XMPP Council - 2019-05-01

  1. peter has left
  2. 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.
  3. Link Mauve I’m sorry about that. :(
  4. Guus has left
  5. Guus has joined
  6. moparisthebest has left
  7. moparisthebest has joined
  8. daniel has left
  9. daniel has joined
  10. daniel has left
  11. daniel has joined
  12. daniel has left
  13. daniel has joined
  14. daniel has left
  15. daniel has joined
  16. Syndace has left
  17. Syndace has joined
  18. debacle has joined
  19. debacle has left
  20. ivucica has left
  21. ivucica has joined
  22. 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.
  23. ivucica has left
  24. ivucica has joined
  25. Kev Do we have agendums for today?
  26. dwd has joined
  27. jonas’ not as far as I know
  28. dwd Kev, Sorry, I've been finalising a new position and got a little distracted.
  29. jonas’ I think there was something leftover from last meeting though
  30. jonas’ Re-voting on #758
  31. Ge0rG There was a pending 0184 AOB from last meeting.
  32. dwd 1) Who's Here?
  33. jonas’ is
  34. Kev
  35. dwd Link Mauve, I see your apologies.
  36. Ge0rG appears to be there
  37. dwd Ge0rG, You're not meant to be - didn't you say you were skipping this one?
  38. dwd 2) Agenda Bashing
  39. Ge0rG dwd: sorry, I'm calm now.
  40. dwd Apologies for the missing agenda, as my current unemployed status might suggest, things have been impressively complicated for me. Should be settling down.
  41. jonas’ apology accepted and all the best for your employment future :)
  42. dwd So, we need #758 and '184. Anything else?
  43. jonas’ I don’t think so
  44. dwd OK.
  45. dwd 3) Items for a vote:
  46. dwd a) #758
  47. dwd https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/758
  48. jonas’ +1
  49. dwd XEP-0060: Expose pubsub#access_model and pubsub#publish_model
  50. dwd +1
  51. Ge0rG IIRC I was +0 on this one.
  52. dwd Ge0rG, Are you still?
  53. Ge0rG Yes
  54. dwd OK.
  55. dwd Kev, ?
  56. 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?
  57. Kev +1 if so.
  58. jonas’ yes
  59. dwd Kev, This is indeed.
  60. dwd OK. Link Mauve on list.
  61. dwd '184 is not, as I recall, a voting matter?
  62. Ge0rG No, a discussion one.
  63. dwd b) Discussion: XEP-0184
  64. dwd Ge0rG, Take it away.
  65. 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?
  66. jonas’ *IF* we are going to bump '184, I want multiple acks per message
  67. Ge0rG https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-April/036090.html
  68. Ge0rG jonas’: that's an excellent point.
  69. 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.
  70. jonas’ and I think a bump might be worth all of the benefits combined
  71. Ge0rG Kev: what kind of smarts, explicitly?
  72. dwd Kev, I *think* I'd rather do those upgrades in XEP-0333, which is largely similar but has more capability already.
  73. Kev The metadata consolidation dance we talked about at the Summit (or were you not there for that bit?)>
  74. 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.
  75. jonas’ I don’t think XEP-0333 is a good idea at this point, but that’s a different discussion.
  76. 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.
  77. dwd Ge0rG, +1 to that, indeed.
  78. Kev Which of the three possible things you could be +1ing are you +1ing?
  79. Kev Ge0rG's text, Ge0rG's assertion that it doesn't need a bump, or Ge0rG not wanting to 'if we bump anyway'?
  80. dwd Kev, The argument against "If we're going to ${MINOR CHANGE}, we may as well bump and do "{COMPLETE REWRITE}".
  81. Kev If we can make things better without a breaking change, I'm in favour of doing so.
  82. jonas’ I agree
  83. Kev I would be opposed to a breaking change that didn't solve the bigger issues, I think.
  84. Ge0rG It's up to The Elders to decide whether my text is a Breaking Change
  85. Ge0rG Also what about headline and error?
  86. jonas’ error should be MUST NOT
  87. 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.
