XMPP Council - 2019-07-10

  1. Link Mauve

    I’m accompanying a friend to a train station this afternoon, I may not have Internet at the time of the meeting, but I’ll attempt to.

  2. jonas’

    I may be late by five minutes or so, I'm stuck in public transport.

  3. Ge0rG

    I'm almost there, still hanging in a conference call

  4. Link Mauve

    I found a free wifi, I’ll be here.

  5. jonas’

    here I am

  6. Link Mauve

    Sitting on the floor in a train station, with many other people waiting for their train.

  7. dwd

    Afternoon all.

  8. jonas’

    afternoon, chair

  9. Ge0rG

    looks like Link Mauve is the one who needs a chair.

  10. jonas’

    don’t we all?

  11. Link Mauve

    The floor is comfortable, I’ll let you chair.

  12. Ge0rG

    now stop the chairity.

  13. Ge0rG

    dwd: are you waiting for more silly chair jokes, or just got distracted?

  14. Ge0rG

    It looks like we have a quorum, so maybe we can start nevertheless. I'll try to fake Dave until he reappears.

  15. Ge0rG

    1) Roll Call

  16. Ge0rG

    dwd, jonas’, Kev, Link Mauve?

  17. Guus

    (you're connection is ok, Ge0rG )

  18. Link Mauve

    Yup, I’m here.

  19. jonas’

    I’m here, too

  20. Guus

    (your connection is ok, Ge0rG )

  21. Ge0rG

    Guus: :D

  22. Ge0rG

    two out of five. I vaguely remember Kev sending apologies, but probably only for last week.

  23. Ge0rG

    2) Agenda Bashing

  24. jonas’

    Ge0rG, also this week

  25. Guus

    > I'm likely to be absent again this week, sorry. Yesterday

  26. Ge0rG

    There was no further input on the ML, and we have two items.

  27. Ge0rG

    two items for vote, that is.

  28. Ge0rG

    Anything else?

  29. Guus

    > I'm likely to be absent again this week, sorry. Kev, Yesterday

  30. jonas’

    not from me

  31. Ge0rG

    Let's go on then.

  32. Ge0rG

    3a) XEP-0128: Remove 'unlikely' statement. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/797

  33. jonas’


  34. Ge0rG

    This looks straight-forward and I'm pretty sure it's not a breaking change.

  35. Ge0rG


  36. Ge0rG kicks Link Mauve's wifi

  37. Link Mauve


  38. Ge0rG

    Awesome. If Dave happens to re-appear, he can cast his vote as well.

  39. Ge0rG

    3b) XEP-0368: clarify what happens when a `.` target is published. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/796

  40. jonas’


  41. Link Mauve

    Definitely +1 on this.

  42. Ge0rG

    +1, as this is just a clarification of what's in RFC 2782

  43. Ge0rG

    4) Outstanding Votes

  44. jonas’

    I still don’t know what to do about the jingle things

  45. Ge0rG

    That's an awesome AOB actually

  46. peter is sort-of watching in case author input is needed

  47. jonas’

    peter, great!

  48. jonas’

    although that has resolved itself because it expired / vetoed with several -1 because nobody had an idea what to do about it

  49. Ge0rG

    Dave Cridland: who are you and what have you done to dwd?

  50. jonas’

    I read the mails by fippo but those weren’t a clear +1 / -1 for me

  51. Ge0rG

    We also have two votes that expire today, with missing input from Kev and Link on https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-sce.html

  52. Dave Cridland

    Sorry, seems my DSL at home went down at exactly the wrong moment.

  53. Dave Cridland

    And my j.org account has months of spam to download from offline storage...

  54. Ge0rG

    Dave Cridland: that adds to the voting spam from this MUC

  55. Ge0rG

    5) Next Meeting

  56. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, still on list for me, I haven’t reviewed it yet.

  57. Ge0rG


  58. Dave Cridland

    +1W is good.

  59. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  60. Link Mauve


  61. Ge0rG was just going to post a crickets emoji.

  62. Ge0rG


  63. jonas’

    sorry, didn’t realize you were waiting for input :)

  64. Ge0rG

    6) AOB

  65. Ge0rG

    6a) Jingle and other "special skills" [Jonas]

  66. Ge0rG

    jonas’: do you want to make your point first?

  67. jonas’

    can do

  68. jonas’

    so, my point is that Jingle and possibly other subprotocols of XMPP are rather complex beasts, and I find it very hard to judge whether a change is sensible without having implemented it myself

  69. Dave Cridland

    I do sympathize - I've never implemented Jingle either.

  70. jonas’

    Jingle is my main issue right now, because I have sunk several hours into reviewing MIX in depth and took MIX into consideration when I wrote my MUC implementation, so I have a rough idea how things work there; same for PubSub.

  71. Ge0rG

    I second that, PubSub is another candidate for this category

  72. jonas’

    so I don’t really feel confident when voting on Jingle things

  73. jonas’

    which is probably not a good thing

  74. jonas’

    now others have mentioned that the Jingle veterans like fippo and peter would be qualified to give reviews, which makes sense to me

  75. jonas’

    and which would, in my opinion, be a sane way forward

  76. Link Mauve

    jonas’, it’s the opposite for me, I feel Jingle pretty well, but MIX is still foreign to me.

