This looks straight-forward and I'm pretty sure it's not a breaking change.
Ge0rG
+1
Ge0rGkicks Link Mauve's wifi
Link Mauve
+1
Ge0rG
Awesome. If Dave happens to re-appear, he can cast his vote as well.
Ge0rG
3b) XEP-0368: clarify what happens when a `.` target is published. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/796
jonas’
+1
Link Mauve
Definitely +1 on this.
Ge0rG
+1, as this is just a clarification of what's in RFC 2782
Ge0rG
4) Outstanding Votes
jonas’
I still don’t know what to do about the jingle things
Ge0rG
That's an awesome AOB actually
peteris sort-of watching in case author input is needed
jonas’
peter, great!
Dave Cridlandhas joined
jonas’
although that has resolved itself because it expired / vetoed with several -1 because nobody had an idea what to do about it
Ge0rG
Dave Cridland: who are you and what have you done to dwd?
jonas’
I read the mails by fippo but those weren’t a clear +1 / -1 for me
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
Dave Cridland
Sorry, seems my DSL at home went down at exactly the wrong moment.
Dave Cridland
And my j.org account has months of spam to download from offline storage...
Ge0rG
Dave Cridland: that adds to the voting spam from this MUC
Ge0rG
5) Next Meeting
Link Mauve
Ge0rG, still on list for me, I haven’t reviewed it yet.
Ge0rG
+1W?
Dave Cridland
+1W is good.
jonas’
+1w wfm
Link Mauve
Same.
Ge0rGwas just going to post a crickets emoji.
Ge0rG
Great.
jonas’
sorry, didn’t realize you were waiting for input :)
Ge0rG
6) AOB
Ge0rG
6a) Jingle and other "special skills" [Jonas]
Ge0rG
jonas’: do you want to make your point first?
jonas’
can do
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
Dave Cridland
I do sympathize - I've never implemented Jingle either.
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.
Ge0rG
I second that, PubSub is another candidate for this category
jonas’
so I don’t really feel confident when voting on Jingle things
jonas’
which is probably not a good thing
jonas’
now others have mentioned that the Jingle veterans like fippo and peter would be qualified to give reviews, which makes sense to me
jonas’
and which would, in my opinion, be a sane way forward
Link Mauve
jonas’, it’s the opposite for me, I feel Jingle pretty well, but MIX is still foreign to me.
peter
(although we might be the people posting PRs too)
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
Ge0rG
The alternatives would be:
- create a Jingle SIG
- force all Council members to implement Jingle
jonas’
deferring to the authors would effectively mean that we treat Jingle like any Experimental XEP
jonas’
modulo that someone like Link Mauve may be a gatekeeper, too
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
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.
Dave Cridland
But I'm all in favour of getting independent reviews.
Guus
From the floor: is this to be a consideration when accepting future, new, possibly complex XEPs?
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
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
jonas’
Guus, not necessarily from my side. sometimes complexity is necessary. I’m not saying that Jingle is too complex for what it does
Ge0rG
A SIG for each complex area would be a very formal way to do things.
jonas’
and too much organizational overhead IMO
Ge0rG
I'm fine with just asking for +1/-1 from veterans on the list.
Ge0rG
I just wonder how we define who qualifies for a veteran.
jonas’
author and/or implementor during CFE
peter
^ this
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
peter
Please do feel free to flag me on PR reviews in GitHub.
peter
Same for others, I'm sure.
jonas’
peter, is pinging your github name enough?
Dave Cridland
Ge0rG, How about we discuss who we'll ask for reviews when things come up for voting that we'reuncomfprtable with?
Ge0rG
Dave Cridland: that's perfectly fine with me
debaclehas left
Ge0rG
So when such a vote comes up, we defer it and define a list of people to consult.
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.
Ge0rG
I think we can move forward with that.
peter
And as Dave says, it's up to the Council members to come to their own conclusions.
Ge0rG
peter: indeed.
Ge0rG
Do we still need to do so for https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/793 ? Probably yes.
jonas’
Ge0rG, yes
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.
peter
s/IETF/IESG/
jonas’
can we start this process right now for #793?
Ge0rG
Yes.
jonas’
then let’s do that
Ge0rG
peter: do you feel confident to review #793 and to estimate its implications?
Ge0rG
(also able to review it in two weeks time?)
peter
Yes, I can commit to that.
Ge0rG
peter: thanks very much.
Ge0rG
I also don't see a clear indication from fippo's email. We probably should ask for a clarification.
Ge0rG
Any other suggested reviewers?
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?
Ge0rG
We are also a bit over time already.
Ge0rG
Also it seems like we've lost quorum.
jonas’
I’m here
jonas’
but yes
Ge0rG
Dave Cridland: do you have suggestions on whom to ask for reviews of #793?
Link Mauve
Ge0rG, ok, I will do that.
Ge0rG
Link Mauve: great, thanks
Ge0rG
7) Close
Ge0rG
Thanks everybody.
Dave Cridland
Ge0rG, Thanks for stepping up there.
jonas’
thanks Ge0rG
Link Mauve
Thanks. :)
Dave Cridlandhas left
peter
Please note that I am interrupt-driven, so feel free to poke me if I haven't replied in time!
peter
(well, interrupt-driven and also overloaded in my $dayjob)
Lancehas joined
peter
Lance is another possible "Jingle veteran" who could possibly review PRs. :-)
wojtekhas joined
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
Lance
Yeah, I can do that today
wojtekhas left
Kevhas left
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
Lancehas left
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
Kevhas joined
peterhas left
Kevhas left
Lancehas joined
Kevhas joined
Lancehas left
Lancehas joined
leehas joined
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.
Kevhas left
fippo
ge0rg: i would only do a "first thre get served" to ensure my opinion has a majority :-)