Ge0rGI might go missing silently in the middle of things
jonas’how should we know?
dwd3) Items for voting:
a) Last Call: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)
Ge0rGI want to bash agenda item 3a
jonas’oh wow, *now* a bunch of mails show up in the standards folder in my MUA. disrgeard my earlier question.
dwdI'm happy to shepherd this one through if nobody else particularly wants to.
dwdBut overall, I think it's ready to be Last Called.
jonas’I’m +1 on the LC
Ge0rGI agree with the LC, but I'm not yet convinced it's ready to advance
jonas’and I’m also fine with dwd shepherding it
dwdYay?
rionhas joined
Ge0rGI'll need to properly return before I can write that down though
dwdKev, ?
Kev+-[01]
Kev[+-][01]
KevI'm not convinced an LC when Ge0rG isn't convinced it should advance is productive
Kevbecause we'll probably bore people of LCs on it.
KevBut I won't block progress, so +-0.
Ge0rGKev: that's the exact definition of last call, isn't it?
KevGe0rG: Depends, I read your 'not convinced' as 'well, we can ask, but I'd -1 advancing it without changes'.
jonas’Ge0rG, boring people?
KevIf that wasn't the spirit it was intended...
dwdWell, if Ge0rG would definitely reject the advance, it's a good reason not to bother. But if we can get some feedback on it (from Ge0rG or elsewhere) that will get it across the line, it feels worthwhile.
Ge0rGWe've been through a bunch already, and I need to check my own feedback from them for whether everything was included
jonas’so you’d re-submit your earlier feedback for inclusion?
Ge0rGjonas’: most probably, yes. The last times after LC, just nothing happened
KevMy preference, despite me not blocking an LC, would be to wait until we're fairly convinced the house is in order before doing another LC.
dwdGe0rG, I suppose the interesting question is do you feel confident we can get it to Draft this time?
Ge0rGI'm also convinced we need to copy all message errors to all resources
jonas’I tend to agree with Kev
Ge0rGdwd: I'd Rath first await implementation experience from the new changes
Ge0rG*rather
Ge0rGI haven't heard of any server implementing the new namespaced copying rules
dwdGe0rG, That's true. But we don't require that for Draft.
Ge0rGMaybe an LC will make the developers realize there was a change.
KevGe0rG: Incidentally, we re-implemented Carbons the other day, and I *think* we follow all the rules in the XEP. But that's not deployed anywhere.
Ge0rGKev: this is getting philosophical
jonas’implementation experience would be neat, but is technically not a requirement for Draft
dwdGe0rG, But still, I'm OK with rejecting a LC on this, but I'd like to do so in such a way that encourages it to happen some day.
Kevjonas’: Given that we have huge amounts of implementation experience of everything other than the current version, Drafting while the current version doesn't have that seems...odd.
Ge0rGI don't want to end up with a useless Draft that needs undocumented knowledge to follow properly
KevAnd what Ge0rG says.
dwdOK, well, in that case we should be pushing server implementors to implement it and/or feedback on why not.
jonas’maybe we can encourage or invest in the existing implementations to upgrade?
Ge0rGKev: you could write about your experience on list and encourage others with the new namespace carrot
KevGe0rG: Maybe I could.
dwdOK - so the consensus is to reject for now.
jonas’yes
dwdb) Last Call: XEP-0300 (Crypto hashes)
jonas’+1 on that one
dwdTechnically, this one has authors that are presumably active, given one of them is in this meeting, but Jonas has offered to shepherd it through if they're busy.
KevMay as well.
Kev(+1)
dwdI'm +1 on this.
Ge0rGDidn't we move the actual hash algorithm list into its own informational XEP?
jonas’yes
KevOh, except no.
KevThe published 300 still has them in.
jonas’yeah
jonas’someone hasn’t merged it yet
Ge0rGThere are still hashes named in 0300.
