XMPP Council - 2019-07-10

  1. debacle has left

  2. peter has joined

  3. peter has left

  4. Wojtek has left

  5. peter has joined

  6. Zash has left

  7. peter has left

  8. peter has joined

  9. Remko has joined

  10. Remko has left

  11. peter has left

  12. Kev has joined

  13. moparisthebest has left

  14. moparisthebest has joined

  15. Remko has joined

  16. Kev has left

  17. Remko has left

  18. Remko has joined

  19. lnj has joined

  20. Kev has joined

  21. debacle has joined

  22. Kev has left

  23. Kev has joined

  24. 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.

  25. Zash has joined

  26. Zash has left

  27. Zash has joined

  28. Ge0rG has left

  29. Ge0rG has joined

  30. jonas’

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

  31. Zash has left

  32. Ge0rG

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

  33. Link Mauve

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

  34. jonas’

    here I am

  35. Link Mauve

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

  36. dwd

    Afternoon all.

  37. jonas’

    afternoon, chair

  38. Ge0rG

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

  39. jonas’

    don’t we all?

  40. Link Mauve

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

  41. Ge0rG

    now stop the chairity.

  42. peter has joined

  43. Ge0rG

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

  44. Ge0rG

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

  45. Ge0rG

    1) Roll Call

  46. Ge0rG

    dwd, jonas’, Kev, Link Mauve?

  47. Guus

    (you're connection is ok, Ge0rG )

  48. Link Mauve

    Yup, I’m here.

  49. jonas’

    I’m here, too

  50. Guus

    (your connection is ok, Ge0rG )

  51. Ge0rG

    Guus: :D

  52. Ge0rG

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

  53. Ge0rG

    2) Agenda Bashing

  54. jonas’

    Ge0rG, also this week

  55. Guus

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

  56. Ge0rG

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

  57. Ge0rG

    two items for vote, that is.

  58. Ge0rG

    Anything else?

  59. Guus

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

  60. jonas’

    not from me

  61. Ge0rG

    Let's go on then.

  62. Ge0rG

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

  63. jonas’


  64. Ge0rG

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

  65. Ge0rG


  66. Ge0rG kicks Link Mauve's wifi

  67. Link Mauve


  68. Ge0rG

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

  69. Ge0rG

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

  70. jonas’


  71. Link Mauve

    Definitely +1 on this.

  72. Ge0rG

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

  73. Ge0rG

    4) Outstanding Votes

  74. jonas’

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

  75. Ge0rG

    That's an awesome AOB actually

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

  77. jonas’

    peter, great!

  78. Dave Cridland has joined

  79. jonas’

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

  80. Ge0rG

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

  81. jonas’

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

  82. 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

  83. Dave Cridland

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

  84. Dave Cridland

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

  85. Ge0rG

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

  86. Ge0rG

    5) Next Meeting

  87. Link Mauve

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

  88. Ge0rG


  89. Dave Cridland

    +1W is good.

  90. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  91. Link Mauve


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

  93. Ge0rG


  94. jonas’

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

  95. Ge0rG

    6) AOB

  96. Ge0rG

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

  97. Ge0rG

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

  98. jonas’

    can do

  99. 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

  100. Dave Cridland

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

  101. 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.

  102. Ge0rG

    I second that, PubSub is another candidate for this category

  103. jonas’

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

  104. jonas’

    which is probably not a good thing

  105. jonas’

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

  106. jonas’

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

  107. Link Mauve

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

  108. peter

    (although we might be the people posting PRs too)

  109. 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

  110. Ge0rG

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

  111. jonas’

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

  112. jonas’

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

  113. 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

  114. 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.

  115. Dave Cridland

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

  116. Guus

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

  117. 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

  118. 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

  119. jonas’

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

  120. Ge0rG

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

  121. jonas’

    and too much organizational overhead IMO

  122. Ge0rG

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

  123. Ge0rG

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

  124. jonas’

    author and/or implementor during CFE

  125. peter

    ^ this

  126. 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

  127. peter

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

  128. peter

    Same for others, I'm sure.

  129. jonas’

    peter, is pinging your github name enough?

  130. Dave Cridland

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

  131. Ge0rG

    Dave Cridland: that's perfectly fine with me

  132. debacle has left

  133. Ge0rG

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

  134. 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.

  135. Ge0rG

    I think we can move forward with that.

  136. peter

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

  137. Ge0rG

    peter: indeed.

  138. Ge0rG

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

  139. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yes

  140. 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.

  141. peter


  142. jonas’

    can we start this process right now for #793?

  143. Ge0rG


  144. jonas’

    then let’s do that

  145. Ge0rG

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

  146. Ge0rG

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

  147. peter

    Yes, I can commit to that.

  148. Ge0rG

    peter: thanks very much.

  149. Ge0rG

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

  150. Ge0rG

    Any other suggested reviewers?

  151. 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?

  152. Ge0rG

    We are also a bit over time already.

  153. Ge0rG

    Also it seems like we've lost quorum.

  154. jonas’

    I’m here

  155. jonas’

    but yes

  156. Ge0rG

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

  157. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, ok, I will do that.

  158. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: great, thanks

  159. Ge0rG

    7) Close

  160. Ge0rG

    Thanks everybody.

  161. Dave Cridland

    Ge0rG, Thanks for stepping up there.

  162. jonas’

    thanks Ge0rG

  163. Link Mauve

    Thanks. :)

  164. Dave Cridland has left

  165. peter

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

  166. peter

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

  167. Lance has joined

  168. peter

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

  169. wojtek has joined

  170. 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

  171. Lance

    Yeah, I can do that today

  172. wojtek has left

  173. Kev has left

  174. dwd has left

  175. dwd has joined

  176. Lance has left

  177. dwd has left

  178. dwd has joined

  179. Kev has joined

  180. peter has left

  181. Kev has left

  182. Lance has joined

  183. Kev has joined

  184. Lance has left

  185. Lance has joined

  186. lee has joined

  187. 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.

  188. Kev has left

  189. fippo

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

  190. Kev has joined

  191. Remko has left

  192. Remko has joined

  193. Remko has left

  194. Remko has joined

  195. Remko has left

  196. Kev has left

  197. Remko has joined

  198. debacle has joined

  199. Remko has left

  200. Lance has left

  201. peter has joined

  202. Remko has joined

  203. Remko has left

  204. debacle has left

  205. Lance has joined

  206. lnj has left