XMPP Council - 2019-12-04


  1. moparisthebest has left
  2. moparisthebest has joined
  3. debacle has left
  4. lnj has left
  5. lnj has joined
  6. paul has joined
  7. vaulor has left
  8. vaulor has joined
  9. jonas’ fun
  10. jonas’ I hope I’ll be able to chair this afternoon. I got quite sick overnight, but I’m hopeful that it evens out until later.
  11. jonas’ if it doesn’t and in fact becomes worse, is someone able to take over?
  12. jonas’ (Ge0rG already excused himself)
  13. daniel I can
  14. jonas’ daniel, thanks
  15. debacle has joined
  16. lnj has left
  17. debacle has left
  18. tacobang has joined
  19. tacobang has left
  20. lnj has joined
  21. vanitasvitae has left
  22. vanitasvitae has joined
  23. Kev_ has left
  24. Wojtek has joined
  25. debacle has joined
  26. Tobias has left
  27. Tobias has joined
  28. Wojtek has left
  29. Wojtek has joined
  30. Zash .
  31. dwd Hiya folks. Sorry, meeting overran.
  32. daniel Hi
  33. jonas’ I’m here
  34. jonas’ but I’d prefer if someone else chaired for today, as mentioned earlier
  35. Zash I also just came out of another meeting \o/
  36. dwd daniel, You want to, or shall I?
  37. daniel dwd, go ahead
  38. dwd OK.
  39. dwd 1) Roll Call
  40. jonas’
  41. Zash
  42. dwd OK, Ge0rG sent apologies already, so that's all of us.
  43. dwd 2) Agenda Bashing
  44. dwd I don't know what is on the agenda at all. Do we have anything to vote on?
  45. daniel it wasn’t on the agenda. but i'd like to vote on reactions
  46. daniel (there was nothing else on the agenda jonas’ sent')
  47. dwd daniel, WHat sort of vote?
  48. jonas’ accept as experimental exp
  49. jonas’ accept as experimental xep
  50. dwd Ah. OK.
  51. dwd 3) Items for a vote:
  52. dwd a) Reactions: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/reactions.html : Adopt as XEP.
  53. jonas’ +0
  54. dwd This is unchanged since the previous Council session, where it was rejected because the COuncil wanted it based on some common form (which Kev later wrote and which was accepted).
  55. Zash I haven't refreshed myself on the threads yet.
  56. dwd I'm a little nervous of setting a precedent where votes of one Council can be re-run unchanged, so people can "wait out" the Council, so I'm -1 on the basis that the previous Council's recommendations have been ignored.
  57. jonas’ I’d like to mention that the authors of Reactions are unhappy with the Message Fastening proposal
  58. jonas’ and that their concerns have not been addressed
  59. jonas’ so I guess this is a bit more than just waiting out council
  60. daniel i understand that position. i think there are problems with that
  61. jonas’ daniel, "that" = dwd’s or the authors?
  62. daniel dwds
  63. daniel sorry
  64. jonas’ follow up: problems with that position ("rejecting on the basis of...") or problems with the way this was re-proposed?
  65. jonas’ my position on this is: - there are still problems with fastening which haven’t been addressed (e.g. the overlap with attaching), at all, not even with a reply on the list - we still don’t have reactions in our ecosystem
  66. jonas’ accepting this ProtoXEP allows the community to continue development of reactions
  67. daniel i understand the problems of 'reverting a previous' councils postion'
  68. daniel but in that case i think council was just wrong
  69. jonas’ I understand (and am actually concerned myself) that reactions will be one of those things which are hard to chnage (like e2ee) once put in place
  70. dwd Yeah, look, I voted for Reactions originally. The entire situation irritates me enormously.
  71. jonas’ and I think it wasn’t entirely wrong to veto it in the first round, because there was the promise to get a proper base protocol for attaching things
  72. jonas’ we haven’t gotten that
  73. jonas’ Message Fastening had its chance, it passed, let’s move on with Reactions.
  74. jonas’ I think what has changed is that the time has passed, and this warrants a re-vote
  75. jonas’ (but, for the record, I also totally see your concern, dwd. but I think my argument is slightly stronger)
  76. dwd Well, I'm willing to change that firm -1 to a holding vote, and I'm willing to dig into this further. I'd really love to have Reactions, and sure, if we had a generic method of "fastening" or whatever that'd be even better.
  77. daniel if you ignore all the fastening stuff for a second and look at the xep just by itself it is actually a good, clearly written document
  78. dwd But I really don't want to start a pattern of waiting out the Council session. FWIW, had this been re-raised last Council instead of just waiting out the session I'd have been considerably more receptive.
  79. daniel of better quality than a lot of other experimental xeps
  80. dwd daniel, I know, I voted for it last time.
  81. jonas’ dwd, one could argue that there was no realistic chance of council properly re-voting within the term, given the business around the 2020 CS suites.
