XMPP Council - 2019-07-24


  1. Tobias has joined

  2. Syndace has left

  3. Zash has joined

  4. Lance has left

  5. lnj has joined

  6. Remko has joined

  7. Syndace has joined

  8. debacle has joined

  9. lnj has left

  10. Holger has left

  11. lnj has joined

  12. dragonspirit810 has joined

  13. Holger has joined

  14. dragonspirit810 has left

  15. dwd

    Afternoon folks. Been a bit busy, but I'll knock out an agenda now - Ge0rG - I've spotted a couple of messages about Compliance 2020? Anyone else got anything?

  16. Ge0rG

    dwd: those messages are redundant to each other. I've got no further topics to add

  17. dwd

    <reaction>👍</reaction>

  18. Ge0rG

    🙈🙉🙊

  19. dwd

    🤣

  20. Link Mauve

    Let’s do the entire meeting only with emoji!

  21. dwd

    Anyway. I don't see anything new to vote on, just your chat on Compliance Suites.

  22. dwd

    Link Mauve, From https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2019/07/18/the-internet-is-changing-language-less-than-curmudgeons-fear - "They are not a language (try telling a complex story in emoji to someone who doesn’t know it already)."

  23. Ge0rG

    oh snap, I forgot an AOB

  24. Ge0rG

    dwd: it's from the Reactions / References discussion on-list: generalize "this message belongs to past message X" into a small self-contained XEP, change LMC, Reactions, References etc.

  25. Link Mauve

    +1 to that!

  26. Ge0rG

    namespace-bump everything!

  27. dwd

    Link Mauve, To what?

  28. Link Mauve

    dwd, +1ing Ge0rG’s AOB.

  29. Link Mauve

    Maybe a bit early. ^^

  30. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: now it's too late to pull back

  31. jonas’

    .

  32. dwd

    Finally managed an agenda.

  33. Ge0rG

    No worries, we've got some more 20mins

  34. peter has joined

  35. Ge0rG rings a bell

  36. dwd

    You rang?

  37. dwd

    1) Roll Call

  38. jonas’ is here

  39. Kev

    I'm semi here.

  40. Ge0rG ,o/

  41. dwd

    Link Mauve, ?

  42. dwd

    2) Agenda Bashing

  43. dwd

    Apologies for the very late one, but I think we just have two items of AOB to discuss.

  44. dwd

    Does anyone have anything else?

  45. Link Mauve

    Yes, I’m here. o/

  46. jonas’

    not from me

  47. Link Mauve

    None from me either.

  48. Kev

    I need to catch up on a Lot of votes.

  49. Kev

    Well, most probably expired. Sorry I've been mostly absent recently, there's been a lot of Stuff.

  50. dwd

    3) Items for a vote

  51. dwd

    AFAICT, we have nothing.

  52. dwd

    4) Outstanding Votes

  53. dwd

    Kev, you have a couple expiring today; #797 and #796, plus two expiring next week.

  54. dwd

    FWIW, I'm pending on the last two proto XEPs, and unlikely to veto either, but haven't had a proper chance to look yet.

  55. dwd

    Everyone else seems to be up to date.

  56. Ge0rG

    There was list discussion for both.

  57. dwd

    Indeed, I've not properly digested all that yet.

  58. dwd

    5) Next Meeting

  59. dwd

    Next week is fine for me (31st), but I'll be away sunning myself the week after.

  60. Kev

    I should actually be here next week.

  61. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  62. dwd

    \o/

  63. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  64. dwd

    6) AOB

  65. dwd

    We have two items, both fropm Ge0rG:

  66. dwd

    a) Road to Compliance Suites 2020 [Georg]

  67. dwd

    Ge0rG, Take it away.

  68. dwd

    (As in, start the discussion)

  69. Ge0rG

    When 2019 was published, we had a heated discussion regarding how to do 2020. Should it still be a XEP? A different kind of XEP? Something completely different?

  70. Ge0rG

    There were great ideas, but they'd require moderate to significant changes to our process and tooling.

  71. pep.

    (https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-April/036074.html for context)

  72. dwd

    pep., Thanks.

  73. Ge0rG

    Nobody has stepped up so far to make these changes happen, therefore I propose to either a) ask for a volunteer to do so, or b) ask Ge0rG to fork CS2019 into CS2020 and to go on with the old process

  74. dwd

    I suggest (b).

  75. Ge0rG

    > Kev would like to schedule another discussion on this topic for the start of June, if only to determine it has failed.

  76. Ge0rG

    Luckily, it's around the start of June now.

  77. dwd

    Heh.

  78. Ge0rG

    I like the idea of living documents, but not with version numbers.

  79. Ge0rG

    And living documents with year numbers is sufficiently close to what our current process & tooling gives.

  80. dwd

    I like many things, but the enemy of the published compliance suite is the dream of the perfect one.

