XMPP Council - 2019-01-23

Secretary, list all the polls please

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

Secretary, I shall refrain from politeness now.

dwd, sorry, I did not understand that.

Secretary, please list all the polls

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)

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

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.

dwd, I’ll do it before the meeting

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

Secretary, delete poll on some dummy xep

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

Secretary, delete poll on some dummy xep to experimental

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

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).

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

Kev, not yet

K

dwd: I can.

Not sure it's a she either.

Kev, Thanks.

I thought boats were always shes?

:-)

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

It was worth it, though.

dwd, I can’t promise that

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.

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

Isn't that premature without the associated schema updates?

'tis time.

1) Who's a bap?

Phew. Just in time

dwd is, I assume, still here?

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

Link Mauve?

Hi, I’m here but not fully in mind.

we need to figure out whether to NS bump or not ✏

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

I am still here. Just.

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

Link Mauve, my condolences.

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

No idea what an infarctus is, but oh dear.

then hope he gets better then

and stays healthy

I’m not good at this :) ✏

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

who requested it, if I may ask?

or where was it requested?

Dave put it on the Agenda.

infarct* apparently.

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

yes it is

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

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

thanks, Ge0rG

Ok, so cancelling #3 then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ah, that’s fine by me

I'm +1 on #4

Secretary, I’m +1 for #4.

Link Mauve, sorry, I did not understand that.

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

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.…

!+1

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

!+1

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Kev: what jonas’ said

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

Link Mauve: but the example!

Right. ^^

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

Moving on, then.

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

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

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

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

Kev: calling for last-call?

+1

+1 on #5

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

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

Ge0rG: got it

That'd be a bad idea indeed :)

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

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.

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

At least during meetings.

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

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

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 :)

!+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.

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.

Oh, : and not ,.

(that should do it for now)

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

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

Ge0rG?

Kev: +1

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

+1 on #6

+1 on #6.

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

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

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

(JSON Containers)

+1 on LC

+1 on #7.

+1 on #7

+1

8) Outstanding votes Anyone want to vote on anything?

I'm +1 on harsh recommendations.

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

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

9) Date of next

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

Link Mauve: are you still pending on harsh recommendations?

Ah.

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

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

+1W is the night before Summit.

Also somebody was organizing a Sprint.

+2W?

I'm not attending.

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

I can do either

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

+2W then.

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

10) AOB.

something-something Carbons?

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

Technically, the LC of 0410 is over

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.

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

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

So I’m on list anyway.

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

Kev, +1

Kev: sure thing.

(And the same for 745, really)

AOAOB?

AOAOB: let dwd vote really fast :D

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

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

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.

Kev, I think for voting it actually is

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

agenda driving is on my list for the next week

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

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

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

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

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