- Lance has joined
- Lance has left
- Lance has joined
- Lance has left
- Lance has joined
- lnj has joined
- Tobias has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- Remko has joined
-
ralphm
It is not a Dutch expression either, but we've been quite present on the edges of the anglosphere.
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
- Reventlov has left
- Reventlov has joined
-
Ge0rG
So it's similar to the jokes that were made around XEP-0420
- Zash has joined
- Zash has left
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Guus has left
- Guus has joined
- linkmauve has left
-
Ge0rG
It's time, isn't it?
-
dwd
Yes, indeed.
-
dwd
1) Roll Call
-
Kev
It is, but I've not noticed an agenda.
-
dwd
Yes, sorry - I'm on the road so I've struggled with that this week.
-
dwd
jonas’ ?
-
Ge0rG
jonas’ was here just two minutes ago
-
Ge0rG
the jabberfr linkmauve dropped out just five minus before the meeting.
-
jonas’
I’m here
-
dwd
OK.
-
jonas’
we have a ProtoXEP
-
dwd
2) Agenda Bashing
-
Kev
I find no fault in the published agenda.
-
dwd
So we have CS-2020 as a ProtoXEP. I don't know of any other requests for the agenda.
-
jonas’
there’s one [needs council] we haven’t voted on I think
-
jonas’
this one: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/812
-
dwd
Ah, yes.
-
dwd
OK:
-
dwd
3) Items for a Vote:
-
dwd
a) Adopt https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cs-2020.html (XMPP Compliance Suites 2020)
-
Ge0rG
+1 obviously. Also I'd like to AOB that a bit
-
Kev
On-list.
-
jonas’
+1, I think we can discuss all content details in Experimental stage for this one.
-
dwd
I'm afraid I need some time to look at this, so on-list.
-
dwd
(I can't imagine why I'd do anything but +1)
-
dwd
AOB noted.
-
dwd
b) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/812 (Bump bytes datatype from unsignedShort to unsignedInteger)
-
Ge0rG
on-list
-
dwd
I'm +1 on this. It's just rectifying an error in the XML schema.
-
dwd
Note that vanitasvitae posted about this on the list as well.
-
Kev
Default to +1 unless I think of a reason it's daft later.
-
jonas’
yeah, +1
- Lance has left
-
dwd
OK.
-
pep.
I poked lm
-
pep.
(via sms)
-
dwd
4) Outstanding Votes
-
pep.
But apparently it's over already.
-
jonas’
not quite yet
-
dwd
IIRC, Ge0rG has some outstanding, as does Link. I think the rest of us have voted lodged.
-
Ge0rG
I mailed in my votes yesternight
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Oh, sorry.
-
Ge0rG
At least I think now that I'm synced.
-
dwd
In that case, I think XEP-0353's vote is done, so we're just pending on XEP-0300.
-
jonas’
I change my vote on XEP-0353 advancement to -1
-
jonas’
I think the Last Call has provided valuable feedback and that needs to be considered before moving to Draft.
-
dwd
jonas’, Noted, thanks.
-
dwd
5) Next Meeting
-
dwd
+1W?
-
jonas’
wfm
-
dwd
6) AOB
-
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
-
dwd
Ge0rG, hit it.
-
Ge0rG
I have two AOBs regarding CS-2020, one regarding Message Errors and one regarding Attach-To-Reactions.
-
dwd
OK.
-
Ge0rG
I'll start with CS-2020a: introductory text. The text in XEP-0412 is awful at informing developers that this is *THE* XEP to use as a guidance on what to implement first
-
Ge0rG
I'd like to change the intro in CS-2020 and to make "compliance" a remote second in it.
-
jonas’
+1
-
pep.
(https://github.com/siacs/Conversations/issues/3530 as an exemple of how it's not being advertized correctly)
-
dwd
Isn't this a third AOB item? But anyway, I'm fine with whatever you like.
-
jonas’
dwd, I was confused for a second, too, but I think there are four AOBs in total, two for CS, one for Message Errors and one for Attach-to-Message
-
Ge0rG
what jonas’ said
-
dwd
Ah. Ge0rG, master of the AOB.
-
Ge0rG
We still have 8mins left
-
Ge0rG
No wait, my clock is off.
-
dwd
But yes, I'm absolutely fine with some different introductory text.
-
Ge0rG
Great.
