Hopefully the last week of silliness, but I'm probably going to be unavailable at Council time again.
debaclehas joined
Tokodomohas left
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
ivucicahas left
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
doshas left
ivucicahas joined
dwdhas joined
Tobiashas left
Ge0rGhas joined
Ge0rG
I'm there today, and I'm very sorry for missing the last ones.
dwd
Afternoon all - I'm having a catastrophic day, so I'd be very grateful if we could skip this week.
Ge0rG
Looks like we are missing two already.
jonas’
I think we should get the vote on '412 started to stop people from flaming to the list
Ge0rG
I'd absolutely love to have a formal vote on 0412
Ge0rG
even if it's the only agenda item and everybody is on-list
Tokodomohas joined
Ge0rG
I'm willing to chair through such a mini-agenda.
jonas’
I’d be very ok with that
dwd
Do you have a Link Mauve?
jonas’
he was around in another MUC a minute ago
Link Mauve
I am here yes.
Ge0rG
There is also ATT in the inbox.
dwd
Link Mauve, Opinion?
jonas’
so we have 3/5 and we could get the vote on '412 and that protoxep started
jonas’
with my editor hat on, I’d like to get the protoxep started, too, because it was lingering in the inbox for quite a while
Link Mauve
Sounds sensible.
dwd
If you guys want to vote on those two, I can go along with that.
Ge0rG
dwd: would you like somebody else (me?) to chair that?
dwd
Ge0rG, I'll take you up on that, it means I can pay less attention, and I confess my mind is on other things today.
Ge0rG
1) Alright. Welcome everybody, roll call!
jonas’is here
dwdhere (but distracted)
Ge0rG
Kev sent apologies. Link Mauve?
Link Mauve
Yup.
Ge0rG
Awesome.
jonas’
3.5/5, let’s roll
Ge0rG
2) Agenda Bashing. I've got XEP-0412 for Draft and ATT from inbox
Ge0rG
Anything else?
jonas’
there is a needs council PR open
Ge0rG
Thanks go to Tedd Sterr, the shoe fixing elf.
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/764
Tokodomohas left
Ge0rG
I'm on a data capped connection, so I'll let that load in the background for now.
jonas’
> XEP-0308: Clarify correcting a message multiple times
Link Mauve
Ugh, that’ll break existing clients which correct based on the previous id.
Ge0rG
3a) Item for Vote: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html for Draft
jonas’
Link Mauve, rightfully so!!!
jonas’
I’m +1 on 3a
Link Mauve
Ge0rG, +1 for me, your changes are good and we really should move on with that one.
Ge0rG
+1 obviously
Ge0rG
Alright, let's assume dwd being distracted and on-list and move on.
Ge0rG
3b) Proposal of https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/automatic-trust-transfer.html
Link Mauve
On list.
dwd
Mea culpa. I am on-list, but I did wonder if we should consider a last call once more given the change of author?
jonas’
on list
dwd
(that of 412)
dwd
I'm on-list for ATT as well.
Ge0rG
dwd: what would be your rationale for that? I can see an LC regarding my content changes, but I'd rather revert those and vote on Draft now, with a later changes-related Council vote then.
Ge0rG
On list for ATT.
Ge0rG
3c) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/764 "XEP-0308: Clarify correcting a message multiple times"
dwd
Ge0rG, Mostly in the hope we'd hear at least some useful comments from the standards list, I admit.
jonas’
I’m +1 on 3c
dwd
on-list for 3c.
jonas’
it is, in my opinion, the obvious reading of the XEP. I know that others have other obvious readings, but should definitely pick one official obvious reading
Ge0rG
-1. The XEP is in dire need of clarification, but the PR does a change into the wrong direction. It's more logical to correct the _last_ message and not the _first_ one, e.g. when fetching partial MUC history.
Link Mauve
I’m ±0 on 3c, it will break clients, but the other way will probably break the other set of clients anyway although it seems more logical to me.
Link Mauve
Ge0rG, right.
Ge0rG
I need some damn good rationale (better than in the XEP change block) to get me convinced.
Ge0rG
4) Outstanding Votes
vaulorhas joined
Ge0rG
Proposed XMPP Extension: E2E Authentication in XMPP: Certificate Issuance and Revocation - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-cir.html
Ge0rG
is expiring today. Not sure if there are still open votes on that
Ge0rG
Proposed XMPP Extension: DNS Queries over XMPP (DoX) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dox.html as well
jonas’
I’m still on list :/
jonas’
Link Mauve, do you have an opinion on eax-cir?
Link Mauve
4a I’m still on list too. :x
moparisthebest
iirc DoX is only missing a vote from Kev and passes unless he -1's it
jonas’
+1 to eax-cir
Ge0rG
did jonas’ change to -0 on DoX?
jonas’
Ge0rG, yes
jonas’
afk
Ge0rG
looks like eax-cir is going to pass with a slight minority then as well.
Tobiashas joined
Ge0rG
5) Next Meeting
Link Mauve
+1W.
Ge0rG
+1W sounds like it works for Kev as well
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
Ge0rG
Well. Let's just try it and see what happens.
Ge0rG
6) AOB
Link Mauve
Yes, I have an AOB for the editors, there are a few linging PRs still marked as Needs Council while our votes are expired, such as https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/747
Link Mauve
Please do the needful. :)
Ge0rG
Looks like the active subset of our editors just vanished. Let's hope they read the Minutes.
Ge0rG
It also never hurts to mention that there is always one more place for volunteer editors.
Link Mauve
mathieui, IIRC you were interested.
Ge0rG
6B) AOAOB?
Ge0rG
looks like we are done here.
Ge0rG
7) Incomprehensible Latin Words
dwd
"Ite, Meeting Est". A paraphrase of the latin Catholic order of service, which is a phrase in such arcane Latin that nobody actually knows its literal meaning.
dwd
Also, thanks Ge0rG.
Ge0rG
Thanks everyone.
moparisthebest
so... who do I have to bribe to publish DoX on monday morning...
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: we are looking for volunteer editors!
vaulorhas left
vaulorhas joined
SouL
You could bribe yourself, how cool is that
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: apply today, get approved tomorrow in Board.
moparisthebest
hmmmmmm interesting
SouL
We made a call for editors not long ago
Ge0rG
and hope that iteam will give you the required permissions until then.
pep.
"Ge0rG> -1. The XEP is in dire need of clarification, but the PR does a change into the wrong direction. It's more logical to correct the _last_ message and not the _first_ one, e.g. when fetching partial MUC history.", I also think it should be the other way, but tbh I don't mind as long as it's clear. What guarantees do we have that the other way it not going to be vetoed either? :(
jonas’
FWIW, I won’t veto it, that’d be silly, I don’t even maintain an implementation.
jonas’
(yet)
jcbrandhas joined
Link Mauve
I wouldn’t veto it either, but it indeed would be much better to get a good rationale for the change, either way it goes.
jonas’
pep., I also think that council is better than getting in a change-veto-loop
Ge0rGhas left
Vaulorhas joined
jcbrandhas left
pep.
As it was mentioned here, I'd like to see more documentation for what I can do without any rights for the editors. I am soon going to have a bit more time and I hope I can help with that. If it's "you need powers" I'm also happy to be knighted if necessary, assuming I know the things to do
jonas’
"without any rights" not much
jonas’
with github powers you can already do a lot
jonas’
which I also outlined in my mail to members@
pep.
jonas’, ok so I need to be knighted in any case if I want in right