.
  186. jonas’ although that would probably work via MUC IQs, but maybe let’s not go there either
  187. jonas’ having context of the message is also a possibility with the protoxep by making the values unique
  188. Zash Combine with <thread> or whatever?
  189. jonas’ (e.g. append the @id of the message)
  190. dwd So two questions:
  191. Link Mauve If two people send a <button/> in two following messages with the same @value, you have no way of knowing which one was referenced.
  192. dwd i) Do we think that having buttons in chat messages is OK?
  193. jonas’ Link Mauve, that’s true for a MUC.
  194. dwd ii) Is this method so broken we should abandon it?
  195. jonas’ i) yes, I do think that.
  196. Ge0rG +1 to (i), not sure about (ii)
  197. jonas’ I do think that we should have that in fact, because there are many good and reasonable use-cases for this. Memberbot being one of them.
  198. Link Mauve jonas’, for direct chats too, if your contact sends you the same set of buttons twice.
  199. Kev i) I think some use case involving something like this is valid (not quite answering the question)
  200. jonas’ Link Mauve, that’s your contact’s fault.
  201. Link Mauve dwd, i) definitely.
  202. dwd jonas’, memberbot gets around the lack by using xmpp URIs to click on, which is pretty ikky.
  203. jonas’ dwd, I agree.
  204. Kev ii) It doesn't seem to be actively broken, but that's not the only reason to consider rejecting, I think.
  205. Ge0rG maybe a client should only render the buttons in the last incoming message?
  206. dwd Ge0rG, Or grey them out when clicked.
  207. jonas’ do we wanrt to open the can of worms what the "last message" is again? :)
  208. Zash I'd like a generic <in-reply-to id=.../> plz
  209. jonas’ Zash, SHIM?
  210. Link Mauve ii) I’ve needed way more than “just a set of buttons” a few times, for instance this very poll you’re making could do with a two questions text-single form.
  211. Kev I'm of the opinion that this is the Wrong Way, in the absense of further persuasion.
  212. Link Mauve So, not sure it’s that broken, but it looks very much not usable for more than a very narrow set of usecases.
  213. Kev I just can't quite decide whether I should veto or not.
  214. dwd OK, so can I have some votes please:
  215. jonas’ regarding (ii): - I think those types of features are only useful for bots. - I think this proposal is something to play with. - I also definitely want more extensive features than this.
  216. Kev On-list.
  217. jonas’ I think I’m with Kev, but it’s tricky.
  218. dwd I think I'm +0 on this.
  219. Ge0rG On-list as well, for similar reasons
  220. jonas’ formal question: can I say -1 now and decide to change it to +0 or +1 later on, until everyone has voted or the vote expires?
  221. Kev I'm concerned that people will jump on this, implement the simple stuff, and then immediately start extending with other form fields, and we'll rebuild xep4.
  222. jonas’ Kev, very valid convern
  223. dwd jonas’, We have, historically, allowed changes to votes until the last vote comes in, yes.
  224. jonas’ Kev, very valid concern.
  225. Kev jonas’: I see nothing wrong with 'on-list, -1 if I don't do so'.
  226. jonas’ ok.
  227. Link Mauve On list.
  228. dwd jonas’, Also, what Kev says.
  229. jonas’ on-list, -1 if I don’t do that.
  230. Kev (But if you do end up with -1, you're obliged to provide reasons)
  231. dwd jonas’, Though please do vote even if it's to confirm a veto, since otherwise you're delaying the end of the vote.
  232. jonas’ ok
  233. jonas’ also, good point Kev.
  234. jonas’ so changing to pure on-list now, because I can’t give a clear reason for -1 on the spot
  235. Kev You don't have to on the spot, on standards@ is appropriate.
  236. jonas’ Kev, if I say "-1 if I don’t go on-list", I kinda have to though :)
  237. Ge0rG would this protoxep be sufficient for the "interact with a bot" use case?
  238. dwd Out of curiosity, of those on-list, are any of you potentially going to vote +1, or is this a choice between -1 and ±0?
  239. jonas’ Ge0rG, not for the use-cases I have in mind.
  240. Kev This is a choice between -1 and -0.
  241. jonas’ dwd, there is a slim chance of +1
  242. Ge0rG there is a moderate chance of +1
  243. dwd I ask because unless we can find three +1's, there's very little point in continuing.
