Secretarydwd, I am not sure what you want (what is 'please' supposed to mean?).
dwdSecretary, I shall refrain from politeness now.
Secretarydwd, sorry, I did not understand that.
dwdSecretary, please list all the polls
Secretarydwd, 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)
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
labdsfhas joined
dwdjonas’, Sweet. Want to spin it up? I was thinking we'd try it on the meeting this afternoon. I've even managed an agenda.
jonas’dwd, I’ll do it before the meeting
jonas’I’ll clear the data once more, since those polls are stale anyways
Guushas left
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
Tobiashas left
ralphmhas left
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
Secretaryhas left
Secretaryhas joined
jonas’Secretary, delete poll on some dummy xep
Secretaryjonas’, sorry, I do not know which poll you’re referring to
jonas’Secretary, delete poll on some dummy xep to experimental
Secretaryjonas’, deleted poll on Accept "Some dummy XEP" to Experimental: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dummy-recommendations.html
dwdMy 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).
Kevjonas’: Secretary doesn't do agenda-driving yet, does she?
jonas’Kev, not yet
KevK
Kevdwd: I can.
dwdNot sure it's a she either.
dwdKev, Thanks.
KevI thought boats were always shes?
dwd:-)
dwdPlease don't make me giggle in the middle of a video-call interview.
KevIt was worth it, though.
jonas’dwd, I can’t promise that
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.
jonas’re agenda: this should be added if possible https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/745#issuecomment-456598472
KevIsn't that premature without the associated schema updates?
Kev'tis time.
Kev1) Who's a bap?
Ge0rGPhew. Just in time
Kevdwd is, I assume, still here?
jonas’Kev, the schema updates are just editorial work in the end
KevLink Mauve?
jonas’we need to figure out whether to NS bump or note
Link MauveHi, I’m here but not fully in mind.
jonas’we need to figure out whether to NS bump or not
jonas’has left
jonas’has joined
Link MauveMy father had an infarctus last week and I’ve been quite affected.
Link MauveHe’s ok-ish currently, so no worries. :)
KevNo idea what an infarctus is, but oh dear.
jonas’then hope he gets better then
jonas’and stays healthy
jonas’I’m not good at th is :)
jonas’I’m not good at this :)
KevI don't see a reason not to LC, so +1.
jonas’who requested it, if I may ask?
jonas’or where was it requested?
KevDave put it on the Agenda.
Link Mauveinfarct* apparently.
jonas’is this a mixup with the request for LC of XEP-0335 by MattJ?
jonas’yes it is
jonas’https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/733 the XEP-0355 is from here, but MattJ actually asked for XEP-0335 on the list
Ge0rGDate: 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
jonas’thanks, Ge0rG
KevOk, so cancelling #3 then.
Ge0rGAnd Dave responded with a link to https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/733
Kev4) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/743
Add CORS to 156
jonas’Kev, can we s/355/335/ and have the vote?
Ge0rGKev: could you treat it as a typo and vote?
jonas’it should’ve been on last week’s agenda already
KevI was going to shove it on the end as a new item.
jonas’ah, that’s fine by me
KevI'm +1 on #4
Link MauveSecretary, I’m +1 for #4.
SecretaryLink Mauve, sorry, I did not understand that.
jonas’Secretary, create poll on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/743
Secretaryjonas’, 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.…
jonas’!+1
Secretaryjonas’, I recorded your vote of +1 on [PR#743] XEP-0156: Add implementation notes suggesting CORS: (no comment)
Link Mauve!+1
SecretaryLink Mauve, I recorded your vote of +1 on [PR#743] XEP-0156: Add implementation notes suggesting CORS: (no comment)
Ge0rGI'm on-list, because CORS headers are a Security, and because just allowing * is probably a dumb idea.
KevGe0rG: Yes, but for 156 * seems fine to me. I could be wrong.
jonas’hm, it only says that in an example, but you’re probably right that everyone will be oding the example thing.
jonas’Kev, if they do it globally on their http host by accident..?
Link MauveGe0rG, it doesn’t require *, it says the exact headers and their value are out of scope for this document, but CORS should be considered.
Ge0rGKev: what jonas’ said
jonas’although, it says explicitly that it should be done for the metadata files only.
Ge0rGLink Mauve: but the example!