  77. peter

    (although we might be the people posting PRs too)

  78. jonas’

    it would of course be even better if council had actually the technical understanding itself, but that’s probably not realistic for all the 400+ things we have

  79. Ge0rG

    The alternatives would be: - create a Jingle SIG - force all Council members to implement Jingle

  80. jonas’

    deferring to the authors would effectively mean that we treat Jingle like any Experimental XEP

  81. jonas’

    modulo that someone like Link Mauve may be a gatekeeper, too

  82. Ge0rG

    I think that formally, we should aim for something like two (or three) independent reviews from people who were not involved in the PR

  83. Dave Cridland

    However, my view is that we're voted onto Council and we have to have to final say. How we reach that decision is, basically, up to us - you're welcome to defer to expertise like Fippo if you like, or something else.

  84. Dave Cridland

    But I'm all in favour of getting independent reviews.

  85. Guus

    From the floor: is this to be a consideration when accepting future, new, possibly complex XEPs?

  86. jonas’

    so my course of action would be to ask on the mailing list for specific +1/-1 feedback on the PRs from the jingle veterans

  87. Ge0rG

    Dave Cridland: I'd like to prevent a situation where all five Council members privately ask fippo for feedback and base their decisions on that

  88. jonas’

    Guus, not necessarily from my side. sometimes complexity is necessary. I’m not saying that Jingle is too complex for what it does

  89. Ge0rG

    A SIG for each complex area would be a very formal way to do things.

  90. jonas’

    and too much organizational overhead IMO

  91. Ge0rG

    I'm fine with just asking for +1/-1 from veterans on the list.

  92. Ge0rG

    I just wonder how we define who qualifies for a veteran.

  93. jonas’

    author and/or implementor during CFE

  94. peter

    ^ this

  95. Ge0rG

    Or maybe this is something we as Council members can do implicitly. Ask for public review, wait, -1 if there is not enough feedback

  96. peter

    Please do feel free to flag me on PR reviews in GitHub.

  97. peter

    Same for others, I'm sure.

  98. jonas’

    peter, is pinging your github name enough?

  99. Dave Cridland

    Ge0rG, How about we discuss who we'll ask for reviews when things come up for voting that we'reuncomfprtable with?

  100. Ge0rG

    Dave Cridland: that's perfectly fine with me

  101. Ge0rG

    So when such a vote comes up, we defer it and define a list of people to consult.

  102. Dave Cridland

    That's probably the right choice. And I've usually found that one decent reviewer is often enough to spark a discussion which illuminates the issues.

  103. Ge0rG

    I think we can move forward with that.

  104. peter

    And as Dave says, it's up to the Council members to come to their own conclusions.

  105. Ge0rG

    peter: indeed.

  106. Ge0rG

    Do we still need to do so for https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/793 ? Probably yes.

  107. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yes

  108. peter

    I balloted on lots of RFCs while I was on the IETF, but I didn't make as many comments on routing specs (that's not my area of expertise) as on apps/real-time specs.

  109. peter


  110. jonas’

    can we start this process right now for #793?

  111. Ge0rG


  112. jonas’

    then let’s do that

  113. Ge0rG

    peter: do you feel confident to review #793 and to estimate its implications?

  114. Ge0rG

    (also able to review it in two weeks time?)

  115. peter

    Yes, I can commit to that.

  116. Ge0rG

    peter: thanks very much.

  117. Ge0rG

    I also don't see a clear indication from fippo's email. We probably should ask for a clarification.

  118. Ge0rG

    Any other suggested reviewers?

  119. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve, obviously. You didn't vote the last time. Can you review the PR and make a public statement on the ML thread?

  120. Ge0rG

    We are also a bit over time already.

  121. Ge0rG

    Also it seems like we've lost quorum.

  122. jonas’

    I’m here

  123. jonas’

    but yes

  124. Ge0rG

    Dave Cridland: do you have suggestions on whom to ask for reviews of #793?

  125. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, ok, I will do that.

  126. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: great, thanks

  127. Ge0rG

    7) Close

  128. Ge0rG

    Thanks everybody.

  129. Dave Cridland

    Ge0rG, Thanks for stepping up there.

  130. jonas’

    thanks Ge0rG

  131. Link Mauve

    Thanks. :)

  132. peter

    Please note that I am interrupt-driven, so feel free to poke me if I haven't replied in time!

  133. peter

    (well, interrupt-driven and also overloaded in my $dayjob)

  134. peter

    Lance is another possible "Jingle veteran" who could possibly review PRs. :-)

  135. Ge0rG

    Lance: could you also have a look at https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/793 (is it useful? does it break things? is it an incompatible change?) and provide a feedback on the standards@ ML? That would be highly appreciated

  136. Lance

    Yeah, I can do that today

  137. Lance

    My review of that PR is that, although I agree entirely with the sentiment, the change would be breaking, and by itself is not worth the namespace fracturing.

  138. fippo

    ge0rg: i would only do a "first thre get served" to ensure my opinion has a majority :-)