XMPP Council - 2018-12-19

  1. Zash has left

  2. dos has left

  3. dos has left

  4. Kev has left

  5. Kev has left

  6. Tobias has joined

  7. flow has left

  8. lnj has joined

  9. lnj has left

  10. labdsf has left

  11. Zash has joined

  12. labdsf has joined

  13. flow has joined

  14. Kev has left

  15. Kev has left

  16. Zash has left

  17. Zash has joined

  18. Zash has left

  19. Syndace has left

  20. Syndace has joined

  21. dos has left

  22. dos has left

  23. ralphm has left

  24. Zash has left

  25. ralphm has left

  26. labdsf has left

  27. labdsf has joined

  28. flow has left

  29. flow has joined

  30. Zash has left

  31. Zash has left

  32. labdsf has left

  33. labdsf has joined

  34. Zash has left

  35. labdsf has left

  36. labdsf has joined

  37. Zash has left

  38. lnj has joined

  39. Zash has left

  40. Ge0rG has joined

  41. jonas’


  42. Ge0rG


  43. jonas’


  44. Ge0rG .o/

  45. dwd has joined

  46. dwd


  47. dwd

    1) Who's Here?

  48. Ge0rG .o/

  49. dwd


  50. dwd

    Anyone else but me and Ge0rG?

  51. jonas’

  52. Ge0rG

    I've seen jonas’

  53. dwd

    Link Mauve, ?

  54. dwd

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

  55. dwd

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

  56. jonas’


  57. Ge0rG

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

  58. jonas’

    I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Defer those XEPs

  59. jonas’

    I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Deprecate those XEPs

  60. jonas’

    I read that as Link Mauve proposing to Obsolete those XEPs

  61. jonas’

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

  62. jonas’

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

  63. dwd

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

  64. jonas’

    that is true

  65. Link Mauve


  66. jonas’

    hi Link Mauve :)

  67. dwd

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

  68. jonas’

    so: I’d say issue an LC for dt

  69. 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

  70. Link Mauve

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

  71. Link Mauve

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

  72. dwd

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

  73. Link Mauve

    Oh, right.

  74. jonas’

    Retracted needs author though?

  75. dwd

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

  76. Link Mauve

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

  77. dwd

    jonas’, Indeed.

  78. jonas’

    Link Mauve, it’s historical.

  79. jonas’

    it’s obviously documenting things of the past

  80. jonas’

    that’s as good as Deprecated IMO

  81. dwd

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

  82. dwd

    Isn't Deferred good enough?

  83. 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.

  84. Link Mauve

    Deferred is a mixed bag of both.

  85. jonas’

    I kind of like the plan

  86. Link Mauve

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

  87. dwd

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

  88. jonas’

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

  89. dwd

    Link Mauve, You want to get rid of Deferred?

  90. Link Mauve

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

  91. Link Mauve

    dwd, yes.

  92. Link Mauve

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

  93. dwd

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

  94. jonas’

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

  95. Link Mauve

    I just started from the beginning of the list.

  96. Ge0rG

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

  97. Link Mauve

    We are.

  98. dwd

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

  99. Link Mauve


  100. dwd

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

  101. Link Mauve

    Shall I escalate that to the board?

  102. dwd

    Ge0rG, Your Last Call - what XEP was it?

  103. Ge0rG

    dwd: Self-Ping

  104. dwd

    Link Mauve, To the list, if you want.

  105. Link Mauve


  106. dwd

    Ge0rG, OK.

  107. dwd

    2) Voting

  108. dwd

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

  109. dwd


  110. Ge0rG

    obviously +1

  111. Link Mauve

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

  112. dwd

    To Last Call.

  113. dwd

    I'm happy to Last Call this.

  114. jonas’

    +1 to LC

  115. dwd

    And Kev on list. Cool.

  116. Ge0rG


  117. dwd

    3) Outstanding Votes.

  118. dwd

    I think everyone but me owes a vote on Buttons.

  119. jonas’


  120. dwd

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

  121. Ge0rG

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

  122. Ge0rG

    Oh, yeah. The Buttons.

  123. Ge0rG

    still on-list

  124. jonas’

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

  125. dwd

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

  126. dwd

    4) AOB

  127. 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.

  128. jonas’

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

  129. dwd

    Thanks, good plan.

  130. dwd

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

  131. Ge0rG

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

  132. jonas’

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

  133. dwd

    I have literally no idea what to do about that.

  134. jonas’

    git revert is always an option

  135. dwd

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

  136. Ge0rG

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

  137. Ge0rG

    and by escalate I mean git revert

  138. jonas’

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

  139. jonas’

    git revert and an apology from me to the list

  140. jonas’

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

  141. dwd

    I think a git revert is a very bad idea.

  142. jonas’


  143. dwd

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

  144. Kev

    Not if the editor is smart.

  145. Ge0rG

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

  146. jonas’

    oh, Kev is here.

  147. Kev

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

  148. Kev

    If he does, panic about that later.

  149. Ge0rG

    Keep calm and vote +1

  150. dwd

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

  151. jonas’

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

  152. jonas’

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

  153. jonas’


  154. Kev

    The sky isn't going to fall regardless.

  155. Kev

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

  156. 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).

  157. Kev

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

  158. Ge0rG

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

  159. 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

  160. jonas’

    dwd, fine with me

  161. jonas’

    I’ll but it ont he boards trello

  162. jonas’

    I’ll put it ont he boards trello

  163. jonas’

    I’ll put it on the boards trello

  164. dwd

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

  165. Ge0rG

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

  166. Ge0rG is just saying

  167. dwd

    5) Next Meeting

  168. dwd

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

  169. 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. ?

  170. jonas’

    I won’t be there either

  171. Link Mauve

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

  172. jonas’

    +1 on +2w

  173. dwd

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

  174. dwd

    OK, so 2nd January 2019, 1600 UTC.

  175. 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.

  176. Link Mauve

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

  177. dwd

    6) Ite, Meeting Est.

  178. dwd

    (Fractionally ahead of the half hour mark)

  179. jonas’


  180. Link Mauve

    Thanks all!

  181. Ge0rG

    +1 on +2w

  182. jonas’


  183. Ge0rG

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

  184. jonas’

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

  185. Ge0rG has left

  186. labdsf has left

  187. Kev has left

  188. Kev has left

  189. 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? :-°

  190. labdsf has joined

  191. ivucica has left

  192. ralphm has joined

  193. Zash has left

  194. ralphm has left

  195. Zash has joined

  196. Zash has left

  197. Zash has joined

  198. lnj has left

  199. ivucica has joined

  200. ivucica has joined

  201. labdsf has left

  202. Tobias has joined

  203. labdsf has joined

  204. jonas’ has left

  205. jonas’ has joined

  206. dos has left