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.
Link Mauve
I’m sorry about that. :(
Guushas left
Guushas joined
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
debaclehas joined
debaclehas left
ivucicahas left
ivucicahas joined
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.
ivucicahas left
ivucicahas joined
Kev
Do we have agendums for today?
dwdhas joined
jonas’
not as far as I know
dwd
Kev, Sorry, I've been finalising a new position and got a little distracted.
jonas’
I think there was something leftover from last meeting though
jonas’
Re-voting on #758
Ge0rG
There was a pending 0184 AOB from last meeting.
dwd
1) Who's Here?
jonas’is
Kev
✋
dwd
Link Mauve, I see your apologies.
Ge0rGappears to be there
dwd
Ge0rG, You're not meant to be - didn't you say you were skipping this one?
dwd
2) Agenda Bashing
Ge0rG
dwd: sorry, I'm calm now.
dwd
Apologies for the missing agenda, as my current unemployed status might suggest, things have been impressively complicated for me. Should be settling down.
jonas’
apology accepted and all the best for your employment future :)
dwd
So, we need #758 and '184. Anything else?
jonas’
I don’t think so
dwd
OK.
dwd
3) Items for a vote:
dwd
a) #758
dwd
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/758
jonas’
+1
dwd
XEP-0060: Expose pubsub#access_model and pubsub#publish_model
dwd
+1
Ge0rG
IIRC I was +0 on this one.
dwd
Ge0rG, Are you still?
Ge0rG
Yes
dwd
OK.
dwd
Kev, ?
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?
Kev
+1 if so.
jonas’
yes
dwd
Kev, This is indeed.
dwd
OK. Link Mauve on list.
dwd
'184 is not, as I recall, a voting matter?
Ge0rG
No, a discussion one.
dwd
b) Discussion: XEP-0184
dwd
Ge0rG, Take it away.
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?
jonas’
*IF* we are going to bump '184, I want multiple acks per message
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.
jonas’
and I think a bump might be worth all of the benefits combined
Ge0rG
Kev: what kind of smarts, explicitly?
dwd
Kev, I *think* I'd rather do those upgrades in XEP-0333, which is largely similar but has more capability already.
Kev
The metadata consolidation dance we talked about at the Summit (or were you not there for that bit?)>
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.
jonas’
I don’t think XEP-0333 is a good idea at this point, but that’s a different discussion.
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.
dwd
Ge0rG, +1 to that, indeed.
Kev
Which of the three possible things you could be +1ing are you +1ing?
Kev
Ge0rG's text, Ge0rG's assertion that it doesn't need a bump, or Ge0rG not wanting to 'if we bump anyway'?
dwd
Kev, The argument against "If we're going to ${MINOR CHANGE}, we may as well bump and do "{COMPLETE REWRITE}".
Kev
If we can make things better without a breaking change, I'm in favour of doing so.
jonas’
I agree
Kev
I would be opposed to a breaking change that didn't solve the bigger issues, I think.
Ge0rG
It's up to The Elders to decide whether my text is a Breaking Change
Ge0rG
Also what about headline and error?
jonas’
error should be MUST NOT
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.
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)
Kev
Sometimes you might want to know that your error was received :)
jonas’
hm
Ge0rG
Fight it out!
jonas’
I see the danger for weird loops there
Kev
TBH, I'm not hugely against MUST NOT.
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Ge0rG
I'm with Kev here, but I see the potential for loops as well
jonas’
but I’m fine with SHOULD NOT
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)".
jonas’
I don’t have a strong opinion about "headline"
Kev
Otherwise one might read it and wonder why we bother specifying the types if we then don't care about them.
Ge0rG
Kev: good point.
Kev
I'd also probably SHOULD instead of MUSTing it.
Ge0rG
Kev: why?
Kev
Just feels right, I don't think I have a solid argument.
Ge0rG
That would indeed break compatibility
Ge0rG
Not a hill for me to die on, just curious.
Kev
I can live with MUST there.
Kev
While reserving the right to be smarter next week than I am this week, and change my mind ;)
Ge0rG
Any other suggestions? I would prepare a PR for a future council meeting then?
jonas’
Ge0rG, do that
danielhas left
Ge0rG
Thank you very much!
dwd
Sounds good.
danielhas joined
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.
dwd
4) Are we all up to date with voting?
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Kev
I believe I am, at least.
Ge0rG
We are missing link's votes on a bunch of changes where I pretend they don't break anything
dwd
I think Ge0rG has a vote on #736 that expires today.
jonas’
according to tedds summary I am
Ge0rG
And I'm still waiting for link to provide implementation guidance on server side LMC
dwd
jonas’, Really? I don't see - am I blind?
jonas’
I am confused
jonas’
you mean you don’t see the email?
Subject: [Standards] Council Voting Summary 2019-04-30
jonas’
came in at 2019-05-01 00:22:00 UTC
Ge0rG
dwd: is 736 the MUC LMC enforcement?
dwd
jonas’, No, I see the email, I don't see what vote you're missing.
dwd
Ge0rG, Yes. Expiring today, so if you need feedback from Link, you should veto.
jonas’
dwd, none, I think
dwd
Ge0rG, Well, that said, everyone else vetod, so..
jonas’
that’s why I said "I am [up to date with voting]"
Ge0rG
Okay, I'm -1. Not that it would change anything
dwd
jonas’, Never mind - I'm going mad.
Ge0rG
Reason: unclear performance impact on server implementation