XMPP Council - 2019-01-23

  1. oli has left

  2. oli has joined

  3. oli has left

  4. oli has joined

  5. oli has left

  6. oli has joined

  7. Guus has left

  8. Guus has left

  9. Zash has left

  10. Guus has left

  11. Guus has left

  12. Guus has left

  13. pep. has left

  14. Guus has left

  15. rtq3 has left

  16. rtq3 has joined

  17. oli has joined

  18. Guus has left

  19. Guus has left

  20. rtq3 has left

  21. rtq3 has joined

  22. rtq3 has left

  23. Guus has left

  24. Guus has left

  25. Guus has left

  26. Guus has left

  27. Tobias has joined

  28. Tobias has left

  29. Tobias has joined

  30. Guus has left

  31. Guus has left

  32. labdsf has left

  33. ralphm has joined

  34. lnj has joined

  35. oli has joined

  36. labdsf has joined

  37. oli has joined

  38. ralphm has left

  39. Remko has joined

  40. ralphm has left

  41. lnj has left

  42. Zash has left

  43. rtq3 has joined

  44. lnj has joined

  45. Guus has left

  46. Guus has left

  47. Guus has left

  48. Guus has left

  49. Guus has left

  50. Guus has left

  51. Zash has joined

  52. Zash has left

  53. Zash has joined

  54. Tokodomo has joined

  55. Tokodomo has left

  56. Wiktor has joined

  57. Tokodomo has joined

  58. Tokodomo has left

  59. Guus has left

  60. labdsf has left

  61. dwd has joined

  62. dwd

    Secretary, list all the polls please

  63. Secretary

    dwd, I am not sure what you want (what is 'please' supposed to mean?).

  64. dwd

    Secretary, I shall refrain from politeness now.

  65. Secretary

    dwd, sorry, I did not understand that.

  66. dwd

    Secretary, please list all the polls

  67. Secretary

    dwd, there are 2 open polls Accept "Cryptographic Hash Function Recommendations for XMPP" to Experimental: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hash-recommendations.html (due in 1 week, on 2019-02-01) Accept "Some dummy XEP" to Experimental: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dummy-recommendations.html (due in 1 week, on 2019-02-01)

  68. jonas’

    dwd, I have a patch thing where it parses protoxep, PR and standards@ urls into nicer things, but I don’t think it’s deployed on the server just yet

  69. labdsf has joined

  70. dwd

    jonas’, Sweet. Want to spin it up? I was thinking we'd try it on the meeting this afternoon. I've even managed an agenda.

  71. jonas’

    dwd, I’ll do it before the meeting

  72. jonas’

    I’ll clear the data once more, since those polls are stale anyways

  73. Guus has left

  74. rtq3 has left

  75. rtq3 has joined

  76. rtq3 has left

  77. rtq3 has joined

  78. Tobias has left

  79. ralphm has left

  80. rtq3 has left

  81. rtq3 has joined

  82. rtq3 has left

  83. rtq3 has joined

  84. Secretary has left

  85. Secretary has joined

  86. jonas’

    Secretary, delete poll on some dummy xep

  87. Secretary

    jonas’, sorry, I do not know which poll you’re referring to

  88. jonas’

    Secretary, delete poll on some dummy xep to experimental

  89. Secretary

    jonas’, deleted poll on Accept "Some dummy XEP" to Experimental: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dummy-recommendations.html

  90. dwd

    My current meeting started 20 minutes late - it's a video call, so I'll be able to chip in, but unless it finishes really early I'm not going to be able to chair - can someone else? (Should be a matter of nipping through the agenda at least).

  91. Kev

    jonas’: Secretary doesn't do agenda-driving yet, does she?

  92. jonas’

    Kev, not yet

  93. Kev


  94. Kev

    dwd: I can.

  95. dwd

    Not sure it's a she either.

  96. dwd

    Kev, Thanks.

  97. Kev

    I thought boats were always shes?

  98. dwd


  99. dwd

    Please don't make me giggle in the middle of a video-call interview.

