XMPP Council - 2019-03-27

  1. Kev

    Hopefully the last week of silliness, but I'm probably going to be unavailable at Council time again.

  2. Ge0rG

    I'm there today, and I'm very sorry for missing the last ones.

  3. dwd

    Afternoon all - I'm having a catastrophic day, so I'd be very grateful if we could skip this week.

  4. Ge0rG

    Looks like we are missing two already.

  5. jonas’

    I think we should get the vote on '412 started to stop people from flaming to the list

  6. Ge0rG

    I'd absolutely love to have a formal vote on 0412

  7. Ge0rG

    even if it's the only agenda item and everybody is on-list

  8. Ge0rG

    I'm willing to chair through such a mini-agenda.

  9. jonas’

    I’d be very ok with that

  10. dwd

    Do you have a Link Mauve?

  11. jonas’

    he was around in another MUC a minute ago

  12. Link Mauve

    I am here yes.

  13. Ge0rG

    There is also ATT in the inbox.

  14. dwd

    Link Mauve, Opinion?

  15. jonas’

    so we have 3/5 and we could get the vote on '412 and that protoxep started

  16. 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

  17. Link Mauve

    Sounds sensible.

  18. dwd

    If you guys want to vote on those two, I can go along with that.

  19. Ge0rG

    dwd: would you like somebody else (me?) to chair that?

  20. 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.

  21. Ge0rG

    1) Alright. Welcome everybody, roll call!

  22. jonas’ is here

  23. dwd here (but distracted)

  24. Ge0rG

    Kev sent apologies. Link Mauve?

  25. Link Mauve


  26. Ge0rG


  27. jonas’

    3.5/5, let’s roll

  28. Ge0rG

    2) Agenda Bashing. I've got XEP-0412 for Draft and ATT from inbox

  29. Ge0rG

    Anything else?

  30. jonas’

    there is a needs council PR open

  31. Ge0rG

    Thanks go to Tedd Sterr, the shoe fixing elf.

  32. jonas’


  33. Ge0rG

    I'm on a data capped connection, so I'll let that load in the background for now.

  34. jonas’

    > XEP-0308: Clarify correcting a message multiple times

  35. Link Mauve

    Ugh, that’ll break existing clients which correct based on the previous id.

  36. Ge0rG

    3a) Item for Vote: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html for Draft

  37. jonas’

    Link Mauve, rightfully so!!!

  38. jonas’

    I’m +1 on 3a

  39. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, +1 for me, your changes are good and we really should move on with that one.

  40. Ge0rG

    +1 obviously

  41. Ge0rG

    Alright, let's assume dwd being distracted and on-list and move on.

  42. Ge0rG

    3b) Proposal of https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/automatic-trust-transfer.html

  43. Link Mauve

    On list.

  44. 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?

  45. jonas’

    on list

  46. dwd

    (that of 412)

  47. dwd

    I'm on-list for ATT as well.

  48. 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.

  49. Ge0rG

    On list for ATT.

  50. Ge0rG

    3c) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/764 "XEP-0308: Clarify correcting a message multiple times"

  51. dwd

    Ge0rG, Mostly in the hope we'd hear at least some useful comments from the standards list, I admit.

  52. jonas’

    I’m +1 on 3c

  53. dwd

    on-list for 3c.

  54. 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

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, right.

  58. Ge0rG

    I need some damn good rationale (better than in the XEP change block) to get me convinced.

  59. Ge0rG

    4) Outstanding Votes

  60. Ge0rG

    Proposed XMPP Extension: E2E Authentication in XMPP: Certificate Issuance and Revocation - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-cir.html

  61. Ge0rG

    is expiring today. Not sure if there are still open votes on that

  62. Ge0rG

    Proposed XMPP Extension: DNS Queries over XMPP (DoX) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dox.html as well

  63. jonas’

    I’m still on list :/

  64. jonas’

    Link Mauve, do you have an opinion on eax-cir?

  65. Link Mauve

    4a I’m still on list too. :x

  66. moparisthebest

    iirc DoX is only missing a vote from Kev and passes unless he -1's it

  67. jonas’

    +1 to eax-cir

  68. Ge0rG

    did jonas’ change to -0 on DoX?

  69. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yes

  70. jonas’


  71. Ge0rG

    looks like eax-cir is going to pass with a slight minority then as well.

  72. Ge0rG

    5) Next Meeting

  73. Link Mauve


  74. Ge0rG

    +1W sounds like it works for Kev as well

  75. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  76. Ge0rG

    Well. Let's just try it and see what happens.

  77. Ge0rG

    6) AOB

  78. 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

  79. Link Mauve

    Please do the needful. :)

  80. Ge0rG

    Looks like the active subset of our editors just vanished. Let's hope they read the Minutes.

  81. Ge0rG

    It also never hurts to mention that there is always one more place for volunteer editors.

  82. Link Mauve

    mathieui, IIRC you were interested.

  83. Ge0rG

    6B) AOAOB?

  84. Ge0rG

    looks like we are done here.

  85. Ge0rG

    7) Incomprehensible Latin Words

  86. 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.

  87. dwd

    Also, thanks Ge0rG.

  88. Ge0rG

    Thanks everyone.

  89. moparisthebest

    so... who do I have to bribe to publish DoX on monday morning...

  90. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: we are looking for volunteer editors!

  91. SouL

    You could bribe yourself, how cool is that

  92. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: apply today, get approved tomorrow in Board.

  93. moparisthebest

    hmmmmmm interesting

  94. SouL

    We made a call for editors not long ago

  95. Ge0rG

    and hope that iteam will give you the required permissions until then.

  96. 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? :(

  97. jonas’

    FWIW, I won’t veto it, that’d be silly, I don’t even maintain an implementation.

  98. jonas’


  99. 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.

  100. jonas’

    pep., I also think that council is better than getting in a change-veto-loop

  101. 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

  102. jonas’

    "without any rights" not much

  103. jonas’

    with github powers you can already do a lot

  104. jonas’

    which I also outlined in my mail to members@

  105. pep.

    jonas’, ok so I need to be knighted in any case if I want in right

  106. jonas’

    I think so