  81. Ge0rG

    Which is why I'd suggest to use August as a time window for somebody to step up and make that dream happen

  82. Ge0rG

    And after that I'd be glad to fork 2019 for 2020, and add a "Future" section

  83. Kev

    I think the enemy of the published compliance suite is actually the way we currently publish compliance suites.

  84. Ge0rG

    Kev: I hear you volunteer to create new process and tooling?

  85. Ge0rG

    ..until end of August.

  86. Kev

    Does it *need* new process and tooling?

  87. dwd

    Nobody ever does much in August, in the best years, though, and I have a feeling that once we hit September, and start the run-up to Council elections, etc, we'll never get anything out before 2020.

  88. dwd

    Hence, if Ge0rG is willing to crack on and do it, I'm firmly in favour of that.

  89. jonas’

    I don’t have a strong opinion either way.

  90. Ge0rG

    Kev: do we have process for "living documents"? Our process for RFCs sucks, and the XEP process is not well-designed for living documents

  91. Ge0rG

    I don't want to manually keep track of changes in the History section.

  92. Kev

    Could we maybe schedule a higher bandwidth (short) discussion at some point using $UnpleasantVideoSolution with whoever feels strongly about this?

  93. Kev

    (soon)

  94. Kev

    And work out what the minimum needed to make the change is?

  95. Ge0rG

    Kev: process-wise, we'd have to figure out a proposal and present it to Board.

  96. Kev

    I know I'm fairly outspoken on this, but I believe our current compliance suites, and especially the noise they generate every year trying to get them published is actually harmful.

  97. Ge0rG

    I'm not sure that noise propagates outside of the core XMPP community.

  98. Kev

    Ge0rG: I don't think we need Board to sign off on a process unless it's overlapping with something we already have.

  99. Lance has joined

  100. Kev

    No, I think the noise it generates and the distraction for Council is the harmful bit.

  101. Kev

    If we want a formal process enshrined somewhere, yes it needs Board.

  102. Kev

    But I don't think that's a given.

  103. Ge0rG

    Kev: besides of burning out CS maintainers, I haven't percepted that as a huge problem.

  104. dwd

    I think any new process for publishing a Thing is going to add a lot of overhead to whatever we do.

  105. Ge0rG

    I don't object to scheduling a video conference for this, anyway.

  106. Ge0rG

    Formally, we'll have to bring it up before Board.

  107. Kev

    Not if we just want a page on the website, potentially.

  108. Kev

    But I think doing this over not-text might be a better way to iterate.

  109. Ge0rG

    Kev: we could have that today, with the tables extracted from latest-CS-XEP

  110. Kev

    It is an option.

  111. dwd

    OK. Is this going to be Council, or shall I open it up to other stakeholders?

  112. dwd

    I mean, the video call.

  113. Kev

    dwd: I suggest the minimum possible group to try to understand the issues.

  114. Kev

    e.g., Kev, Dave, Ge0rG would be fine.

  115. dwd

    Kev, Does that mean I don't have to come? *hopeful face emoji*

  116. Kev

    Not if you don't care about this.

  117. Kev

    Or don't care to care until later.

  118. dwd

    Kev, I'll come along and play chair. You don't think it's worth having any other client or server devs involved?

  119. Kev

    "Involved" makes it sound like excluding them from having input, which isn't my intention.

  120. Ge0rG

    it's about process, not about what XEPs to put into CS

  121. Kev

    But I think a very small number of people understanding the problem would be sane. Two, Three, Four people. That sort of number.

  122. dwd

    OK. I'll arrange something.

  123. Ge0rG

    👍

  124. Kev

    Ta.

  125. dwd

    b) "This message belongs to past message X" [Georg]

  126. dwd

    Ge0rG, Yours again.

  127. Ge0rG

    https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-July/036285.html section 1.

  128. jonas’

    general agreement from my side

  129. Kev

    I think we should have a single consistent and archive-understandable way of doing this.

  130. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, big +1 from me too.

  131. jonas’

    and it’s not References.

  132. dwd

    I think thats good design as well.

  133. Kev

    My preference would be to do it with 372, even if that means stripping 372 back or something.

  134. jonas’

    references may be able to re-use that, but References is more specific than that

  135. Ge0rG

    I'm currently very short on time, so I can't step up to write that proto-XEP. But it would essentially just provide a way to DAG messages to some root, and allow servers to emit the full DAG on request of any of the messages from it

  136. Kev

    jonas’: I think the reverse, no? References is more general than that.

  137. jonas’

    Kev, depends

  138. Ge0rG

    Kev: stripping 0372 to "this message belongs to that message" is actually an option I've thought about

  139. dwd

    DAG? So you can reference a reference?

  140. Ge0rG

    dwd: you can LMC an LMC as well ;)

  141. jonas’

    Kev, references wants to select a range of the body, which I consider more specific, but then again, that could be seen as more generic ;)

  142. jonas’

    it’s not useful for non-body stuff in any case

  143. Link Mauve

    dwd, in general yes, you may want to react to someone attaching a message to another for instance.

