XMPP Council - 2019-06-12

  1. peter has left

  2. dwd has joined

  3. peter has joined

  4. Remko has joined

  5. Zash has left

  6. Zash has joined

  7. peter has left

  8. Remko has left

  9. Wojtek has joined

  10. Wojtek has left

  11. dwd has left

  12. dwd has joined

  13. dwd has left

  14. Remko has joined

  15. lnj has joined

  16. Remko has left

  17. Zash has left

  18. Zash has joined

  19. dwd has joined

  20. Holger has left

  21. Holger has joined

  22. vanitasvitae has left

  23. vanitasvitae has joined

  24. Syndace has left

  25. Remko has joined

  26. dwd has left

  27. dwd has joined

  28. dwd has left

  29. dwd has joined

  30. Syndace has joined

  31. dwd has left

  32. dwd has joined

  33. dwd has left

  34. Kev has left

  35. dwd has joined

  36. Kev has joined

  37. dwd has left

  38. dwd has joined

  39. dwd has left

  40. dwd has joined

  41. debacle has joined

  42. dwd has left

  43. dwd has joined

  44. dwd has left

  45. Zash has left

  46. Zash has joined

  47. dwd has joined

  48. debacle has left

  49. dwd has left

  50. dwd has joined

  51. debacle has joined

  52. dwd has left

  53. dwd has joined

  54. dwd has left

  55. dwd has joined

  56. dwd has left

  57. dwd has joined

  58. dwd has left

  59. dwd has joined

  60. dwd has left

  61. dwd has joined

  62. Zash has left

  63. Zash has joined

  64. dwd has left

  65. dwd has joined

  66. dwd has left

  67. dwd has joined

  68. dwd has left

  69. dwd has joined

  70. dwd has left

  71. dwd has joined

  72. dwd has left

  73. dwd has joined

  74. peter has joined

  75. dwd has left

  76. Zash has left

  77. dwd has joined

  78. Zash has joined

  79. peter has left

  80. dwd hits 5 minute warning klaxon

  81. jonas’ sues dwd for ear damage

  82. jonas’


  83. Ge0rG

    Where's the meeting start klaxon?

  84. dwd


  85. dwd

    1) Role Call

  86. jonas’

  87. dwd <--

  88. Ge0rG


  89. dwd

    Cool. Quorum achieved.

  90. jonas’

    cluster ready to operate

  91. Kev

    I'm here

  92. dwd


  93. dwd

    2) Agenda Bashing

  94. dwd

    Anything I missed?

  95. dwd

    If not:

  96. Ge0rG

    I might go missing silently in the middle of things

  97. jonas’

    how should we know?

  98. dwd

    3) Items for voting: a) Last Call: XEP-0280 (Message Carbons)

  99. Ge0rG

    I want to bash agenda item 3a

  100. jonas’

    oh wow, *now* a bunch of mails show up in the standards folder in my MUA. disrgeard my earlier question.

  101. dwd

    I'm happy to shepherd this one through if nobody else particularly wants to.

  102. dwd

    But overall, I think it's ready to be Last Called.

  103. jonas’

    I’m +1 on the LC

  104. Ge0rG

    I agree with the LC, but I'm not yet convinced it's ready to advance

  105. jonas’

    and I’m also fine with dwd shepherding it

  106. dwd


  107. rion has joined

  108. Ge0rG

    I'll need to properly return before I can write that down though

  109. dwd

    Kev, ?

  110. Kev


  111. Kev


  112. Kev

    I'm not convinced an LC when Ge0rG isn't convinced it should advance is productive

  113. Kev

    because we'll probably bore people of LCs on it.

  114. Kev

    But I won't block progress, so +-0.

  115. Ge0rG

    Kev: that's the exact definition of last call, isn't it?

  116. Kev

    Ge0rG: Depends, I read your 'not convinced' as 'well, we can ask, but I'd -1 advancing it without changes'.

  117. jonas’

    Ge0rG, boring people?

  118. Kev

    If that wasn't the spirit it was intended...

  119. dwd

    Well, 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.

  120. Ge0rG

    We've been through a bunch already, and I need to check my own feedback from them for whether everything was included

  121. jonas’

    so you’d re-submit your earlier feedback for inclusion?

  122. Ge0rG

    jonas’: most probably, yes. The last times after LC, just nothing happened

  123. Kev

    My 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.

  124. dwd

    Ge0rG, I suppose the interesting question is do you feel confident we can get it to Draft this time?

  125. Ge0rG

    I'm also convinced we need to copy all message errors to all resources

  126. jonas’

    I tend to agree with Kev

  127. Ge0rG

    dwd: I'd Rath first await implementation experience from the new changes

  128. Ge0rG


  129. Ge0rG

    I haven't heard of any server implementing the new namespaced copying rules

  130. dwd

    Ge0rG, That's true. But we don't require that for Draft.

  131. Ge0rG

    Maybe an LC will make the developers realize there was a change.

  132. Kev

    Ge0rG: 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.

  133. Ge0rG

    Kev: this is getting philosophical

  134. jonas’

    implementation experience would be neat, but is technically not a requirement for Draft

  135. dwd

    Ge0rG, 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.

