XMPP Council - 2019-05-01

  1. Link Mauve

    Hi, I again won’t be able to attend tomorrow’s meeting, this time due to the International Workers’ Day protests, I’ll attempt to send my pending votes by email before leaving tomorrow morning but I can’t guarantee it.

  2. Link Mauve

    I’m sorry about that. :(

  3. Ge0rG

    While my simulacrum is present in this room, it doesn't mean I can attend. Please start without me if I don't give a sign.

  4. Kev

    Do we have agendums for today?

  5. jonas’

    not as far as I know

  6. dwd

    Kev, Sorry, I've been finalising a new position and got a little distracted.

  7. jonas’

    I think there was something leftover from last meeting though

  8. jonas’

    Re-voting on #758

  9. Ge0rG

    There was a pending 0184 AOB from last meeting.

  10. dwd

    1) Who's Here?

  11. jonas’ is

  12. Kev

  13. dwd

    Link Mauve, I see your apologies.

  14. Ge0rG appears to be there

  15. dwd

    Ge0rG, You're not meant to be - didn't you say you were skipping this one?

  16. dwd

    2) Agenda Bashing

  17. Ge0rG

    dwd: sorry, I'm calm now.

  18. dwd

    Apologies for the missing agenda, as my current unemployed status might suggest, things have been impressively complicated for me. Should be settling down.

  19. jonas’

    apology accepted and all the best for your employment future :)

  20. dwd

    So, we need #758 and '184. Anything else?

  21. jonas’

    I don’t think so

  22. dwd


  23. dwd

    3) Items for a vote:

  24. dwd

    a) #758

  25. dwd


  26. jonas’


  27. dwd

    XEP-0060: Expose pubsub#access_model and pubsub#publish_model

  28. dwd


  29. Ge0rG

    IIRC I was +0 on this one.

  30. dwd

    Ge0rG, Are you still?

  31. Ge0rG


  32. dwd


  33. dwd

    Kev, ?

  34. Kev

    This is the one we discussed last week and decided was ok and I was the only previous blocker, which I was now removing?

  35. Kev

    +1 if so.

  36. jonas’


  37. dwd

    Kev, This is indeed.

  38. dwd

    OK. Link Mauve on list.

  39. dwd

    '184 is not, as I recall, a voting matter?

  40. Ge0rG

    No, a discussion one.

  41. dwd

    b) Discussion: XEP-0184

  42. dwd

    Ge0rG, Take it away.

  43. Ge0rG

    The small fig leaf box in 0184 is the attempt of introducing the Right Behavior without normative language. Do we want normative language in there? Shall we introduce it with a bump?

  44. jonas’

    *IF* we are going to bump '184, I want multiple acks per message

  45. Ge0rG


  46. Ge0rG

    jonas’: that's an excellent point.

  47. Kev

    If we were going to bump 184, doing so in a manner that allowed MAM/archive smarts, as well as MUCciness would probably be sensible.

  48. jonas’

    and I think a bump might be worth all of the benefits combined

  49. Ge0rG

    Kev: what kind of smarts, explicitly?

  50. dwd

    Kev, I *think* I'd rather do those upgrades in XEP-0333, which is largely similar but has more capability already.

  51. Kev

    The metadata consolidation dance we talked about at the Summit (or were you not there for that bit?)>

  52. Kev

    I think 333 needs careful burning to the ground and recreating. But I agree with the sentiment of doing things in a general way.

  53. jonas’

    I don’t think XEP-0333 is a good idea at this point, but that’s a different discussion.

  54. Ge0rG

    I think that adding the strawman text from my post doesn't _require_ a bump, and I'm not going down the "if we bump anyway" route any time again after Carbons.

  55. dwd

    Ge0rG, +1 to that, indeed.

  56. Kev

    Which of the three possible things you could be +1ing are you +1ing?

  57. Kev

    Ge0rG's text, Ge0rG's assertion that it doesn't need a bump, or Ge0rG not wanting to 'if we bump anyway'?

  58. dwd

    Kev, The argument against "If we're going to ${MINOR CHANGE}, we may as well bump and do "{COMPLETE REWRITE}".

  59. Kev

    If we can make things better without a breaking change, I'm in favour of doing so.