  244. jonas’ my issue with data forms is still that they don’t have a i18n story, and while others seem to think that you can always discover the right language, I don’t think that’s true.
  245. Ge0rG I like the simplicity of the proposal, and it might be a good self-contained things not bothered by dataforms
  246. jonas’ so on this ground alone, I thnik that this proposal has a material advantage over plain data forms.
  247. dwd jonas’, I'm afraid that i18n in more a theory than a practise anyway.
  248. jonas’ dwd, I know of implementations which send i18n’d error messages, and implementations which can deal with that to some extent.
  249. Kev jonas’: I think we're faced with two options - one is to 'fix' xep4 in whatever way, the other is to invent an entirely new xep4. Given xep4's ubiquity, I'm far more inclined to fix that (until it's shown it can't be fixed).
  250. jonas’ Kev, I agree.
  251. jonas’ although I think that XEP-0004 in itself does too many things already.
  252. jonas’ (I don’t like the mix of forms and reports under the same element, it makes implementations weird and validation more complex than necessary.)
  253. dwd Kev, The other alternative is a sort of mutation of XEP-0050 for chat.
  254. Kev dwd: Essentially extending xep4, I think, so I'd put that under the same heading.
  255. Zash 'submit' type form field?
  256. Zash Like <input type=submit> in html?
  257. jonas’ just a list-single with a specific var would do, no?
  258. dwd Anyway, you're all on-list, so let's move on.
  259. dwd Although what to, I'm not so sure - do we have anything else to vote on?
  260. Kev https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cs-2019.html ?
  261. jonas’ did previous council close the votes on #716, #715? sorry, I don’t have that in my mental cache at the moment and they’re still open on github
  262. jonas’ oh, yeah, and that
  263. dwd Yes, just getting to that.
  264. jonas’ (for future reference: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/716 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/715 )
  265. dwd b) Proposed XMPP Extension: XMPP Compliance Suites 2019
  266. dwd https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cs-2019.html
  267. akash has left
  268. jonas’ +1, but I’d like a discussion on why the CS are on the Standards Track and not Informational. It doesn’t make sense to me, semantically, except that XEP-0001 specifically lists CS to be on Standards Track.
  269. Link Mauve +1, even though there are a few new XEPs missing from it which would be useful in 2019, but that can be fixed.
  270. dwd I'm +1 on this.
  271. Ge0rG +1 for moving to experimental
  272. Kev I only caught this just before Council, so I need to on-list.
  273. Kev Sorry.
  274. Ge0rG jonas’: what's the delta to CS'18?
  275. dwd jonas’, Adding a delta to the document would be handy, actually.
  276. Ge0rG (I think it would make sense to mention new / removed XEPs in the Revision History)
  277. jonas’ Ge0rG, that would make sense if it was the same document
  278. Kev It would anyway, I think.
  279. jonas’ one sec for the "diff"
  280. Kev Not here necessarily, in the XEP itself.
  281. Ge0rG jonas’: IMHO, it would make sense to keep the whole history of CS in the newest one.
  282. Link Mauve As per my email from last meeting, I’d like to make a lot more noise about compliance suites, calling it XMPP 2019 and doing a lot of marketing around this, pointing fingers to Pidgin and other abandonned clients.
  283. jonas’ Ge0rG, that’s awful
  284. jonas’ Link Mauve, maybe sync up with Tedd Sterr on this
  285. Ge0rG yaxim is abandoned by that definition 😢
  286. jonas’ Ge0rG, ok, the diff is unreadable even for me, so I’d like to do that in a quiet minute
  287. dwd Link Mauve, It's something to be pushed up to the Board,m actually.
