XMPP Council - 2019-08-07

Reminder that I'm on holiday, so won't be about for the meeting.

Hi everyone.

It’s about time.

Ge0rG, Kev, jonas’, ping.

Sorry, I've been on the Autobahn.

Ok.

I’m here

As I'm participating in a real-life meeting at the same time, I'd suggest somebody else chairs

Kev said “I am also not here next week. Probably.”, so we can assume no quorum.

Oh, so you’re still here?

Semi-here.

Link Mauve, can you chair?

I was looking for things to put on an agenda, but sure.

So, 1) roll call!

I’m here

I count three people, we have quorum.

2) Agenda bashing

Do we have an agenda?

we have three PRs

I counted three PRs.

Anything else?

not that I knew

pep., did you do what you wanted to do, or do you want us to skip your PR? ✏

skip, I haven't submitted anything

I suggest we skip the activity summary this week, as I don’t have it.

Thanks pep.

3) Add pubsub#public in Publish-Subscribe features (PR #806)

Shall we vote?

we can

soo… I’m not sure on this one.

doesn’t this require a feature on the pubsub service, too?

I think so too.

Why?

Say in the PR "if it's not present consider it $boolean"?

pep., on the service, not on the node

I'm not sure why though

still

I’d want to know, with muclumbus for example, whether I’ll get non-public nodes in the search

pep., so that users know that the service supports this new feature, and can avoid publishing something which can’t be made non-public.

in that case I wouldn’t bother to index

jonas’, you wouldn't get them, the server would hide them

false, if the server doesn’t support it

Then it's public

hm.

Just like now

pep., but as an entity discovering it, you would need a feature to know whether “it’s public just like now”, or not.

I don't understand why you want that. A flag to False means it's hidden, a flag to True or no flag means public. As a publishing entity though you might want to know indeed

(?)

I’m on list, I’ll send that feedback to edhelas after this meeting.

Ge0rG, jonas’?

on-list

fwiw, a feature might not hurt for discovering entities, just that I don't think it's really useful

4) XEP-0045: Add Tags configuration and metadata (PR #808)

This one I haven’t reviewed at all, so I’m on list.

+1 on that one

5) Outstanding Votes

I haven’t followed at all, do we have anything?

What about pubsub#rsm? When I said skip I was talking about all the rest(?)

Oh, I didn’t understand that; 5) XEP-0060: Add a pubsub#rsm disco#info feature to clear confusion

+1

I’m +1 on this one, but you should register it with the registrar, in section 16.3, and maybe too section 10 too.

In coming changes I'm planning to rewrite rsm and order-by's "Dicovering support" sections, because these XEPs are not useful as is and it doesn't really make sense atm. pubsub#rsm is useful standalone though

Indeed.

I’m fine with this change in 0060 standalone.

Alright, let’s continue.

6) Outstanding Votes ✏

I can’t find anything, I’d like to remind Editor that some PRs have been voted on and should be merged or closed.

7) Next Meeting

Is +1W fine with the presents?

I won’t be here in two weeks, fyi.

8) AOB?

sorry, I had a network outage. on-list everything.

Ack.

I've sent something to standards@ regarding Message Errors, and I'd appreciate Council feedback. But that can go on list as well

none from me

+1w wfm

Also no video conference on Compliance Suite 2020 with Kev so far.

+1W should work.

Ge0rG, alright, we can do that.

9) End of Meeting

Thanks all!

thanks Link Mauve

If Georg wasn't there, was that meeting technically quorate? Oh well. 😁

Thanks for stepping in, Link Mauve.

dwd, he was there at times though. ^^

if only we had a protocol to indicate presence

At the beginning, which is probably all that counts.

I'm very much sorry.

in those IRL committees I was part of, we’d keep track of presence and stop the meeting (except AOB) when we lost quorum because people had to leave

If only we had a way to track the presence of participants in a MUC. ✏

If only

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0224.html