XMPP Council - 2019-06-12


  1. dwd hits 5 minute warning klaxon

  2. jonas’ sues dwd for ear damage

  3. jonas’

    ...?

  4. Ge0rG

    Where's the meeting start klaxon?

  5. dwd

    Ooops.

  6. dwd

    1) Role Call

  7. jonas’

  8. dwd <--

  9. Ge0rG

    .

  10. dwd

    Cool. Quorum achieved.

  11. jonas’

    cluster ready to operate

  12. Kev

    I'm here

  13. dwd

    Great.

  14. dwd

    2) Agenda Bashing

  15. dwd

    Anything I missed?

  16. dwd

    If not:

  17. Ge0rG

    I might go missing silently in the middle of things

  18. jonas’

    how should we know?

  19. dwd

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

  20. Ge0rG

    I want to bash agenda item 3a

  21. jonas’

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

  22. dwd

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

  23. dwd

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

  24. jonas’

    I’m +1 on the LC

  25. Ge0rG

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

  26. jonas’

    and I’m also fine with dwd shepherding it

  27. dwd

    Yay?

  28. Ge0rG

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

  29. dwd

    Kev, ?

  30. Kev

    +-[01]

  31. Kev

    [+-][01]

  32. Kev

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

  33. Kev

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

  34. Kev

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

  35. Ge0rG

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

  36. Kev

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

  37. jonas’

    Ge0rG, boring people?

  38. Kev

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

  39. 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.

  40. Ge0rG

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

  41. jonas’

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

  42. Ge0rG

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

  43. 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.

  44. dwd

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

  45. Ge0rG

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

  46. jonas’

    I tend to agree with Kev

  47. Ge0rG

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

  48. Ge0rG

    *rather

  49. Ge0rG

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

  50. dwd

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

  51. Ge0rG

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

  52. 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.

  53. Ge0rG

    Kev: this is getting philosophical

  54. jonas’

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

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. Ge0rG

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

  58. Kev

    And what Ge0rG says.

  59. dwd

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

  60. jonas’

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

  61. Ge0rG

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

  62. Kev

    Ge0rG: Maybe I could.

  63. dwd

    OK - so the consensus is to reject for now.

  64. jonas’

    yes

  65. dwd

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

  66. jonas’

    +1 on that one

  67. 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.

  68. Kev

    May as well.

  69. Kev

    (+1)

  70. dwd

    I'm +1 on this.

  71. Ge0rG

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

  72. jonas’

    yes

  73. Kev

    Oh, except no.

  74. Kev

    The published 300 still has them in.

  75. jonas’

    yeah

  76. jonas’

    someone hasn’t merged it yet

  77. Ge0rG

    There are still hashes named in 0300.

  78. Kev

    Ah. Poke the editors? :)

  79. jonas’

    an editor shall do that before issuing the LC

  80. dwd

    What a disgraceful someone.

  81. jonas’

    an editor will

  82. dwd

    But yes, merge and Last Call.

  83. Kev

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

  84. Ge0rG

    Do we have a rendered version of the proper content?

  85. dwd

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

  86. Ge0rG

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

  87. dwd

    Ge0rG, Then be -1. Seems perfectly sensible.

  88. jonas’

    I can probably scp one without css somewhere

  89. jonas’

    but nobody will get hurt by delaying 1w

  90. Ge0rG

    Alright, I'll be -1 then

  91. dwd

    Cool.

  92. dwd

    4) Outstanding Votes

  93. dwd

    I don't think we have any.

  94. dwd

    5) Next Meeting

  95. dwd

    +1W OK for everyone?

  96. Ge0rG

    +2W for me

  97. dwd

    Anyone else can't make it next week?

  98. jonas’

    +1wfm

  99. dwd

    OK.

  100. dwd

    6) AOB

  101. dwd

    Anyone?

  102. 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.

  103. dwd

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

  104. 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.

  105. 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.

  106. jonas’

    entirely replacing it?

  107. dwd

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

  108. Kev

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

  109. dwd

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

  110. Link Mauve

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

  111. Kev

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

  112. pep.

    Oops, sorry

  113. Link Mauve

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

  114. dwd

    Kev, Yeah. I'll just do that.

  115. dwd

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

  116. dwd

    Anyone anything else for AOB?

  117. jonas’

    not me

  118. Kev

    Please no.

  119. dwd

    Excellent.

  120. dwd

    7) Ite, Meeting Est

  121. dwd

    Thanks all.

  122. dwd

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

  123. 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).

  124. jonas’

    thanks dwd

  125. Zash

    And started a couple of minutes late?!

  126. Ge0rG

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

  127. Guus

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

  128. flow

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

  129. Ge0rG

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

  130. 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.

  131. Guus

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

  132. Guus

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

  133. jonas’

    move this to xsf@?

  134. 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

  135. Zash

    Are these network protocols or software specifications?

  136. Ge0rG

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

  137. 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

  138. Ge0rG

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