  288. Link Mauve Ge0rG, the goal is to stop with the complaint that XMPP is bad because Pidgin is bad.
  289. Link Mauve dwd, indeed.
  290. Ge0rG jonas’: at the minimum I'd like to see what changed since the last CS in the revision history
  291. jonas’ Ge0rG, can do, but not right now
  292. Ge0rG Link Mauve: I know, but as long as Pidgin is advertised by the XSF, this is moot (https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/715)
  293. Zash Is "XMPP is bad because Pidgin is bad" solvable by redefining "XMPP"? I suspect we need to crowd-fund maintanence and development of it to fix that. :|
  294. Ge0rG Link Mauve: I know, but as long as Pidgin is advertised by the XSF, this is moot (https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html)
  295. Zash Is "XMPP is bad because Pidgin is bad" solvable by redefining "XMPP"? I suspect we need to crowd-fund maintanence and development of Pidgin to fix that. :|
  296. jonas’ bump the stream header version
  297. Link Mauve Ge0rG, no, we can change things even if we don’t fix all of them at once.
  298. Ge0rG XMPP2 for president!
  299. jonas’ Ge0rG, so you’re -1 until the revision history is fixed?
  300. Zash jonas’: YES! Kill the jabber:client & jabber:server namespaces and unify! :D
  301. jonas’ oh no, you gave your +1 already :)
  302. Ge0rG jonas’: I'm +1
  303. jonas’ Zash, sounds like a plan!
  304. Link Mauve And the announce effect is already something to aim for, for “compliance suites” or whichever new name we’d find.
  305. Link Mauve (I like Rust’s “editions”.)
  306. jonas’ dwd, I think everyone gave a vote or on-list’d?
  307. Ge0rG Link Mauve: we can only change things if all of us are heading in the same direction.
  308. Kev I would very much like to see a logical diff from the previous suite, but that won't be influencing my vote (on-list).
  309. dwd Folks, what the Board chooses to do with the website and the compliance suites once we finish them is out of scope for this meeting.
  310. jonas’ (FWIW, I’d also like input from the xmpp-based social network crowd; they could probably use their own section in the CS)
  311. Ge0rG regarding contents, I think that 0184 belongs to IM Core
  312. Link Mauve I’d like cs-2019 not to supersede cs-2018 until it is set active, but other than that +1.
  313. dwd Link Mauve, I think that's automatically the case.
  314. jonas’ Ge0rG, can you put this on-list or somewhere less ephemeral than this room, please?
  315. Link Mauve dwd, it currently is set to supersede it, even though it’ll be experimental for a while.
  316. Link Mauve But that’s editor’s domain.
  317. dwd Link Mauve, Yes, but it's an intent until it's Active, I believe.
  318. jonas’ it will never be Active
  319. jonas’ because it’s Standards Track
  320. jonas’ it can only become Draft or Final (on the positive side of things)
  321. jonas’ it can only become Draft and Final (on the positive side of things)
  322. dwd ANything else?
  323. dwd (To vote on?)
  324. jonas’ the PRs I mentioned above
  325. dwd jonas’, I'll check the status of those PRs later. I cannot recall their status either.
  326. jonas’ ok
  327. jonas’ fine with me
  328. dwd 3) AOB
  329. jonas’ just a quick note that we have had a XEP-0001 modification
  330. Ge0rG IIRC we voted on both PRs.
  331. Link Mauve jonas’, the last council said they didn’t have any pending vote.
  332. jonas’ we can now move Proposed back to Experimental
  333. jonas’ and also that we have a bunch of stuff stuck in Last Call
  334. jonas’ so that would be something to look on for the next meeting
  335. Kev I thought everything got voted on last Council.
  336. dwd KevI think so too.
  337. jonas’ ok, then it’s probably my (editor’s) own oversight
  338. Kev At least, everything I knew needed to be.
  339. jonas’ For reference, those are the open LCs: XEP-0357 (Push Notifications), LC ends: 2018-11-03; https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html XEP-0359 (Unique and Stable Stanza IDs), LC ends: 2018-11-03; https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0359.html XEP-0280 (Message Carbons), LC ends: 2018-02-22; https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload), LC ends: 2018-06-18; https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0363.html
  340. jonas’ since they’re open, I’ll re-start them due to council switch as editor soon-ish
  341. jonas’ just so that you get an idea already.
  342. Kev At least 357 and 359 aren't open, we definitely finished those last Council.
  343. jonas’ (after double-checking that they havent been voted on already)
  344. dwd jonas’, I believe that XEP-0363 is awaiting edits due to feedback, but I might be wrong.
  345. Ge0rG I'm pretty sure we also -1ed Carbons because of XMPP-NG
  346. jonas’ hm
  347. jonas’ ok, I’ll shut up now and do my due diligence as editor. sorry for the noise. :)
  348. dwd Any Other AOB?
