-
jonas’
.
-
Ge0rG
:
-
jonas’
meeting?
- Ge0rG .o/
-
dwd
Meeting.
-
dwd
1) Who's Here?
- Ge0rG .o/
-
dwd
Um.
-
dwd
Anyone else but me and Ge0rG?
- jonas’
-
Ge0rG
I've seen jonas’
-
dwd
Link Mauve, ?
-
dwd
We'll assume it's just us three, then.
-
dwd
jonas’, I don't think there's anything new for a vote, is that right?
-
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/727
-
Ge0rG
dwd: I'd like to ask for an LC on 0410
-
jonas’
I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Defer those XEPs✎ -
jonas’
I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Deprecate those XEPs✎ ✏ -
jonas’
I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Obsolete those XEPs ✏
-
jonas’
I think we should bring XEP-0008 to Active (it’s historical)
-
jonas’
XEP-0051 can be obsoleted IMO, with reference that the <see-other-host/> stream error should take care of that already.
-
dwd
OK. I don't think we can move things from Deferred to Obsolete.
-
jonas’
that is true
-
Link Mauve
Hi.
-
jonas’
hi Link Mauve :)
-
dwd
So deferred just means dead, but it can be resurrected.
-
jonas’
so: I’d say issue an LC for dt✎ -
jonas’
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 ✏
-
Link Mauve
dwd, we have a process for deferred → experimental → deprecated → obsolete.
-
Link Mauve
My proposal is just to skip some of them, for XEPs we do know we will never need anymore.
-
dwd
Link Mauve, I don't think we do. We have a process for Experimental -> Retracted.
-
Link Mauve
Oh, right.
-
jonas’
Retracted needs author though?
-
dwd
Link Mauve, We can go Deferred -> Experimental -> Proposed -> Rejected, if you wanted to go through a Last Call.
-
Link Mauve
jonas’, is there any reason to accept a third avatar XEP though?
-
dwd
jonas’, Indeed.
-
jonas’
Link Mauve, it’s historical.
-
jonas’
it’s obviously documenting things of the past
-
jonas’
that’s as good as Deprecated IMO
-
dwd
In any case, what is the problem you're trying to achieve, Link Mauve?
-
dwd
Isn't Deferred good enough?
-
Link Mauve
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.
-
Link Mauve
Deferred is a mixed bag of both.
-
jonas’
I kind of like the plan
-
Link Mauve
In the end, I’d like to deprecate this status.
-
dwd
Link Mauve, Going through them to find LC candidates seems useful.
-
jonas’
but in any case, you need to LC to go into any other state except Retracted
-
dwd
Link Mauve, You want to get rid of Deferred?
-
Link Mauve
Note that we can appoint anyone as a new author, in order to reach retracted, or even do it ourselves.
-
Link Mauve
dwd, yes.
-
Link Mauve
Or at least, reach a point where useful XEPs are never put in this status anymore.
-
dwd
Link Mauve, Right, but the point fo that state is to declutter Experimental.
-
jonas’
then I’d suggest to focus on those which may be useful, and not those which should be Deprecated or whatever
-
Link Mauve
I just started from the beginning of the list.
-
Ge0rG
I have a hard deadline at xx:30, so are we still Meeting?
-
Link Mauve
We are.
-
dwd
In any case, our current process doesn't allow for this, and therefore I'm not keen on even voting on this.
-
Link Mauve
Ok.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, We are actually meeting. Sorry, this was waffly; I'll get things back on track.
-
Link Mauve
Shall I escalate that to the board?
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Your Last Call - what XEP was it?
-
Ge0rG
dwd: Self-Ping
-
dwd
Link Mauve, To the list, if you want.
-
Link Mauve
Ok.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, OK.
-
dwd
2) Voting
-
dwd
a) XEP-0410: MUC Self-Ping (Schrödinger's Chat)
-
dwd
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0410.html
-
Ge0rG
obviously +1
-
Link Mauve
+1 for the LC, I’ve been testing an implementation and it did improve things greatly over the current status quo.
-
dwd
To Last Call.
-
dwd
I'm happy to Last Call this.
-
jonas’
+1 to LC
-
dwd
And Kev on list. Cool.
