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’ +1
  64. Ge0rG This looks straight-forward and I'm pretty sure it's not a breaking change.
  65. Ge0rG +1
  66. Ge0rG kicks Link Mauve's wifi
  67. Link Mauve +1
  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’ +1
  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 +1W?
  89. Dave Cridland +1W is good.
  90. jonas’ +1w wfm
  91. Link Mauve Same.
  92. Ge0rG was just going to post a crickets emoji.
  93. Ge0rG Great.
  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 s/IETF/IESG/
  142. jonas’ can we start this process right now for #793?
  143. Ge0rG Yes.
  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