  136. Kev

    jonas’: 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.

  137. Ge0rG

    I don't want to end up with a useless Draft that needs undocumented knowledge to follow properly

  138. Kev

    And what Ge0rG says.

  139. dwd

    OK, well, in that case we should be pushing server implementors to implement it and/or feedback on why not.

  140. jonas’

    maybe we can encourage or invest in the existing implementations to upgrade?

  141. Ge0rG

    Kev: you could write about your experience on list and encourage others with the new namespace carrot

  142. Kev

    Ge0rG: Maybe I could.

  143. dwd

    OK - so the consensus is to reject for now.

  144. jonas’


  145. dwd

    b) Last Call: XEP-0300 (Crypto hashes)

  146. jonas’

    +1 on that one

  147. dwd

    Technically, 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.

  148. Kev

    May as well.

  149. Kev


  150. dwd

    I'm +1 on this.

  151. Ge0rG

    Didn't we move the actual hash algorithm list into its own informational XEP?

  152. jonas’


  153. Kev

    Oh, except no.

  154. Kev

    The published 300 still has them in.

  155. jonas’


  156. jonas’

    someone hasn’t merged it yet

  157. Ge0rG

    There are still hashes named in 0300.

  158. Kev

    Ah. Poke the editors? :)

  159. jonas’

    an editor shall do that before issuing the LC

  160. dwd

    What a disgraceful someone.

  161. jonas’

    an editor will

  162. dwd

    But yes, merge and Last Call.

  163. Kev

    Seems weird to issue an LC on an unpublished version, but I should be used to weird by now :)

  164. Ge0rG

    Do we have a rendered version of the proper content?

  165. dwd

    Kev, You're welcome to insist on a publication first, of course.

  166. Ge0rG

    I'm pretty sure I'm +1, but I'd like to have a quick glance to reconfirm

  167. dwd

    Ge0rG, Then be -1. Seems perfectly sensible.

  168. jonas’

    I can probably scp one without css somewhere

  169. jonas’

    but nobody will get hurt by delaying 1w

  170. Ge0rG

    Alright, I'll be -1 then

  171. dwd


  172. dwd

    4) Outstanding Votes

  173. dwd

    I don't think we have any.

  174. dwd

    5) Next Meeting

  175. dwd

    +1W OK for everyone?

  176. Ge0rG

    +2W for me

  177. dwd

    Anyone else can't make it next week?

  178. jonas’


  179. dwd


  180. dwd

    6) AOB

  181. dwd


  182. dwd

    I 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.

  183. dwd

    I think discussing those might mean Guus comes out with other comments, given he implemented it recently.

  184. Kev

    I 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.

  185. Kev

    I 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.

  186. jonas’

    entirely replacing it?

  187. dwd

    Kev, You in a position to shepherd it through? I think it's got some implementation at least, now.

  188. Kev

    I guess we'll find out if it goes to LC. I'll ask for help if I fail.

  189. dwd

    OK - shall we put it on the slate for an LC next meeting?

  190. Link Mauve

    Hi, sorry I was talking with pep. IRL, didn’t see the time. ;_;

  191. Kev

    Vote on having a vote to LC for having a vote on advancement? How meta.

  192. pep.

    Oops, sorry

  193. Link Mauve

    I’ll read the minutes and take part on list.

  194. dwd

    Kev, Yeah. I'll just do that.

  195. dwd

    Link Mauve, You're lucky - both items for a vote are being dropped by consensus anyway.

  196. dwd

    Anyone anything else for AOB?

  197. jonas’

    not me

  198. Kev

    Please no.

  199. dwd


  200. dwd

    7) Ite, Meeting Est

  201. dwd

    Thanks all.

  202. dwd

    Kev, Dunno why you're complaining, we're a minute short.

  203. Guus

    Kev, 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).

  204. jonas’

    thanks dwd

  205. Zash

    And started a couple of minutes late?!

  206. Ge0rG

    I was just thinking of an AOB to cover at least 10 minutes

  207. Guus

    if anything, I'd like something like that to be added.

  208. flow

    as long as those are mostly guidelines and not mandatory parts of the specs…

  209. Ge0rG

    Now where did I write about 0357 not being ready yet?

  210. Guus

    I 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.

  211. Guus

    Ge0rG probably somewhere just above where Dave awakened me from my slumber. 🙂

  212. Guus

    Others refer to me as 'he-who-shall-not-be-named' to avoid this issue.

  213. jonas’

    move this to xsf@?

  214. flow

    It'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

  215. Zash

    Are these network protocols or software specifications?

  216. Ge0rG

    Zash: do we want them to work properly for our user base or do we want to differentiate by features?

  217. 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

  218. debacle has left

  219. Ge0rG

    https://twitter.com/jutta_steiner/status/1138815580184731650 looks like we can close the XSF Council now.

  220. lnj has left

  221. lnj has joined

  222. debacle has joined

  223. rion has left

  224. peter has joined

  225. debacle has left

  226. peter has left

  227. peter has joined

  228. Remko has left

  229. debacle has joined

  230. lnj has left

  231. debacle has left

  232. peter has left