-
Ge0rG
Cool
-
dwd
3) Outstanding Votes.
-
dwd
I think everyone but me owes a vote on Buttons.
-
jonas’
yeah
-
dwd
That's Proposed XMPP Extension: Simple Buttons - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buttons.html
-
Ge0rG
I was owing a vote on HTTP Upload from last Council, but that EXPIRED. I suppose
-
Ge0rG
Oh, yeah. The Buttons.
-
Ge0rG
still on-list
-
jonas’
I’m going to read through the arguments from last time and vote on-list today or tomorrow
-
dwd
Please look at that. Feel free to air your thoughts on the list, it might shake out some discussion.
-
dwd
4) AOB
-
jonas’
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.
-
jonas’
otherwise I don’t see anything happening during the LC period anyways and it’s just wasting resources of people.
-
dwd
Thanks, good plan.
-
dwd
I noticed that jonas’ has pushed through XEP-0412 (the new compliance suite) without waiting Kev's on-list vote.
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: yes please, I also haven't reviewed the new 0363 yet
-
jonas’
dwd, yeah, I noticed too, but I couldn’t get hold of Kev to discuss how to move forward
-
dwd
I have literally no idea what to do about that.
-
jonas’
git revert is always an option
-
dwd
Not really. It's a process violation, and we have no process for that. :-)
-
Ge0rG
We could just pretend that it didn't happen until Kev (+1|0)s, and escalate if he -1s
-
Ge0rG
and by escalate I mean git revert
-
jonas’
I’d prefer that route proposked by Ge0rG, because it is minimal on resources.
-
jonas’
git revert and an apology from me to the list✎ -
jonas’
git revert and an apology from Editor-me to the list ✏
-
dwd
I think a git revert is a very bad idea.
-
jonas’
why?
-
dwd
It might lead to XEP-0412 referring to a different XEP.
-
Kev
Not if the editor is smart.
-
Ge0rG
Because the XSF is already doing too much process for process sake.
-
jonas’
oh, Kev is here.
-
Kev
And I think carry on and hope Kev doesn't -1.
-
Kev
If he does, panic about that later.
-
Ge0rG
Keep calm and vote +1
-
dwd
Ge0rG, We do process so that we avoid people saying we're being arbitrary.
-
jonas’
Kev, fwiw, I’ll hate you if you -1 on the 24th
-
jonas’
(or actually any time after Friday, because I’ll be on vacation-ish then)
-
jonas’
;-)
-
Kev
The sky isn't going to fall regardless.
-
Kev
If it's January before we resolve a -1 it's not going to kill anyone.
-
dwd
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).
-
Kev
I wouldn't even bother flagging it, but whatever.
-
Ge0rG
It's about "Compliance Suite 2019", and we've had a history of attempting to publish it before the year in the name
-
jonas’
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
-
jonas’
dwd, fine with me
-
jonas’
I’ll but it ont he boards trello✎ - jonas’
-
jonas’
I’ll put it on the boards trello ✏
-
dwd
Kev, I think that the Board, as guardians of the process, are probably the right people to decide on what we do.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: we still have 4mins of meeting left, which you might use to issue votes
- Ge0rG is just saying
-
dwd
5) Next Meeting
-
dwd
I'm not around next week. If you guys really want to meet the day after Christmas...
-
jonas’
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. ?
-
jonas’
I won’t be there either
-
Link Mauve
I’ll be somewhere between Paris and Leipzig next week, I suggest doing +2W this time.
-
jonas’
+1 on +2w
-
dwd
jonas’, Text looks accurate. Though I'm in favour of the proposed solution too. :-)
-
dwd
OK, so 2nd January 2019, 1600 UTC.
-
jonas’
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.
-
Link Mauve
I’m +1 on not worrying, which I do most of the time anyway. :D
-
dwd
6) Ite, Meeting Est.
-
dwd
(Fractionally ahead of the half hour mark)
-
jonas’
\o/
-
Link Mauve
Thanks all!
-
Ge0rG
+1 on +2w
-
jonas’
hm
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: when will you finally write that plugin that translates your [mh]* into English?
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, there was supposed to be something following that, but I decided to put it into xsf@ instead.
-
pep.
> 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? :-°