I'm not convinced an LC when Ge0rG isn't convinced it should advance is productive
Kev
because we'll probably bore people of LCs on it.
Kev
But I won't block progress, so +-0.
Ge0rG
Kev: that's the exact definition of last call, isn't it?
Kev
Ge0rG: Depends, I read your 'not convinced' as 'well, we can ask, but I'd -1 advancing it without changes'.
jonas’
Ge0rG, boring people?
Kev
If that wasn't the spirit it was intended...
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.
Ge0rG
We'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?
Ge0rG
jonas’: most probably, yes. The last times after LC, just nothing happened
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.
dwd
Ge0rG, I suppose the interesting question is do you feel confident we can get it to Draft this time?
Ge0rG
I'm also convinced we need to copy all message errors to all resources
jonas’
I tend to agree with Kev
Ge0rG
dwd: I'd Rath first await implementation experience from the new changes
Ge0rG
*rather
Ge0rG
I haven't heard of any server implementing the new namespaced copying rules
dwd
Ge0rG, That's true. But we don't require that for Draft.
Ge0rG
Maybe an LC will make the developers realize there was a change.
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.
Ge0rG
Kev: this is getting philosophical
jonas’
implementation experience would be neat, but is technically not a requirement for Draft
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.
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.
Ge0rG
I don't want to end up with a useless Draft that needs undocumented knowledge to follow properly
Kev
And what Ge0rG says.
dwd
OK, 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?
Ge0rG
Kev: you could write about your experience on list and encourage others with the new namespace carrot
Kev
Ge0rG: Maybe I could.
dwd
OK - so the consensus is to reject for now.
jonas’
yes
dwd
b) Last Call: XEP-0300 (Crypto hashes)
jonas’
+1 on that one
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.
Kev
May as well.
Kev
(+1)
dwd
I'm +1 on this.
Ge0rG
Didn't we move the actual hash algorithm list into its own informational XEP?
jonas’
yes
Kev
Oh, except no.
Kev
The published 300 still has them in.
jonas’
yeah
jonas’
someone hasn’t merged it yet
Ge0rG
There are still hashes named in 0300.
Kev
Ah. Poke the editors? :)
jonas’
an editor shall do that before issuing the LC
dwd
What a disgraceful someone.
jonas’
an editor will
dwd
But yes, merge and Last Call.
Kev
Seems weird to issue an LC on an unpublished version, but I should be used to weird by now :)
Ge0rG
Do we have a rendered version of the proper content?
dwd
Kev, You're welcome to insist on a publication first, of course.
Ge0rG
I'm pretty sure I'm +1, but I'd like to have a quick glance to reconfirm
dwd
Ge0rG, Then be -1. Seems perfectly sensible.
jonas’
I can probably scp one without css somewhere
jonas’
but nobody will get hurt by delaying 1w
Ge0rG
Alright, I'll be -1 then
dwd
Cool.
dwd
4) Outstanding Votes
dwd
I don't think we have any.
dwd
5) Next Meeting
dwd
+1W OK for everyone?
Ge0rG
+2W for me
dwd
Anyone else can't make it next week?
jonas’
+1wfm
dwd
OK.
dwd
6) AOB
dwd
Anyone?
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.
dwd
I think discussing those might mean Guus comes out with other comments, given he implemented it recently.
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.
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.
jonas’
entirely replacing it?
dwd
Kev, You in a position to shepherd it through? I think it's got some implementation at least, now.
Kev
I guess we'll find out if it goes to LC. I'll ask for help if I fail.
dwd
OK - shall we put it on the slate for an LC next meeting?
Link Mauve
Hi, sorry I was talking with pep. IRL, didn’t see the time. ;_;
Kev
Vote on having a vote to LC for having a vote on advancement? How meta.
pep.
Oops, sorry
Link Mauve
I’ll read the minutes and take part on list.
dwd
Kev, Yeah. I'll just do that.
dwd
Link Mauve, You're lucky - both items for a vote are being dropped by consensus anyway.
dwd
Anyone anything else for AOB?
jonas’
not me
Kev
Please no.
dwd
Excellent.
dwd
7) Ite, Meeting Est
dwd
Thanks all.
dwd
Kev, Dunno why you're complaining, we're a minute short.
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).
jonas’
thanks dwd
Zash
And started a couple of minutes late?!
Ge0rG
I was just thinking of an AOB to cover at least 10 minutes
Guus
if anything, I'd like something like that to be added.
flow
as long as those are mostly guidelines and not mandatory parts of the specs…
Ge0rG
Now where did I write about 0357 not being ready yet?
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.
Guus
Ge0rG probably somewhere just above where Dave awakened me from my slumber. 🙂
Guus
Others refer to me as 'he-who-shall-not-be-named' to avoid this issue.
jonas’
move this to xsf@?
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
Zash
Are these network protocols or software specifications?
Ge0rG
Zash: 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
Ge0rG
https://twitter.com/jutta_steiner/status/1138815580184731650 looks like we can close the XSF Council now.