XMPP Council - 2019-12-04

fun

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.

if it doesn’t and in fact becomes worse, is someone able to take over?

(Ge0rG already excused himself)

I can

daniel, thanks

.

Hiya folks. Sorry, meeting overran.

Hi

I’m here

but I’d prefer if someone else chaired for today, as mentioned earlier

I also just came out of another meeting \o/

daniel, You want to, or shall I?

dwd, go ahead

OK.

1) Roll Call

OK, Ge0rG sent apologies already, so that's all of us.

2) Agenda Bashing

I don't know what is on the agenda at all. Do we have anything to vote on?

it wasn’t on the agenda. but i'd like to vote on reactions

(there was nothing else on the agenda jonas’ sent')

daniel, WHat sort of vote?

accept as experimental xep ✏

Ah. OK.

3) Items for a vote:

a) Reactions: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/reactions.html : Adopt as XEP.

+0

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).

I haven't refreshed myself on the threads yet.

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.

I’d like to mention that the authors of Reactions are unhappy with the Message Fastening proposal

and that their concerns have not been addressed

so I guess this is a bit more than just waiting out council

i understand that position. i think there are problems with that

daniel, "that" = dwd’s or the authors?

dwds

sorry

follow up: problems with that position ("rejecting on the basis of...") or problems with the way this was re-proposed?

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

accepting this ProtoXEP allows the community to continue development of reactions

i understand the problems of 'reverting a previous' councils postion'

but in that case i think council was just wrong

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

Yeah, look, I voted for Reactions originally. The entire situation irritates me enormously.

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

we haven’t gotten that

Message Fastening had its chance, it passed, let’s move on with Reactions.

I think what has changed is that the time has passed, and this warrants a re-vote

(but, for the record, I also totally see your concern, dwd. but I think my argument is slightly stronger)

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.

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

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.

of better quality than a lot of other experimental xeps

daniel, I know, I voted for it last time.

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.

but yeah, they should’ve tried

I’d like to note that we’re at 66% of our meeting time.

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.

well there is no other topic on the agenda and i think it's an important topic

I see only one vote, is that correct? (Ignoring mine for now).

+1

daniel, agreed, I’m just not sure if we can get to a resolution without everyone reviewing how things have happened

FWIW, it's not clear to me what Fastening needs fixing, and I'm happy to fix it.

not sure that voting is the most important thing here. we should instead 'figure out the situation'

And, indeed, my original offer to do the legwork on Reactions in that light still stands.

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

I'll commit to re-reviewing Fastening and Reactions and the feedback.

Kev, the authors of Reactions have told me they felt ghosted (not their words) and their feedback left unheard.

Kev, And FWIW, I would appreciate your comments on-list to that feedback too.

Ah. Looks like that all fell during my holiday last year and so got missed.

which I totally understand given the radio silence on-list

I'll go with on-list so I can re-read all the threads.

OK, so I think we have a way to get some progress, and therefore I shall move the topic on.

doing 'fastening' right (with proper MAM retrieval) feels like a thing that will literally take years

it's good to get started on 'fastening'

i don’t think that reactions should be blocked by that

(My view at the time was that once you've got Fastening you can move on to archive queries for it)

(And aware that Dave wants to move things on)

daniel, That's a perfectly fine viewpoint, and one that the last Council disagreed with.

4) Next Meeting

Does this meeting time work for everyone?

it does for me ✏

yes

It works (mostly) for me.

So same time next week, then.

5) Any Other Business

not from me today

+1w should work for me too

I have resurrected the spreadsheet of Doom: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANu9KGmNf2r-qpLYqF7NdJTtqA1GIu55rf2deKbM0GA/edit?usp=sharing

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).

dwd, jonas@sotecware.net please

sent a request using the UI

ENOGOOG

Zash, But you should be able to view without and nag us if votes are missed. :-)

Any Other AOB?

so wait; what was the outcome? a) we can’t revote because previous council already voted b) people will review what happened?

dwd, no

daniel, (b).

In that case:

6) Ite, Meeting Est

And thanks all.

Although it's not immediately clear to me that Council /can/ revisit the same topic in subsequent terms to overturn it.

edit access confirmed

thanks for jumping in, dwd

But as long as they're doing sensible things, I think it's unlikely anyone is going to complain on a point of process.

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.

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

and that's the basis for a revote

Were there any other relevant threads than the one larma linked to?

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.

what's the purpose of voting for a new council then?

if you run on "I'll do things different from before" but then it's not ok to actually do them different? :/