XMPP Council - 2018-12-19

.

:

meeting?

Meeting.

1) Who's Here?

Um.

Anyone else but me and Ge0rG?

I've seen jonas’

Link Mauve, ?

We'll assume it's just us three, then.

jonas’, I don't think there's anything new for a vote, is that right?

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/727

dwd: I'd like to ask for an LC on 0410

I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Obsolete those XEPs ✏

I think we should bring XEP-0008 to Active (it’s historical)

XEP-0051 can be obsoleted IMO, with reference that the <see-other-host/> stream error should take care of that already.

OK. I don't think we can move things from Deferred to Obsolete.

that is true

Hi.

hi Link Mauve :)

So deferred just means dead, but it can be resurrected.

so: I’d say issue an LC for them; XEP-0008 should go to active IMO, XEP-0051 should be rejected (<see-other-host/>), XEP-0038 I have no idea baout ✏

dwd, we have a process for deferred → experimental → deprecated → obsolete.

My proposal is just to skip some of them, for XEPs we do know we will never need anymore.

Link Mauve, I don't think we do. We have a process for Experimental -> Retracted.

Oh, right.

Retracted needs author though?

Link Mauve, We can go Deferred -> Experimental -> Proposed -> Rejected, if you wanted to go through a Last Call.

jonas’, is there any reason to accept a third avatar XEP though?

jonas’, Indeed.

Link Mauve, it’s historical.

it’s obviously documenting things of the past

that’s as good as Deprecated IMO

In any case, what is the problem you're trying to achieve, Link Mauve?

Isn't Deferred good enough?

dwd, I’d like to sort all of our deferred XEPs into we-won’t-ever-need-them-anymore, and actually-should-go-through-a-last-call.

Deferred is a mixed bag of both.

I kind of like the plan

In the end, I’d like to deprecate this status.

Link Mauve, Going through them to find LC candidates seems useful.

but in any case, you need to LC to go into any other state except Retracted

Link Mauve, You want to get rid of Deferred?

Note that we can appoint anyone as a new author, in order to reach retracted, or even do it ourselves.

dwd, yes.

Or at least, reach a point where useful XEPs are never put in this status anymore.

Link Mauve, Right, but the point fo that state is to declutter Experimental.

then I’d suggest to focus on those which may be useful, and not those which should be Deprecated or whatever

I just started from the beginning of the list.

I have a hard deadline at xx:30, so are we still Meeting?

We are.

In any case, our current process doesn't allow for this, and therefore I'm not keen on even voting on this.

Ok.

Ge0rG, We are actually meeting. Sorry, this was waffly; I'll get things back on track.

Shall I escalate that to the board?

Ge0rG, Your Last Call - what XEP was it?

dwd: Self-Ping

Link Mauve, To the list, if you want.

Ok.

Ge0rG, OK.

2) Voting

a) XEP-0410: MUC Self-Ping (Schrödinger's Chat)

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0410.html

obviously +1

+1 for the LC, I’ve been testing an implementation and it did improve things greatly over the current status quo.

To Last Call.

I'm happy to Last Call this.

+1 to LC

And Kev on list. Cool.

Cool

3) Outstanding Votes.

I think everyone but me owes a vote on Buttons.

yeah

That's Proposed XMPP Extension: Simple Buttons - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buttons.html

I was owing a vote on HTTP Upload from last Council, but that EXPIRED. I suppose

Oh, yeah. The Buttons.

still on-list

I’m going to read through the arguments from last time and vote on-list today or tomorrow

Please look at that. Feel free to air your thoughts on the list, it might shake out some discussion.

4) AOB

I’m going to delay the re-issuance of the LCs from last-council until after western new years, if that’s fine with everyone.

otherwise I don’t see anything happening during the LC period anyways and it’s just wasting resources of people.

Thanks, good plan.

I noticed that jonas’ has pushed through XEP-0412 (the new compliance suite) without waiting Kev's on-list vote.

jonas’: yes please, I also haven't reviewed the new 0363 yet

dwd, yeah, I noticed too, but I couldn’t get hold of Kev to discuss how to move forward

I have literally no idea what to do about that.

git revert is always an option

Not really. It's a process violation, and we have no process for that. :-)

We could just pretend that it didn't happen until Kev (+1|0)s, and escalate if he -1s

and by escalate I mean git revert

I’d prefer that route proposked by Ge0rG, because it is minimal on resources.

git revert and an apology from Editor-me to the list ✏

I think a git revert is a very bad idea.

why?

It might lead to XEP-0412 referring to a different XEP.

Not if the editor is smart.

Because the XSF is already doing too much process for process sake.

oh, Kev is here.

And I think carry on and hope Kev doesn't -1.

If he does, panic about that later.

Keep calm and vote +1

Ge0rG, We do process so that we avoid people saying we're being arbitrary.

Kev, fwiw, I’ll hate you if you -1 on the 24th

(or actually any time after Friday, because I’ll be on vacation-ish then)

;-)

The sky isn't going to fall regardless.

If it's January before we resolve a -1 it's not going to kill anyone.

So my view is that this is a process violation and we flag it with Board, saying we're going to wait and see what Kev votes (etc).

I wouldn't even bother flagging it, but whatever.

It's about "Compliance Suite 2019", and we've had a history of attempting to publish it before the year in the name

dwd, yeah, I’d say, despite having process, we’re still humans and mistakes happen, and we can roll them back (that’s what we have version control for). and we can then discuss if we tombstone XEP-0412 or if we reserve if for the CS-2019 version which will eventually be accepted

dwd, fine with me

I’ll put it on the boards trello ✏

Kev, I think that the Board, as guardians of the process, are probably the right people to decide on what we do.

Kev: we still have 4mins of meeting left, which you might use to issue votes

5) Next Meeting

I'm not around next week. If you guys really want to meet the day after Christmas...

is this a fair text for the trello item: XEP-0412 was published before the council vote was finished, and there is a possibility that it is now vetoed. Council stances: - Ge0rG, Jonas, Kev: worry about -1 when it happens, hope for +0/+1 - dwd: Ask board what to do. ?

I won’t be there either

I’ll be somewhere between Paris and Leipzig next week, I suggest doing +2W this time.

+1 on +2w

jonas’, Text looks accurate. Though I'm in favour of the proposed solution too. :-)

OK, so 2nd January 2019, 1600 UTC.

updated: XEP-0412 was published before the council vote was finished, and there is a possibility that it is now vetoed. Council stances: - Ge0rG, Jonas, Kev, dwd: worry about -1 when it happens, hope for +0/+1 dwd still wants to raise this to board, to be sure, since board is guardian of the process.

I’m +1 on not worrying, which I do most of the time anyway. :D

6) Ite, Meeting Est.

(Fractionally ahead of the half hour mark)

\o/

Thanks all!

+1 on +2w

hm

jonas’: when will you finally write that plugin that translates your [mh]* into English?

Ge0rG, there was supposed to be something following that, but I decided to put it into xsf@ instead.

> dwd> Link Mauve, Right, but the point fo that [deferred] state is to declutter Experimental. And they can be brought back with a typo fix? :-°