  88. 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)
  89. Kev Sometimes you might want to know that your error was received :)
  90. jonas’ hm
  91. Ge0rG Fight it out!
  92. jonas’ I see the danger for weird loops there
  93. Kev TBH, I'm not hugely against MUST NOT.
  94. daniel has left
  95. daniel has joined
  96. Ge0rG I'm with Kev here, but I see the potential for loops as well
  97. jonas’ but I’m fine with SHOULD NOT
  98. 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)".
  99. jonas’ I don’t have a strong opinion about "headline"
  100. Kev Otherwise one might read it and wonder why we bother specifying the types if we then don't care about them.
  101. Ge0rG Kev: good point.
  102. Kev I'd also probably SHOULD instead of MUSTing it.
  103. Ge0rG Kev: why?
  104. Kev Just feels right, I don't think I have a solid argument.
  105. Ge0rG That would indeed break compatibility
  106. Ge0rG Not a hill for me to die on, just curious.
  107. Kev I can live with MUST there.
  108. Kev While reserving the right to be smarter next week than I am this week, and change my mind ;)
  109. Ge0rG Any other suggestions? I would prepare a PR for a future council meeting then?
  110. jonas’ Ge0rG, do that
  111. daniel has left
  112. Ge0rG Thank you very much!
  113. dwd Sounds good.
  114. daniel has joined
  115. 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.
  116. dwd 4) Are we all up to date with voting?
  117. daniel has left
  118. daniel has joined
  119. Kev I believe I am, at least.
  120. Ge0rG We are missing link's votes on a bunch of changes where I pretend they don't break anything
  121. dwd I think Ge0rG has a vote on #736 that expires today.
  122. jonas’ according to tedds summary I am
  123. Ge0rG And I'm still waiting for link to provide implementation guidance on server side LMC
  124. dwd jonas’, Really? I don't see - am I blind?
  125. jonas’ I am confused
  126. jonas’ you mean you don’t see the email? Subject: [Standards] Council Voting Summary 2019-04-30
  127. jonas’ came in at 2019-05-01 00:22:00 UTC
  128. Ge0rG dwd: is 736 the MUC LMC enforcement?
  129. dwd jonas’, No, I see the email, I don't see what vote you're missing.
  130. dwd Ge0rG, Yes. Expiring today, so if you need feedback from Link, you should veto.
  131. jonas’ dwd, none, I think
  132. dwd Ge0rG, Well, that said, everyone else vetod, so..
  133. jonas’ that’s why I said "I am [up to date with voting]"
  134. Ge0rG Okay, I'm -1. Not that it would change anything
  135. dwd jonas’, Never mind - I'm going mad.
  136. Ge0rG Reason: unclear performance impact on server implementation
  137. dwd OK.
  138. dwd 5) AOB
  139. dwd I am undergoing an affiliation change, FYI.
  140. jonas’ /affiliate dwd owner
  141. Kev outcast->member
  142. Kev That sounds like no AOB.
  143. dwd Indeed.
  144. dwd 6) Next Meeting
  145. jonas’ +1 wfm
  146. dwd Next week is achingly clear for me.
  147. Ge0rG +1W
  148. daniel has left
  149. Kev SBTSBC should WFM
  150. dwd Excellent.
  151. dwd In that case:
  152. dwd 6) Ite, Meeting Est.
  153. dwd And thanks all.
  154. Ge0rG Thanks, dwd
  155. Kev Thanks all.
  156. jonas’ thanks :)
  157. yan has joined
  158. vanitasvitae has left
  159. vanitasvitae has joined
  160. vanitasvitae has left
  161. vanitasvitae has joined
  162. vanitasvitae has left
  163. vanitasvitae has joined
  164. vanitasvitae has left
  165. vanitasvitae has joined
  166. peter has joined
  167. ivucica has left
  168. ivucica has joined
  169. debacle has joined
  170. debacle has left
  171. debacle has joined
  172. Tobias has left
  173. Tobias has joined
  174. peter has left
  175. ivucica has left
  176. ivucica has joined
  177. debacle has left
  178. vanitasvitae has left
  179. vanitasvitae has joined
  180. lnj has left