KevAh. Poke the editors? :)
jonas’an editor shall do that before issuing the LC
dwdWhat a disgraceful someone.
jonas’an editor will
dwdBut yes, merge and Last Call.
KevSeems weird to issue an LC on an unpublished version, but I should be used to weird by now :)
Ge0rGDo we have a rendered version of the proper content?
dwdKev, You're welcome to insist on a publication first, of course.
Ge0rGI'm pretty sure I'm +1, but I'd like to have a quick glance to reconfirm
dwdGe0rG, Then be -1. Seems perfectly sensible.
jonas’I can probably scp one without css somewhere
jonas’but nobody will get hurt by delaying 1w
Ge0rGAlright, I'll be -1 then
dwdCool.
dwd4) Outstanding Votes
dwdI don't think we have any.
dwd5) Next Meeting
dwd+1W OK for everyone?
Ge0rG+2W for me
dwdAnyone else can't make it next week?
jonas’+1wfm
dwdOK.
dwd6) AOB
dwdAnyone?
dwdI noted in xsf@ that '357 looked enticing for a Last Call, but I vaguely recall Kev was going to do some edits at some point.
dwdI think discussing those might mean Guus comes out with other comments, given he implemented it recently.
KevI think 357 needs a chunk of love before it's ready for advancement, yes. Sadly, I've not actually got as far as doing the implementation that I was expecting to lead to those changes yet.
KevI wonder at this point how bad it would be to advance 357 with the intention of replacing it later, instead of waiting for a better version.
jonas’entirely replacing it?
dwdKev, You in a position to shepherd it through? I think it's got some implementation at least, now.
KevI guess we'll find out if it goes to LC. I'll ask for help if I fail.
dwdOK - shall we put it on the slate for an LC next meeting?
Link MauveHi, sorry I was talking with pep. IRL, didn’t see the time. ;_;
KevVote on having a vote to LC for having a vote on advancement? How meta.
pep.Oops, sorry
Link MauveI’ll read the minutes and take part on list.
dwdKev, Yeah. I'll just do that.
dwdLink Mauve, You're lucky - both items for a vote are being dropped by consensus anyway.
dwdAnyone anything else for AOB?
jonas’not me
KevPlease no.
dwdExcellent.
dwd7) Ite, Meeting Est
dwdThanks all.
dwdKev, Dunno why you're complaining, we're a minute short.
GuusKev, there's some confusion on what could/should be added to 357. I've talked to Daniel, who is under the impression that 'implementation guidelines' are deliberately not put in - while we both agreed that they'd be handy (with regards to when a server should trigger notifications, specifically).
jonas’thanks dwd
ZashAnd started a couple of minutes late?!
Ge0rGI was just thinking of an AOB to cover at least 10 minutes
Guusif anything, I'd like something like that to be added.
flowas long as those are mostly guidelines and not mandatory parts of the specs…
Ge0rGNow where did I write about 0357 not being ready yet?
GuusI don't immediately see a reason for them to be mandatory - but triggering a notification 'at the right time' quickly gets complex, and might even vary between platforms. Some kind of documentation around what is a sensible approach would be welcome.
GuusGe0rG probably somewhere just above where Dave awakened me from my slumber. 🙂
GuusOthers refer to me as 'he-who-shall-not-be-named' to avoid this issue.
jonas’move this to xsf@?
flowIt's the same situation as with CSI and I understand why CSI has deliberately none. I wonder if we shouldn't just put up wiki pages and have the XEPs link to it
ZashAre these network protocols or software specifications?
Ge0rGZash: do we want them to work properly for our user base or do we want to differentiate by features?
rion> I wonder if we shouldn't just put up wiki pages and have the XEPs link to it
+1 if it's about xep remarks
debaclehas left
Ge0rGhttps://twitter.com/jutta_steiner/status/1138815580184731650 looks like we can close the XSF Council now.
XMPP Council - 2019-06-12