XMPP Council - 2019-07-10

00:20:11 debacle has left
00:31:10 peter has joined
00:35:34 peter has left
01:17:51 Wojtek has left
01:18:59 peter has joined
01:27:06 Zash has left
01:37:29 peter has left
01:39:48 peter has joined
02:07:58 Remko has joined
02:24:17 Remko has left
02:57:00 peter has left
05:51:09 Kev has joined
06:11:55 moparisthebest has left
06:12:30 moparisthebest has joined
06:38:01 Remko has joined
06:39:29 Kev has left
06:54:49 Remko has left
06:54:58 Remko has joined
07:04:20 lnj has joined
07:15:18 Kev has joined
08:43:59 debacle has joined
08:57:22 Kev has left
10:46:21 Kev has joined
12:30:15 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.
12:33:42 Zash has joined
12:56:23 Zash has left
12:56:30 Zash has joined
14:01:52 Ge0rG has left
14:02:13 Ge0rG has joined
14:47:40 jonas’ I may be late by five minutes or so, I'm stuck in public transport.
14:47:40 Zash has left
14:54:12 Ge0rG I'm almost there, still hanging in a conference call
14:55:19 Link Mauve I found a free wifi, I’ll be here.
14:55:31 jonas’ here I am
14:56:05 Link Mauve Sitting on the floor in a train station, with many other people waiting for their train.
14:59:45 dwd Afternoon all.
14:59:56 jonas’ afternoon, chair
15:00:13 Ge0rG looks like Link Mauve is the one who needs a chair.
15:00:20 jonas’ don’t we all?
15:00:45 Link Mauve The floor is comfortable, I’ll let you chair.
15:01:01 Ge0rG now stop the chairity.
15:02:06 peter has joined
15:03:19 Ge0rG dwd: are you waiting for more silly chair jokes, or just got distracted?
15:04:48 Ge0rG It looks like we have a quorum, so maybe we can start nevertheless. I'll try to fake Dave until he reappears.
15:04:52 Ge0rG 1) Roll Call
15:04:59 Ge0rG dwd, jonas’, Kev, Link Mauve?
15:05:30 Guus (you're connection is ok, Ge0rG )
15:05:32 Link Mauve Yup, I’m here.
15:05:44 jonas’ I’m here, too
15:05:45 Guus (your connection is ok, Ge0rG )
15:05:46 Ge0rG Guus: :D
15:06:31 Ge0rG two out of five. I vaguely remember Kev sending apologies, but probably only for last week.
15:06:37 Ge0rG 2) Agenda Bashing
15:06:45 jonas’ Ge0rG, also this week
15:06:54 Guus > I'm likely to be absent again this week, sorry. Yesterday
15:06:55 Ge0rG There was no further input on the ML, and we have two items.
15:07:04 Ge0rG two items for vote, that is.
15:07:09 Ge0rG Anything else?
15:07:16 Guus > I'm likely to be absent again this week, sorry. Kev, Yesterday
15:07:19 jonas’ not from me
15:07:53 Ge0rG Let's go on then.
15:07:58 Ge0rG 3a) XEP-0128: Remove 'unlikely' statement. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/797
15:08:02 jonas’ +1
15:08:12 Ge0rG This looks straight-forward and I'm pretty sure it's not a breaking change.
15:08:13 Ge0rG +1
15:09:16 Ge0rG kicks Link Mauve's wifi
15:09:20 Link Mauve +1
15:09:35 Ge0rG Awesome. If Dave happens to re-appear, he can cast his vote as well.
15:09:48 Ge0rG 3b) XEP-0368: clarify what happens when a `.` target is published. https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/796
15:10:18 jonas’ +1
15:10:33 Link Mauve Definitely +1 on this.
15:10:39 Ge0rG +1, as this is just a clarification of what's in RFC 2782
15:10:50 Ge0rG 4) Outstanding Votes
15:11:01 jonas’ I still don’t know what to do about the jingle things
15:11:15 Ge0rG That's an awesome AOB actually
15:11:41 peter is sort-of watching in case author input is needed
15:11:50 jonas’ peter, great!
15:12:13 Dave Cridland has joined
15:12:30 jonas’ although that has resolved itself because it expired / vetoed with several -1 because nobody had an idea what to do about it
15:12:35 Ge0rG Dave Cridland: who are you and what have you done to dwd?
15:13:07 jonas’ I read the mails by fippo but those weren’t a clear +1 / -1 for me
15:13:08 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
15:13:21 Dave Cridland Sorry, seems my DSL at home went down at exactly the wrong moment.
15:13:41 Dave Cridland And my j.org account has months of spam to download from offline storage...
15:14:02 Ge0rG Dave Cridland: that adds to the voting spam from this MUC
15:15:17 Ge0rG 5) Next Meeting
15:15:18 Link Mauve Ge0rG, still on list for me, I haven’t reviewed it yet.
15:15:21 Ge0rG +1W?
15:16:25 Dave Cridland +1W is good.
15:16:30 jonas’ +1w wfm
15:16:36 Link Mauve Same.
15:16:45 Ge0rG was just going to post a crickets emoji.
15:16:52 Ge0rG Great.
15:16:57 jonas’ sorry, didn’t realize you were waiting for input :)
15:16:59 Ge0rG 6) AOB
15:17:07 Ge0rG 6a) Jingle and other "special skills" [Jonas]
15:17:24 Ge0rG jonas’: do you want to make your point first?
15:17:30 jonas’ can do
15:18:05 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
15:18:31 Dave Cridland I do sympathize - I've never implemented Jingle either.
15:18:36 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.