  60. jonas’

    I agree

  61. Kev

    I would be opposed to a breaking change that didn't solve the bigger issues, I think.

  62. Ge0rG

    It's up to The Elders to decide whether my text is a Breaking Change

  63. Ge0rG

    Also what about headline and error?

  64. jonas’

    error should be MUST NOT

  65. Kev

    I think I can see my way to this not being a breaking change. Also, error makes sense as SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT.

  66. jonas’

    because it is in fact possible that a request is in there, and you don’t want to reply to that (because don’t auto-reply to errors)

  67. Kev

    Sometimes you might want to know that your error was received :)

  68. jonas’


  69. Ge0rG

    Fight it out!

  70. jonas’

    I see the danger for weird loops there

  71. Kev

    TBH, I'm not hugely against MUST NOT.

  72. Ge0rG

    I'm with Kev here, but I see the potential for loops as well

  73. jonas’

    but I’m fine with SHOULD NOT

  74. Kev

    I think the last line about MUST ... different type might benefit from a "(as previous versions of this document didn't fully specify the required types)".

  75. jonas’

    I don’t have a strong opinion about "headline"

  76. Kev

    Otherwise one might read it and wonder why we bother specifying the types if we then don't care about them.

  77. Ge0rG

    Kev: good point.

  78. Kev

    I'd also probably SHOULD instead of MUSTing it.

  79. Ge0rG

    Kev: why?

  80. Kev

    Just feels right, I don't think I have a solid argument.

  81. Ge0rG

    That would indeed break compatibility

  82. Ge0rG

    Not a hill for me to die on, just curious.

  83. Kev

    I can live with MUST there.

  84. Kev

    While reserving the right to be smarter next week than I am this week, and change my mind ;)

  85. Ge0rG

    Any other suggestions? I would prepare a PR for a future council meeting then?

  86. jonas’

    Ge0rG, do that

  87. Ge0rG

    Thank you very much!

  88. dwd

    Sounds good.

  89. Kev

    I can't promise I won't have other minor comments in light of a PR, but that sounds like a good direction, thanks.

  90. dwd

    4) Are we all up to date with voting?

  91. Kev

    I believe I am, at least.

  92. Ge0rG

    We are missing link's votes on a bunch of changes where I pretend they don't break anything

  93. dwd

    I think Ge0rG has a vote on #736 that expires today.

  94. jonas’

    according to tedds summary I am

  95. Ge0rG

    And I'm still waiting for link to provide implementation guidance on server side LMC

  96. dwd

    jonas’, Really? I don't see - am I blind?

  97. jonas’

    I am confused

  98. jonas’

    you mean you don’t see the email? Subject: [Standards] Council Voting Summary 2019-04-30

  99. jonas’

    came in at 2019-05-01 00:22:00 UTC

  100. Ge0rG

    dwd: is 736 the MUC LMC enforcement?

  101. dwd

    jonas’, No, I see the email, I don't see what vote you're missing.

  102. dwd

    Ge0rG, Yes. Expiring today, so if you need feedback from Link, you should veto.

  103. jonas’

    dwd, none, I think

  104. dwd

    Ge0rG, Well, that said, everyone else vetod, so..

  105. jonas’

    that’s why I said "I am [up to date with voting]"

  106. Ge0rG

    Okay, I'm -1. Not that it would change anything

  107. dwd

    jonas’, Never mind - I'm going mad.

  108. Ge0rG

    Reason: unclear performance impact on server implementation

  109. dwd


  110. dwd

    5) AOB

  111. dwd

    I am undergoing an affiliation change, FYI.

  112. jonas’

    /affiliate dwd owner

  113. Kev


  114. Kev

    That sounds like no AOB.

  115. dwd


  116. dwd

    6) Next Meeting

  117. jonas’

    +1 wfm

  118. dwd

    Next week is achingly clear for me.

  119. Ge0rG


  120. Kev

    SBTSBC should WFM

  121. dwd


  122. dwd

    In that case:

  123. dwd

    6) Ite, Meeting Est.

  124. dwd

    And thanks all.

  125. Ge0rG

    Thanks, dwd

  126. Kev

    Thanks all.

  127. jonas’

    thanks :)