  144. Kev

    jonas’: No, it allows selecting part of a body, it doesn't require that (or the concept doesn't).

  145. Ge0rG

    the only thing that References doesn't define is references to other messages.

  146. jonas’

    Kev, if we can re-do References addressing the feedback I gave last year or so on-list, I’m game

  147. Kev

    Or, well, it says "If you have a URI, you put it here", but we don't have IDs for messages that are actually usable.

  148. Ge0rG

    and we don't have a message ID URI scheme.

  149. Kev

    That is the easier problem to solve, I suspect.

  150. Ge0rG

    I'd rather rename 0372 to something else ("Message Content Annotations"?), and make a new "Message References" XEP that's sole purpose is to reference messages.

  151. dwd

    Indeed - take <stanza-id/>, and do `xmpp:${from}?msg=${id}`

  152. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, we’ll need such a way to reference a message, whether it is encoded as a URI or not shouldn’t affect it in any way.

  153. Kev

    Link Mauve: Doesn't affect *this*, but I think there are advantages to being able to URI-encod.

  154. Kev

    Link Mauve: Doesn't affect *this*, but I think there are advantages to being able to URI-encode.

  155. Link Mauve

    Same.

  156. Ge0rG

    Using URIs will become a major distraction because then developers end up wondering how to accept those URIs from the outside.

  157. Ge0rG

    And then security issues and maybe other problems.

  158. Ge0rG

    I'd like to avoid opening up that can of worms.

  159. Ge0rG

    which is why I think `<reference id="X" />` with something like https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/reactions.html#business-id to define what X is supposed to reference.

  160. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, the outside may be a future XEP which links messages, or something like that.

  161. Link Mauve

    It may also be quite useful to have “the outside” for clients which want to scroll to a specific message.

  162. jonas’

    inside XMPP, we can always clearly define semantics, we don’t have to wrap it into URIs

  163. jonas’

    inside XMPP, we can always clearly define semantics, we don’t have to wrap an ID into URIs to give an otherwise unstructured string semantics

  164. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: this is another can of worms.

  165. dwd

    Guys, we're running out of time - might I suggest continuing this discussion on list or in another chatroom?

  166. Kev

    Using Discord a fair amount, which does this, I can say that I find it very useful (not very often, but not infrequently) to be able to drop a URI into a chat message as a URI.

  167. dwd

    Kev, Slack also.

  168. dwd

    But anyway.

  169. Kev

    I use Slack less these days, I find, but sounds plausible :)

  170. jonas’

    Kev, but that doesn’t mean that "Slim References" necessarily has to use URIs internally

  171. dwd

    Unless anyone's any other AOB?

  172. Ge0rG

    I'm not saying it's bad to have message URIs, I'm saying they are the wrong mechanism for the problem at hand

  173. jonas’

    no other AOB from me

  174. Kev

    I don't have other AOB.

  175. dwd

    OK - go continue this on a list and encourage others to join in.

  176. dwd

    7) Ite, Meeting Est.

  177. jonas’

    thanks dwd

  178. Link Mauve

    Thanks. :)

  179. Ge0rG

    tnx dwd

  180. pep.

    "dwd> I'll be away sunning myself the week after.", you haven't had enough sun already these past few weeks? :P

  181. Kev

    Thanks all.

  182. dwd

    pep., Luckily, I live in Wales, so it's been raining the entire time.

  183. pep.

    lucky you

  184. Kev

    It's been 30ish here.

  185. jonas’

    rain?

  186. jonas’

    what’s that again?

  187. dwd

    My trips to London, though, have been hothothot.

  188. dwd

    Kev, Dropped down today, for me. Rain last night, cloudy much of today. Sunny now, though.

  189. Kev

    Rain last night for me, was fine this morning, been getting slowly warmer through the day, but nothing unpleasant.

  190. Kev

    Yesterday was unpleasant, though, and tomorrow it's meant to go back to that.

  191. Lance has left

  192. Ge0rG

    I suppose the unexpectedly early end of meeting means that somebody needs to write up things and go to standards@?

  193. dwd

    s/early/on time/ but I accept, with some shame, the "unexpectedly".

  194. Ge0rG

    dwd: not an attempt to blame anyone, or you, for it. It's ending at that time every week.

  195. Lance has joined

  196. lee has left

  197. lee has joined

  198. lee has left

  199. lee has joined

  200. debacle has left

  201. Lance has left

  202. Lance has joined

  203. Lance has left

  204. Lance has joined

  205. Tobias has left

  206. peter has left

  207. Remko has left

  208. Lance has left

  209. lnj has left

  210. peter has joined

  211. Lance has joined

  212. dragonspirit810 has joined

  213. dragonspirit810 has left

  214. moparisthebest has left

  215. moparisthebest has joined