  100. Kev

    It was worth it, though.

  101. jonas’

    dwd, I can’t promise that

  102. jonas’

    I have a gif stashed which made me laugh while I was in a small (<20p) audience of a talk. don’t ask me why I even clicked that link, but it made me realize that in-line display of stuff in chat windows isn’t always a good thing.

  103. jonas’

    re agenda: this should be added if possible https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/745#issuecomment-456598472

  104. Kev

    Isn't that premature without the associated schema updates?

  105. Kev

    'tis time.

  106. Kev

    1) Who's a bap?

  107. Ge0rG

    Phew. Just in time

  108. Kev

    dwd is, I assume, still here?

  109. jonas’

    Kev, the schema updates are just editorial work in the end

  110. Kev

    Link Mauve?

  111. jonas’

    we need to figure out whether to NS bump or note

  112. Link Mauve

    Hi, I’m here but not fully in mind.

  113. jonas’

    we need to figure out whether to NS bump or not

  114. jonas’ has left

  115. jonas’ has joined

  116. Link Mauve

    My father had an infarctus last week and I’ve been quite affected.

  117. dwd

    I am still here. Just.

  118. Kev

    3) LC https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0355.html

  119. jonas’

    Link Mauve, my condolences.

  120. Link Mauve

    He’s ok-ish currently, so no worries. :)

  121. Kev

    No idea what an infarctus is, but oh dear.

  122. jonas’

    then hope he gets better then

  123. jonas’

    and stays healthy

  124. jonas’

    I’m not good at th is :)

  125. jonas’

    I’m not good at this :)

  126. Kev

    I don't see a reason not to LC, so +1.

  127. jonas’

    who requested it, if I may ask?

  128. jonas’

    or where was it requested?

  129. Kev

    Dave put it on the Agenda.

  130. Link Mauve

    infarct* apparently.

  131. jonas’

    is this a mixup with the request for LC of XEP-0335 by MattJ?

  132. jonas’

    yes it is

  133. jonas’

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/733 the XEP-0355 is from here, but MattJ actually asked for XEP-0335 on the list

  134. Ge0rG

    Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:09:28 +0000 From: Matthew Wild <mwild1@gmail.com> To: XMPP Standards <standards@xmpp.org> Subject: [Standards] [XEP-0335] Request for Last Call

  135. jonas’

    thanks, Ge0rG

  136. Kev

    Ok, so cancelling #3 then.

  137. Ge0rG

    And Dave responded with a link to https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/733

  138. Kev

    4) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/743 Add CORS to 156

  139. jonas’

    Kev, can we s/355/335/ and have the vote?

  140. Ge0rG

    Kev: could you treat it as a typo and vote?

  141. jonas’

    it should’ve been on last week’s agenda already

  142. Kev

    I was going to shove it on the end as a new item.

  143. jonas’

    ah, that’s fine by me

  144. Kev

    I'm +1 on #4

  145. Link Mauve

    Secretary, I’m +1 for #4.

  146. Secretary

    Link Mauve, sorry, I did not understand that.

  147. jonas’

    Secretary, create poll on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/743

  148. Secretary

    jonas’, created poll on [PR#743] XEP-0156: Add implementation notes suggesting CORS Expires: 2019-02-06 Tag: PR#743 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/743 Adding `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` header allows web clients hosted on different domains access connection settings for target servers. This change adds similar suggestion that is already present in [XEP-0363 HTTP Upload][0]. See: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-January/035645.…

  149. jonas’


  150. Secretary

    jonas’, I recorded your vote of +1 on [PR#743] XEP-0156: Add implementation notes suggesting CORS: (no comment)

  151. Link Mauve


  152. Secretary

    Link Mauve, I recorded your vote of +1 on [PR#743] XEP-0156: Add implementation notes suggesting CORS: (no comment)

  153. Ge0rG

    I'm on-list, because CORS headers are a Security, and because just allowing * is probably a dumb idea.

  154. Kev

    Ge0rG: Yes, but for 156 * seems fine to me. I could be wrong.