-
Ge0rG
AOB CS-2020b: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cs-2020.html#future - I've added that section because we need something like it, but the content I've put there is very very rough.
-
Ge0rG
Please throw XEP numbers at me
-
dwd
Ideally, that text would have broad agreement from the community, mind.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: I'm sure we can gain that via a Last Call.
-
Kev
In an ideal world the community would agree with us.
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, XEP-0500
-
dwd
Ge0rG, But what if Royal Assent is withheld?
-
Kev
Equally, technical direction is one of the few things Council has purview over.
-
dwd
Sorry, wrong politics.
-
Kev
So by our process the most important thing is that Council agrees to a statement of technical direction.
-
dwd
Kev, That's true enough. Also, "Ideally".
-
dwd
Ge0rG, WRT "Future Development", I suspect that could cause a lot of discussion, and potentially few conclusions.
-
jonas’
dwd, Ge0rG, I tend to agree
-
jonas’
I think "future development" is more like a wiki page
-
Ge0rG
dwd: Maybe that. Or it will get ignored, like most other topics.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, I mean, your call. But I think it might be the cause of much stress for little benefit.
-
Kev
I think a little tweaking would make it fine.
-
Ge0rG
I'm not going to die on that hill. If there are issues, I can axe that section
-
Kev
If it simply said "These are the areas that Council believe ..."
-
Kev
Then if we agree between ourselves, it's non-contentious.
-
dwd
Or if it suggested these were areas under development rather than a forecast of the future.
-
Kev
I very very much think we should have that section, because we need to stop using the compliance suites as a form of wishful thinking, which we often seem to.
-
dwd
Kev, Yes, I can accept that.
-
jonas’
mmm
-
jonas’
I tend to agree with the sentiment, Kev, but I don’t think the CS are the right place for that. Maybe they are, though, because it makes it very clear immediately what they are for (by having a dedicated Future section)
-
Ge0rG
Kev: so you say we need to move the wishful thoughts into that section?
-
jonas’
so, no strong opinion either way from my side
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Yeah.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, If you're up for the pain, keep the section and we'll see what we can do with it. But I won't blame you if you find it more painful than you can be bothered with.
-
Kev
The world that we wish it to be, rather than what it currently is, can sit in that section.
-
Ge0rG
I think there is value in having a section that contains XEPs that a (client) implementor should closely watch, or even implement under the premise that they will change.
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, +1 to that sentiment, too
-
dwd
Ge0rG, There's both aspirational stuff and development stuff that could be there.
-
Kev
+1 to the sentiment
-
dwd
But you're running out of time for Errors and Reactions.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: so we need sub-sections
-
Kev
Ge0rG: Or maybe a summary of why it's there.
-
Ge0rG
Yes.
-
Kev
Anything along those lines would work for me.
-
Ge0rG
Well, well.
-
Ge0rG
The other AOBs won't fit into the remaining 3 minutes.
-
Ge0rG
They rather deserve a Council Meeting of their own. Each of them.
-
Ge0rG
Please comment on the "Persisting Message Errors (XEP-0280, XEP-0313, XEP-0160)" thread on standards@!
-
Kev
We need to rethink archives so drastically it's painful.
-
Ge0rG
What about starting to rethink message delivery, and then fixing archives on the way?
-
Kev
That works.
-
Ge0rG
Oh wait, we started that two years ago.
-
dwd
Well, errors I basically agree with. I should say so on the mailing list.
-
dwd
If I haven't.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: you haven't
- Lance has joined
-
dwd
Reactions-and-attaching-and-stuff, I'm a little concerned that unless someone comes up with a proposal there, we risk rejecting every XEP in the space out of hand, which seems less than useful.
-
dwd
Assuming that was the other AOB.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: it was indeed.
-
jonas’
yeah
-
Kev
Ralph and I were working on stuff that I hope leads to a proposal.
-
Ge0rG
dwd: we had a very productive discussion the other day on xsf@, and I've tried to summarize it in a gist.
-
jonas’
I tried to get hold of the authors of Reactions and didn’t get a reply
-
Ge0rG
I should just dump it onto standards, I suppose.
-
dwd
jonas’, I believe that one of them joined the XSF, which is positive.
-
Kev
Ge0rG was in the discussion too, actually. I wrote up some gists, Ralph is writing those up in a more consumable form.
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Please.
