Link MauveHi, 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 MauveI’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
Ge0rGWhile 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
KevDo we have agendums for today?
dwdhas joined
jonas’not as far as I know
dwdKev, 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
Ge0rGThere was a pending 0184 AOB from last meeting.
dwd1) Who's Here?
jonas’is
Kev✋
dwdLink Mauve, I see your apologies.
Ge0rGappears to be there
dwdGe0rG, You're not meant to be - didn't you say you were skipping this one?
dwd2) Agenda Bashing
Ge0rGdwd: sorry, I'm calm now.
dwdApologies 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 :)
dwdSo, we need #758 and '184. Anything else?
jonas’I don’t think so
dwdOK.
dwd3) Items for a vote:
dwda) #758
dwdhttps://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/758
jonas’+1
dwdXEP-0060: Expose pubsub#access_model and pubsub#publish_model
dwd+1
Ge0rGIIRC I was +0 on this one.
dwdGe0rG, Are you still?
Ge0rGYes
dwdOK.
dwdKev, ?
KevThis 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
dwdKev, This is indeed.
dwdOK. Link Mauve on list.
dwd'184 is not, as I recall, a voting matter?
Ge0rGNo, a discussion one.
dwdb) Discussion: XEP-0184
dwdGe0rG, Take it away.
Ge0rGThe 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
KevIf 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
Ge0rGKev: what kind of smarts, explicitly?
dwdKev, I *think* I'd rather do those upgrades in XEP-0333, which is largely similar but has more capability already.
KevThe metadata consolidation dance we talked about at the Summit (or were you not there for that bit?)>
KevI 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.
Ge0rGI 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.
dwdGe0rG, +1 to that, indeed.
KevWhich of the three possible things you could be +1ing are you +1ing?
KevGe0rG's text, Ge0rG's assertion that it doesn't need a bump, or Ge0rG not wanting to 'if we bump anyway'?
dwdKev, The argument against "If we're going to ${MINOR CHANGE}, we may as well bump and do "{COMPLETE REWRITE}".
KevIf we can make things better without a breaking change, I'm in favour of doing so.
jonas’I agree
KevI would be opposed to a breaking change that didn't solve the bigger issues, I think.
Ge0rGIt's up to The Elders to decide whether my text is a Breaking Change
Ge0rGAlso what about headline and error?
jonas’error should be MUST NOT
KevI 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)
KevSometimes you might want to know that your error was received :)
jonas’hm
Ge0rGFight it out!
jonas’I see the danger for weird loops there
KevTBH, I'm not hugely against MUST NOT.
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Ge0rGI'm with Kev here, but I see the potential for loops as well
jonas’but I’m fine with SHOULD NOT
KevI 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"
KevOtherwise one might read it and wonder why we bother specifying the types if we then don't care about them.
Ge0rGKev: good point.
KevI'd also probably SHOULD instead of MUSTing it.
Ge0rGKev: why?
KevJust feels right, I don't think I have a solid argument.
Ge0rGThat would indeed break compatibility
Ge0rGNot a hill for me to die on, just curious.
KevI can live with MUST there.
KevWhile reserving the right to be smarter next week than I am this week, and change my mind ;)
Ge0rGAny other suggestions? I would prepare a PR for a future council meeting then?
jonas’Ge0rG, do that
danielhas left
Ge0rGThank you very much!
dwdSounds good.
danielhas joined
KevI can't promise I won't have other minor comments in light of a PR, but that sounds like a good direction, thanks.
dwd4) Are we all up to date with voting?
danielhas left
danielhas joined
KevI believe I am, at least.
Ge0rGWe are missing link's votes on a bunch of changes where I pretend they don't break anything
dwdI think Ge0rG has a vote on #736 that expires today.
jonas’according to tedds summary I am
Ge0rGAnd I'm still waiting for link to provide implementation guidance on server side LMC
dwdjonas’, 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
Ge0rGdwd: is 736 the MUC LMC enforcement?
dwdjonas’, No, I see the email, I don't see what vote you're missing.
dwdGe0rG, Yes. Expiring today, so if you need feedback from Link, you should veto.
jonas’dwd, none, I think
dwdGe0rG, Well, that said, everyone else vetod, so..
jonas’that’s why I said "I am [up to date with voting]"
Ge0rGOkay, I'm -1. Not that it would change anything
dwdjonas’, Never mind - I'm going mad.
Ge0rGReason: unclear performance impact on server implementation
XMPP Council - 2019-05-01