  155. jonas’

    hm, it only says that in an example, but you’re probably right that everyone will be oding the example thing.

  156. jonas’

    Kev, if they do it globally on their http host by accident..?

  157. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, it doesn’t require *, it says the exact headers and their value are out of scope for this document, but CORS should be considered.

  158. Ge0rG

    Kev: what jonas’ said

  159. jonas’

    although, it says explicitly that it should be done for the metadata files only.

  160. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: but the example!

  161. Link Mauve

    Right. ^^

  162. Link Mauve

    Access-Control-Allow-Methods should also be added to the example AIUI, with a value of GET.

  163. Kev

    Moving on, then.

  164. Ge0rG

    > caption="Example header allowing all sites to read host metadata" I'd make a FAT BOLD warning in that place.

  165. Kev

    5) https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html LC (compliance 2019)

  166. Wiktor

    Ge0rG: what's the risk of exposing metadata through a browser you're thinking of?

  167. Kev

    I thought this was LCd already, I'm losing track, but +1.

  168. Ge0rG

    Kev: calling for last-call?

  169. Ge0rG


  170. jonas’

    +1 on #5

  171. Link Mauve

    Secretary, create poll on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html

  172. Secretary

    Link Mauve, created poll on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html Expires: 2019-02-06

  173. Ge0rG

    Wiktor: the risk is of inadvertently setting this header on the whole vhost

  174. jonas’

    Link Mauve, LMC that to include that it is about an LC for that XEP

  175. Wiktor

    Ge0rG: got it

  176. Wiktor

    That'd be a bad idea indeed :)

  177. Link Mauve

    Secretary, create poll on last call for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html

  178. Kev

    The bot is cute, but can we quit playing with it until it's ready to use, please? It's just flooding the backlog at the moment and making it hard for me to keep track.

  179. Secretary

    Link Mauve, created poll on last call for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html Expires: 2019-02-06

  180. Kev

    At least during meetings.

  181. Link Mauve

    !+1, we need community input on what should be included for 2019, and advance it asap.

  182. Secretary

    Link Mauve, sorry, I do not know which poll you mean.

  183. jonas’

    Kev, okay, whatever works for you. I was assuming we’re giving it a shot since dwd proposed that, but I guess he’s not the chair now :)

  184. Link Mauve

    !+1 for last call for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html, we need community input on what should be included for 2019, and advance it asap.

  185. Secretary

    Link Mauve, I recorded your vote of +1 on last call for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html: //xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html, we need community input on what should be included for 2019, and advance it asap.

  186. Link Mauve

    Oh, : and not ,.

  187. Secretary has left

  188. jonas’

    (that should do it for now)

  189. jonas’

    so to summarize: +1 on #5 (LC for suites) from me

  190. jonas’

    and I change my +1 on #4 to on-list, because what Ge0rG said

  191. Kev


  192. Ge0rG

    Kev: +1

  193. Kev

    6) LC for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0292.html (vcard4)

  194. jonas’

    +1 on #6

  195. Link Mauve

    +1 on #6.

  196. Ge0rG

    +1 on #6, no need to block an LC

  197. Kev

    This isn't ready to advance, I think, but no objection to an LC. +0

  198. Kev

    7) https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0335.html LC

  199. Kev

    (JSON Containers)

  200. Ge0rG

    +1 on LC

  201. Link Mauve

    +1 on #7.

  202. jonas’

    +1 on #7

  203. Kev


  204. Kev

    8) Outstanding votes Anyone want to vote on anything?

  205. Kev

    I'm +1 on harsh recommendations.

  206. Ge0rG

    I've changed my vote on the ORDER BY protoXEP to +1

  207. jonas’

    I voted +1 on ORDER BY, too, on list

  208. Kev

    9) Date of next

  209. Link Mauve

    Kev, yes, I’d like to vote +1 on ORDER BY and +1 on the spin-off of XEP-0300.

  210. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: are you still pending on harsh recommendations?

  211. Ge0rG


  212. Link Mauve

    I did review both in the half hour before the meeting, but didn’t send an email yet.