-
Ge0rG
Three kinds of "References" in XMPP: * Thread (in-reply-to); largely off-scope for our discussion * References of things mentioned in the payload/body of a message (0372) - nicknames, URLs, old messages by means of xmpp: URI, etc. - multiple Reference elements are allowed - Can be used inside Attach-To to add References to a previous message - Can be sent by anyone - is irrelevant to MAM 2.0 * Attach-To for content that only makes sense in the context of another message - Usable for Reactions, Edits (former LMC), Retraction, Image / website previews, Receipts(?), Read Markers(?) - A message can be attached at-most to one other message (nobody could think of a case where it would be needed, Ge0rG still objects) - allows grouping / special handling by MAM 2.0, e.g. for thin clients - generally, the attached payload SHOULD be inside of the <attach-to> element (e.g. reactions) - for E2EE and legacy Last Message Correction, an <attach-to> without a payload implies that the sibling elements need to be reviewed - Some kinds of Attach-To can only be sent by the original author or a privileged entity (bot/admin in MUCs) - Attach-To messages SHOULD NOT be nested, i.e. attach-to another Attach-To message
-
Ge0rG
Kev: what form is ralphm writing them in?
-
Kev
He's got a draft blog post about it.
-
jonas’
Kev, can’t you make that proposal right away and get early feedback from the community?
-
jonas’
ah; I’d prefer a ProtoXEP tbh
-
dwd
I am somewhat concerned with rejecting a XEP for not using another XEP that doesn't exist.
-
Kev
I think a description of the concept is more useful than a protoXEP at this point.
-
jonas’
dwd, yes
-
jonas’
Kev, a ProtoXEP could be a description of the concept
-
jonas’
it doesn’t have to be standards track, mind
-
jonas’
(even though I’d prefer that)
-
dwd
It seems that it is not the fault of the authors, and nothing they can possibly do can remedy it.
-
Kev
Ok. I got ahead of my schedule today.
-
Kev
So I can write something tomorrow, interruptions allowing.
-
jonas’
dwd, well, they *could* come up with a solution ;)
-
jonas’
but meh
-
Kev
dwd: Other than have said "Yes Kev, go ahead and make your suggestion"
-
jonas’
Kev, I’m saying that because I know what happens to draft blog posts
-
Kev
I mean, I did offer to 'fix' it.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: it seems that you were the only one who interpreted your response as an actual offer to 'fix' it ;)
-
Kev
Am I updating Sam's spec, or writing a new mostly duplicate one for attaching, or rolling it into References?
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, no, I also interpreted it that way actually
-
jonas’
Kev, we need to do a breaking change to the protocol in any case
-
jonas’
so I’d say go with a separate document for now, see what happens. It also prevents issues with getting Sam on board.
-
Kev
Yes, but I would like Council to give me guidance here because I don't want a fight about having done the wrong thing.
-
Ge0rG
I disagree with jonas’ here. Don't make a copy of Attach-To
-
jonas’
I can still git mv inbox/kevs-thing.xml xep-0367.xml
-
jonas’
I don’t have a strong opinion towards a separate document.
-
Ge0rG
Can somebody summon Sam?
-
jonas’
hardly
-
jonas’
but MattJ is a co-author
-
Kev
Would I be right in assuming there is no desire to have all this described in a single document (references)?
-
Ge0rG
Kev: right.
-
jonas’
Kev, references needs fixing first
-
dwd
Kev, I honestly don't care.
-
jonas’
I made proposals on-list about that a year ago or so
-
Ge0rG
Kev: from our last discussion, we figured out three use cases. They should have three documents
-
Kev
jonas’: There's two halves - one is references, the other is attaching.
-
dwd
The other half is MAM, of course.
-
Kev
(Or three halves, if you include threads, which I think we decided to punt for now)
-
dwd
We're 10 minutes over, so unless anyone's got anything else pressing, I'm going to call it a day.
-
Kev
I would like a concrete agreement on my approach.
-
Kev
Update References for the one half, new protoXEP for the other (which can later overwrite attachment if people agree)?