  82. jonas’ but yeah, they should’ve tried
  83. jonas’ I’d like to note that we’re at 66% of our meeting time.
  84. dwd So anyway - "time has passed" is definitely insufficient in and of itself, and when "time has passed" is merely a euphemism for "Kev has left Council" I'm very worried.
  85. daniel well there is no other topic on the agenda and i think it's an important topic
  86. dwd I see only one vote, is that correct? (Ignoring mine for now).
  87. daniel +1
  88. jonas’ daniel, agreed, I’m just not sure if we can get to a resolution without everyone reviewing how things have happened
  89. Kev FWIW, it's not clear to me what Fastening needs fixing, and I'm happy to fix it.
  90. daniel not sure that voting is the most important thing here. we should instead 'figure out the situation'
  91. Kev And, indeed, my original offer to do the legwork on Reactions in that light still stands.
  92. jonas’ Kev, I think a good first step would be to reply to all the feedback on-list: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-September/036422.html
  93. dwd I'll commit to re-reviewing Fastening and Reactions and the feedback.
  94. jonas’ Kev, the authors of Reactions have told me they felt ghosted (not their words) and their feedback left unheard.
  95. dwd Kev, And FWIW, I would appreciate your comments on-list to that feedback too.
  96. Kev Ah. Looks like that all fell during my holiday last year and so got missed.
  97. jonas’ which I totally understand given the radio silence on-list
  98. Zash I'll go with on-list so I can re-read all the threads.
  99. dwd OK, so I think we have a way to get some progress, and therefore I shall move the topic on.
  100. daniel doing 'fastening' right (with proper MAM retrieval) feels like a thing that will literally take years
  101. daniel it's good to get started on 'fastening'
  102. daniel i don’t think that reactions should be blocked by that
  103. Kev (My view at the time was that once you've got Fastening you can move on to archive queries for it)
  104. Kev (And aware that Dave wants to move things on)
  105. dwd daniel, That's a perfectly fine viewpoint, and one that the last Council disagreed with.
  106. dwd 4) Next Meeting
  107. dwd Does this meeting time work for everyone?
  108. jonas’ it does
  109. jonas’ it does for me
  110. daniel yes
  111. dwd It works (mostly) for me.
  112. dwd So same time next week, then.
  113. dwd 5) Any Other Business
  114. jonas’ not from me today
  115. Zash +1w should work for me too
  116. dwd I have resurrected the spreadsheet of Doom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANu9KGmNf2r-qpLYqF7NdJTtqA1GIu55rf2deKbM0GA/edit?usp=sharing
  117. dwd I'm willing to give edit access to whoever wants it (needs a Google account), and I can endeavour to keep it up to date (but sadly cannot promise).
  118. jonas’ dwd, jonas@sotecware.net please
  119. jonas’ sent a request using the UI
  120. Zash ENOGOOG
  121. dwd Zash, But you should be able to view without and nag us if votes are missed. :-)
  122. dwd Any Other AOB?
  123. daniel so wait; what was the outcome? a) we can’t revote because previous council already voted b) people will review what happened?
  124. daniel dwd, no
  125. dwd daniel, (b).
  126. dwd In that case:
  127. dwd 6) Ite, Meeting Est
  128. dwd And thanks all.
  129. Kev Although it's not immediately clear to me that Council /can/ revisit the same topic in subsequent terms to overturn it.
  130. jonas’ edit access confirmed
  131. jonas’ thanks for jumping in, dwd
  132. Kev But as long as they're doing sensible things, I think it's unlikely anyone is going to complain on a point of process.
  133. dwd Kev, I think it probbaly /can/ - but it feels bad form at least. Especially given we're only a couple of months along from the last vote.
  134. daniel imho the situation has changed. not necessarily the xep; but how we look at it. a couple of months ago people thought 'fasting' is going to be easy. then people looked into it (fastening) and figured out that it is more complex than we thought
  135. daniel and that's the basis for a revote
  136. Zash Were there any other relevant threads than the one larma linked to?
  137. dwd daniel, Possibly. But I think the bar for altering the vote of a Council within about two months of that Council vote has to be pretty high.
  138. moparisthebest what's the purpose of voting for a new council then?
  139. moparisthebest if you run on "I'll do things different from before" but then it's not ok to actually do them different? :/
  140. Kev has left
  141. Guus has left
  142. Guus has joined
  143. debacle has left
  144. Kev has joined
  145. debacle has joined
  146. Wojtek has left
  147. Neustradamus has left
  148. Neustradamus has joined
  149. Neustradamus has left
  150. Neustradamus has joined
  151. lnj has left
  152. lnj has joined
  153. daniel has left
  154. daniel has joined
  155. lnj has left
  156. lnj has joined
  157. Tobias has left
  158. paul has left
  159. Guus has left
  160. Guus has joined
  161. debacle has left