  213. Kev

    Next week is clashing with summit travel for people, I would assume?

  214. Ge0rG

    +1W is the night before Summit.

  215. Ge0rG

    Also somebody was organizing a Sprint.

  216. Kev


  217. Ge0rG

    I'm not attending.

  218. Link Mauve

    It will clash with UX Sprint for me, so +1 for +2W.

  219. rtq3 has left

  220. jonas’

    I can do either

  221. Ge0rG

    either +1W or +2W works for me.

  222. rtq3 has joined

  223. Kev

    +2W then.

  224. Ge0rG

    during summit would work as well, but only if we hold it here and not via video

  225. rtq3 has left

  226. Kev

    10) AOB.

  227. rtq3 has joined

  228. Ge0rG

    something-something Carbons?

  229. jonas’

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/745#issuecomment-456843291 this one?

  230. Ge0rG

    Technically, the LC of 0410 is over

  231. Link Mauve

    jonas’, for this one (#745), I’d really like to review the changes I made to this XEP when I became an author, IIRC I did fix this kind of issue.

  232. Kev

    I need to look at PR#745 in detail to be able to comment on it.

  233. Ge0rG

    So we could vote on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/739

  234. Link Mauve

    So I’m on list anyway.

  235. Kev

    Ge0rG: Let's shove it on the agenda for the next meeting, then. I'm not a fan of shoving substantive votes under AOB.

  236. jonas’

    Kev, +1

  237. Ge0rG

    Kev: sure thing.

  238. Kev

    (And the same for 745, really)

  239. dwd is back. My part of the interview was very badly timed.

  240. Kev


  241. Ge0rG

    AOAOB: let dwd vote really fast :D

  242. dwd

    I'll vote on list, sorry. But it'll be tonight anyway.

  243. Kev

    I think we're done, then. Thanks all.

  244. Kev gangs the vabel.

  245. Kev

    jonas’: Maybe it is ready for use, in which case we should probably train whoever's chairing in how to use it to drive the meeting.

  246. jonas’

    Kev, I think for voting it actually is

  247. Kev

    I find the "Ok, I took your vote" messages more distracting than useful, FWIW, when trying to follow the flow of things.

  248. jonas’

    agenda driving is on my list for the next week

  249. jonas’

    Kev, a no-message-is-a-good-message approach would probably work too, I need to make sure that when race conditions occur, it is clear on which thing one voted

  250. jonas’

    i.e. when somebody creates a poll and you vote with the shorthand, it should be made clear what you voted on

  251. Kev

    With agenda driving that's probably less of an issue with the appropriate not-completely-shorthand.

  252. Kev

    e.g. if we always vote with "+1 on (7)" or something.

  253. jonas’

    mmm using the number of the agendum as shorthand seems like a good plan :)

  254. ralphm has left

  255. Wiktor has left

  256. labdsf has left

  257. labdsf has joined

  258. oli has left

  259. oli has joined

  260. Tobias has joined

  261. rtq3 has left

  262. rtq3 has joined

  263. Zash has left

  264. rion has joined

  265. oli has joined

  266. rion has left

  267. labdsf has joined

  268. Tokodomo has joined

  269. Tokodomo has left

  270. Tokodomo has joined

  271. Tokodomo has left

  272. Tokodomo has joined

  273. Tokodomo has left

  274. Tokodomo has joined

  275. Tokodomo has left

  276. Tokodomo has joined

  277. Guus has left

  278. Tokodomo has left

  279. Tokodomo has joined

  280. labdsf has left

  281. labdsf has joined

  282. Tokodomo has left

  283. Tokodomo has joined

  284. Tokodomo has left

  285. Tokodomo has joined

  286. Tokodomo has left

  287. oli has joined

  288. Wiktor has joined

  289. Wiktor has joined

  290. lnj has left

  291. rtq3 has left

  292. rtq3 has joined

  293. Remko has left

  294. oli has joined

  295. ralphm has left

  296. Zash has left

  297. oli has left

  298. Tobias has left

  299. pep. has left