-
jonas’
Kev, ok, I don’t have a strong opinion on whether you do a new document or not, but I strongly don’t think that References is the right place for this.✎ -
Ge0rG
TBH, with the ideas around redoing attach-to and to put the payload inside of the attach-to element, maybe forking it into a new document is the better way forward
-
jonas’
Kev, ok, I don’t have a strong opinion on whether you do a new document for attaching or not, but I strongly don’t think that References is the right place for this. ✏
-
Kev
Just give me a +1 on my approach, please people, and we can go home :)
-
jonas’
Kev, pragmatically, I’d say prepare an update to Message Attaching
-
jonas’
if we find it should be a separate XEP, that’s a trivial thing to do
-
Kev
I would rather not deal with the admin of removing an author if Sam doesn't believe it should be used for this, but if that's the will of Council I'll go that way.
-
Kev
Just between the three of you agree something, please.
-
jonas’
Kev, in that case we can still fork into a new XEP.
-
Kev
My preference is fork for now, as I said.
-
Kev
But I will do either.
-
jonas’
do whatever you like (except merging into References) from my side
-
jonas’
the rest is just editor dutywork which I’m happy to do
-
dwd
Kev, Least contentious is write a new XEP.
-
jonas’
my main point is, get a proposal out there
-
dwd
Kev, Since it's much easier to merge into an existing one later if we choose that.
-
Kev
And Ge0rG already said fork, so I think that's agreement. Thanks.
-
Ge0rG
Message Attaching 2
-
Kev
I will see what I can get done tomorrow.
-
Ge0rG
I don't like forking.
-
jonas’
"... (This time it’s going to stick around)"
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, please.
- linkmauve has joined
-
dwd
jonas’, He's suggesting a new XEP, not a fork. That's fine.
-
Ge0rG
XEP numbers are cheap, right?
-
linkmauve
Aaah, sorry! I was moving to the Berlin XMPP Meetup just during council meeting! >_<
-
jonas’
they are
-
dwd
linkmauve, Well, I think I'm finally going to close this meeting, so perfect timing...
-
Kev
Thanks all.
-
dwd
X_1) Ite, Meeting Est
-
jonas’
thanks dwd for chairing, thanks Kev for taking a stab on the attaching thing, thanks everyone for everything
-
Ge0rG
thanks jonas’ for the encouraging words
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Lance has left
- Kev_ has left
- Lance has joined
- Wojtek has joined
- Wojtek has left
- Lance has left
-
Kev
https://github.com/Kev/xeps/blob/fasten/inbox/fasten.xml That's ludicrously simple, but I think it works as a first indication of how the marking that a payload applies to an earlier message would look.
-
Kev
There are several details of the (primarily) ralphm / Ge0rG / Kev discussion that still need reflecting there, and References also needs work, I realise.
- Guus has left
- Guus has joined
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
-
jonas’
Kev, FYI https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-March/034559.html
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: what Kev said. I'm drafting a blog post, with various way of pointing to things (attaching, referencing, etc.), in protocol and visual renderings, along with explanatory prose.✎ -
jonas’
let’s move this to xsf@?
-
ralphm
Ge0rG: [moved over to xsf@] ✏
- linkmauve has left
- Reventlov has left
- Reventlov has joined
- Remko has left
- moparisthebest has left
- lnj has left
- moparisthebest has joined
- moparisthebest has left
- moparisthebest has joined
-
Kev
jonas’: Thanks. I'll try to incorporate that when I get to references.
- linkmauve has joined
- Wojtek has joined
- Wojtek has left
- Tobias has left
- linkmauve has left
- moparisthebest has left
- moparisthebest has joined
- moparisthebest has left
- moparisthebest has joined
- Lance has joined
- Lance has left
- Lance has joined
- Lance has left
- Lance has joined
- lnj has joined
- Tobias has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- Remko has joined
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
- Reventlov has left
- Reventlov has joined
- Zash has joined
- Zash has left
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Guus has left
- Guus has joined
- linkmauve has left
- Lance has left
- Lance has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- Lance has left
- Kev_ has left
- Lance has joined
- Wojtek has joined
- Wojtek has left
- Lance has left
- Guus has left
- Guus has joined
- daniel has left
- daniel has joined
- linkmauve has left
- Reventlov has left
- Reventlov has joined
- Remko has left
- moparisthebest has left
- lnj has left
- moparisthebest has joined
- moparisthebest has left
- moparisthebest has joined
- linkmauve has joined
- Wojtek has joined
- Wojtek has left
- Tobias has left
- linkmauve has left
- moparisthebest has left
- moparisthebest has joined
- moparisthebest has left
- moparisthebest has joined