Link MauveRight. ^^
Link MauveAccess-Control-Allow-Methods should also be added to the example AIUI, with a value of GET.
KevMoving on, then.
Ge0rG> caption="Example header allowing all sites to read host metadata"
I'd make a FAT BOLD warning in that place.
WiktorGe0rG: what's the risk of exposing metadata through a browser you're thinking of?
KevI thought this was LCd already, I'm losing track, but +1.
Ge0rGKev: calling for last-call?
Ge0rG+1
jonas’+1 on #5
Link MauveSecretary, create poll on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html
SecretaryLink Mauve, created poll on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html
Expires: 2019-02-06
Ge0rGWiktor: the risk is of inadvertently setting this header on the whole vhost
jonas’Link Mauve, LMC that to include that it is about an LC for that XEP
WiktorGe0rG: got it
WiktorThat'd be a bad idea indeed :)
Link MauveSecretary, create poll on last call for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html
KevThe 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.
SecretaryLink Mauve, created poll on last call for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html
Expires: 2019-02-06
KevAt least during meetings.
Link Mauve!+1, we need community input on what should be included for 2019, and advance it asap.
SecretaryLink Mauve, sorry, I do not know which poll you mean.
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 :)
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.
SecretaryLink 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.
Link MauveOh, : and not ,.
Secretaryhas left
jonas’(that should do it for now)
jonas’so to summarize: +1 on #5 (LC for suites) from me
jonas’and I change my +1 on #4 to on-list, because what Ge0rG said
KevGe0rG?
Ge0rGKev: +1
Kev6) LC for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0292.html (vcard4)
jonas’+1 on #6
Link Mauve+1 on #6.
Ge0rG+1 on #6, no need to block an LC
KevThis isn't ready to advance, I think, but no objection to an LC. +0
Kev8) Outstanding votes
Anyone want to vote on anything?
KevI'm +1 on harsh recommendations.
Ge0rGI've changed my vote on the ORDER BY protoXEP to +1
jonas’I voted +1 on ORDER BY, too, on list
Kev9) Date of next
Link MauveKev, yes, I’d like to vote +1 on ORDER BY and +1 on the spin-off of XEP-0300.
Ge0rGLink Mauve: are you still pending on harsh recommendations?
Ge0rGAh.
Link MauveI did review both in the half hour before the meeting, but didn’t send an email yet.
KevNext week is clashing with summit travel for people, I would assume?
Ge0rG+1W is the night before Summit.
Ge0rGAlso somebody was organizing a Sprint.
Kev+2W?
Ge0rGI'm not attending.
Link MauveIt will clash with UX Sprint for me, so +1 for +2W.
rtq3has left
jonas’I can do either
Ge0rGeither +1W or +2W works for me.
rtq3has joined
Kev+2W then.
Ge0rGduring summit would work as well, but only if we hold it here and not via video
rtq3has left
Kev10) AOB.
rtq3has joined
Ge0rGsomething-something Carbons?
jonas’https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/745#issuecomment-456843291 this one?
Ge0rGTechnically, the LC of 0410 is over
Link Mauvejonas’, 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.
KevI need to look at PR#745 in detail to be able to comment on it.
Ge0rGSo we could vote on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/739
Link MauveSo I’m on list anyway.
KevGe0rG: Let's shove it on the agenda for the next meeting, then. I'm not a fan of shoving substantive votes under AOB.
jonas’Kev, +1
Ge0rGKev: sure thing.
Kev(And the same for 745, really)
dwdis back. My part of the interview was very badly timed.
KevAOAOB?
Ge0rGAOAOB: let dwd vote really fast :D
dwdI'll vote on list, sorry. But it'll be tonight anyway.
KevI think we're done, then. Thanks all.
Kevgangs the vabel.
Kevjonas’: 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.
jonas’Kev, I think for voting it actually is
KevI find the "Ok, I took your vote" messages more distracting than useful, FWIW, when trying to follow the flow of things.
jonas’agenda driving is on my list for the next week
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
jonas’i.e. when somebody creates a poll and you vote with the shorthand, it should be made clear what you voted on
KevWith agenda driving that's probably less of an issue with the appropriate not-completely-shorthand.
Keve.g. if we always vote with "+1 on (7)" or something.
jonas’mmm using the number of the agendum as shorthand seems like a good plan :)
XMPP Council - 2019-01-23