  349. jonas’ not from me
  350. dwd 4) Next Meeting
  351. jonas’ +1w WFM
  352. dwd Same XMPP Time, Same XMPP Channel?
  353. Link Mauve WFM.
  354. dwd That's 2018-12-19 16:00 UTC.
  355. Kev I will try to be here. I'll be in another meeting at the same time.
  356. Kev So preemptive tentative apologies.
  357. dwd I'll be (finally!) back at home.
  358. Link Mauve Kev, would another time suit you better?
  359. Kev Not a lot.
  360. Ge0rG I'll be on a train most probably.
  361. Kev It's only next week and last week it's an issue.
  362. Ge0rG Unless, due to strike, I'll be on a car. Which will make typing much more challenging.
  363. jonas’ I can do any day of the week except friday and weekend next week at that time, FWIW
  364. dwd Let's stick with the same time and hope Kev/Georg can make it. We hit Christmas after that anyway.
  365. Link Mauve Yup, at which point we can do the meeting at 35c3. :D
  366. jonas’ (not for me)
  367. dwd 5) Ite, Meeting Est.
  368. dwd Thanks all.
  369. Kev Thanks all.
  370. jonas’ thanks all
  371. Ge0rG Thanks!
  372. Link Mauve Thanks. :)
  373. Ge0rG Oh, I'd also like to advance XEP-0410.
  374. Link Mauve Ge0rG, shouldn’t you do that on standards@?
  375. Ge0rG probably yes
  376. jonas’ you wanna have a Call For Experience issued?
  377. Ge0rG I think I do. We have working implementations in poezio and in yaxim, and the server optimization in ejabberd and prosody
  378. akash has joined
  379. ralphm has left
  380. lnj has joined
  381. akash has left
  382. dos has left
  383. akash has joined
  384. akash has left
  385. akash has joined
  386. dwd has left
  387. Zash has left
  388. Zash has left
  389. 4 has left
  390. akash has left
  391. akash has joined
  392. labdsf has left
  393. labdsf has joined
  394. labdsf has left
  395. lnj has left
  396. Tobias has joined
  397. labdsf has joined
  398. Tobias has joined
  399. labdsf has left
  400. lnj has joined
  401. labdsf has joined
  402. akash has left
  403. akash has joined
  404. akash has left
  405. akash has joined
  406. akash has left
  407. akash has joined
  408. akash has left
  409. akash has joined
  410. lnj has left
  411. akash has left
  412. akash has joined
  413. akash has left
  414. akash has joined
  415. akash has left
  416. akash has joined
  417. akash has left
  418. akash has joined
  419. akash has left
  420. akash has joined
  421. akash has left
  422. akash has joined
  423. akash has left
  424. akash has joined
  425. akash has left
  426. akash has joined
  427. akash has left
  428. akash has joined
  429. akash has left
  430. akash has joined
  431. akash has left
  432. akash has joined
  433. lnj has joined
  434. akash has left
  435. akash has joined
  436. akash has left
  437. akash has joined
  438. akash has left
  439. akash has joined
  440. akash has left
  441. dos has left
  442. akash has joined
  443. akash has left
  444. akash has joined
  445. akash has left
  446. akash has joined
  447. akash has left
  448. akash has joined
  449. lnj has left
  450. akash has left
  451. akash has joined
  452. akash has left
  453. akash has joined
  454. akash has left
  455. akash has joined
  456. akash has left
  457. akash has joined
  458. akash has left
  459. akash has joined
  460. akash has left
  461. akash has joined
  462. Zash has left
  463. akash has left
  464. akash has joined
  465. akash has left
  466. akash has joined
  467. akash has left
  468. akash has joined
  469. akash has left
  470. akash has joined
  471. akash has left
  472. akash has joined
  473. Zash has left
  474. akash has left
  475. akash has joined
  476. akash has left
  477. akash has joined
  478. akash has left
  479. akash has joined
  480. Link Mauve has left
  481. akash has left
  482. akash has joined
  483. akash has left
  484. akash has joined
  485. Link Mauve has joined
  486. akash has left
  487. akash has joined
  488. 4 has joined
  489. akash has left
  490. akash has joined
  491. akash has left
  492. akash has joined
  493. Tobias has left