15:18:43 Ge0rG I second that, PubSub is another candidate for this category
15:18:55 jonas’ so I don’t really feel confident when voting on Jingle things
15:18:58 jonas’ which is probably not a good thing
15:19:12 jonas’ now others have mentioned that the Jingle veterans like fippo and peter would be qualified to give reviews, which makes sense to me
15:19:17 jonas’ and which would, in my opinion, be a sane way forward
15:19:27 Link Mauve jonas’, it’s the opposite for me, I feel Jingle pretty well, but MIX is still foreign to me.
15:19:31 peter (although we might be the people posting PRs too)
15:19:37 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
15:19:38 Ge0rG The alternatives would be: - create a Jingle SIG - force all Council members to implement Jingle
15:20:13 jonas’ deferring to the authors would effectively mean that we treat Jingle like any Experimental XEP
15:20:30 jonas’ modulo that someone like Link Mauve may be a gatekeeper, too
15:21:00 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
15:21:06 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.
15:21:24 Dave Cridland But I'm all in favour of getting independent reviews.
15:21:39 Guus From the floor: is this to be a consideration when accepting future, new, possibly complex XEPs?
15:21:43 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
15:21:44 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
15:22:10 jonas’ Guus, not necessarily from my side. sometimes complexity is necessary. I’m not saying that Jingle is too complex for what it does
15:23:13 Ge0rG A SIG for each complex area would be a very formal way to do things.
15:23:21 jonas’ and too much organizational overhead IMO
15:23:24 Ge0rG I'm fine with just asking for +1/-1 from veterans on the list.
15:23:43 Ge0rG I just wonder how we define who qualifies for a veteran.
15:24:06 jonas’ author and/or implementor during CFE
15:24:14 peter ^ this
15:24:15 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
15:24:40 peter Please do feel free to flag me on PR reviews in GitHub.
15:24:49 peter Same for others, I'm sure.
15:24:49 jonas’ peter, is pinging your github name enough?
15:24:51 Dave Cridland Ge0rG, How about we discuss who we'll ask for reviews when things come up for voting that we'reuncomfprtable with?
15:25:03 Ge0rG Dave Cridland: that's perfectly fine with me
15:25:44 debacle has left
15:25:58 Ge0rG So when such a vote comes up, we defer it and define a list of people to consult.
15:26:17 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.
15:26:43 Ge0rG I think we can move forward with that.
15:26:58 peter And as Dave says, it's up to the Council members to come to their own conclusions.
15:27:07 Ge0rG peter: indeed.
15:27:31 Ge0rG Do we still need to do so for https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/793 ? Probably yes.
15:27:47 jonas’ Ge0rG, yes
15:28:06 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.
15:28:14 peter s/IETF/IESG/
15:29:23 jonas’ can we start this process right now for #793?
15:29:41 Ge0rG Yes.
15:29:53 jonas’ then let’s do that
15:29:57 Ge0rG peter: do you feel confident to review #793 and to estimate its implications?
15:30:10 Ge0rG (also able to review it in two weeks time?)
15:30:45 peter Yes, I can commit to that.
15:30:58 Ge0rG peter: thanks very much.
15:31:19 Ge0rG I also don't see a clear indication from fippo's email. We probably should ask for a clarification.
15:32:48 Ge0rG Any other suggested reviewers?
15:33:41 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?
15:34:03 Ge0rG We are also a bit over time already.
15:35:07 Ge0rG Also it seems like we've lost quorum.
15:35:17 jonas’ I’m here
15:35:24 jonas’ but yes
15:35:34 Ge0rG Dave Cridland: do you have suggestions on whom to ask for reviews of #793?
15:35:40 Link Mauve Ge0rG, ok, I will do that.
15:35:49 Ge0rG Link Mauve: great, thanks
15:36:28 Ge0rG 7) Close
15:36:32 Ge0rG Thanks everybody.
15:36:42 Dave Cridland Ge0rG, Thanks for stepping up there.
15:36:47 jonas’ thanks Ge0rG
15:36:55 Link Mauve Thanks. :)
15:37:38 Dave Cridland has left
15:38:19 peter Please note that I am interrupt-driven, so feel free to poke me if I haven't replied in time!
15:39:13 peter (well, interrupt-driven and also overloaded in my $dayjob)
15:44:42 Lance has joined
15:47:19 peter Lance is another possible "Jingle veteran" who could possibly review PRs. :-)
16:02:38 wojtek has joined
16:12:55 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
16:15:09 Lance Yeah, I can do that today
16:44:39 wojtek has left
17:24:02 Kev has left
17:33:38 dwd has left
17:33:42 dwd has joined
17:35:59 Lance has left
17:47:44 dwd has left
17:47:49 dwd has joined
17:48:03 Kev has joined
17:53:29 peter has left
18:00:41 Kev has left
18:07:18 Lance has joined
18:29:07 Kev has joined
18:39:19 Lance has left
18:41:22 Lance has joined
18:55:11 lee has joined
19:17:06 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.
19:32:10 Kev has left
19:43:25 fippo ge0rg: i would only do a "first thre get served" to ensure my opinion has a majority :-)
20:04:10 Kev has joined
20:08:04 Remko has left
20:33:31 Remko has joined
20:49:37 Remko has left
20:59:13 Remko has joined
21:19:41 Remko has left
21:22:36 Kev has left
21:22:50 Remko has joined
21:29:24 debacle has joined
21:52:19 Remko has left
22:04:07 Lance has left
22:14:33 peter has joined
22:21:53 Remko has joined
22:52:56 Remko has left
23:14:27 debacle has left
23:22:16 Lance has joined
23:45:53 lnj has left