BTW, I'm assuming nothing for the agenda this afternoon, still. Hence no agenda, which is simple laziness on my part. Link Mauve, please check your outstanding votes.
Kev
Given no agenda, I might well be absent.
lnjhas joined
dwd
OK. Ge0rG is absent too, I believe. jonas’ Link Mauve, if either of you can't make it we'll declare a skip.
Ge0rG
I might be less absent than anticipated.
jonas’
I’ll be here, but possibly a few minutes late
jonas’
I got caught up in a work meeting and can only start my commute home now
(it’s a figure of speech (which apparently does not translate well) for when you come home exhausted)
dwd
Despite some effort, there was nothing for the agenda, so I didn't bother writing that in an email.
dwd
jonas’, I understood, I was merely being obtuse, sorry.
jonas’
I’m afraid I’m too exhausted for that ;)
jonas’
Editor Hat: I’m sorry that I didn’t get around to push updates to xeps, I had like four minutes between coming home and meeting start ;)
jonas’
will take care of that after the meeting
dwd
Did I miss anything for the agenda?
dwd
Or do we really have nothing?
dwd
OK, I'll assume nothing.
dwd
3) Items for a vote (NULL)
dwd
4) Outstanding Votes
dwd
I think it's just Link Mauve for one.
dwd
PR #758 - XEP-0060: Expose pubsub#access_model and pubsub#publish_model - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/758
jonas’
I think so too, but will double check wtih tedds mail to be sure
dwd
Link Mauve, ^^
Link Mauve
(I’m looking at it.)
dwd
5) AOB
dwd
?
Link Mauve
Didn’t we already vote on that?
lnjhas left
Link Mauve
I quite remember having said +1 to it, or did something change that required a re-vote?
dwd
Well, you're welcome to say "+1" again for the avoidance of doubt.
Link Mauve
I’m +1 on it anyway. ^^
dwd
I think we re-voted.
dwd
OK.
dwd
Any OB?
dwd
Assuming not:
Link Mauve
Still deploring the lack of specification for the various form values in this XEP and a few other ones.
Link Mauve
None from me.
jonas’
none from me
lnjhas joined
dwd
OK
dwd
6) Next Meeting
dwd
+1W?
jonas’
wfm
dwd
That's 2019-05-22 15:00Z I believe.
dwd
7) Ite, Meeting Est
dwd
Thanks all.
dwd
jonas’, Looks like you have a load of Editor work now, sorry.
pep.
Link Mauve, I think 758 was first vetoed and then it was brought back to life a few weeks after
jonas’
that’s alright
jonas’
will see to it in half an hour or so
Link Mauve
pep., oh, thanks.
dwd
Link Mauve, Yeah, I think Kev originally vetoed, and somebody changed his mind several weeks afterward.
pep.
Does that not keep the original votes in this case? As in "I'm coming back on my decision" rather than "it's a new decision", it's not like 0060 has advanced or anything had changed with regard to it (or what judges would say "new evidence has come to light")
jonas’
dwd, thanks for annotating the PRs
dwd
(Some of)
jonas’
dwd, for the next agenda: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/690#issuecomment-463793958
Ge0rG
Oops. Sorry, looks like I missed the meeting.
jonas’
uh
jonas’
I can see a conflict arising
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/779 has passed the council vote, but the text there is not 100% compatible with the text proposed on the ML✎
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/779 has passed the council vote, but the text there is not 100% compatible with the text proposed by Ge0rG on the ML for a proper fix ✏
jonas’
oh, it is
jonas’
nevermind
Ge0rG
jonas’: that #690 comment is three months old, unless github is in another time bubble, right?
jonas’
Ge0rG, yes, but we still haven’t talked about it
jonas’
note that the PR is even from last council
jonas’
dwd, also for next agenda: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/778 -- we need to re-discuss it after the changes Ge0rG made, it was vetoed by Kev before
dwd
Ge0rG, No worries about missing a null meeting.
lnjhas left
Ge0rG
jonas’: 778 has been voted on twice, the last vote was with the new changes.
lnjhas joined
jonas’
are you sure?
jonas’
ah I’m too stupid to read
jonas’
yeah
jonas’
passed \o/
jonas’
I’m starting to question whether I should really be messing with xsf/xeps right now