XMPP Council - 2019-12-04


  1. jonas’

    fun

  2. 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.

  3. jonas’

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

  4. jonas’

    (Ge0rG already excused himself)

  5. daniel

    I can

  6. jonas’

    daniel, thanks

  7. Zash

    .

  8. dwd

    Hiya folks. Sorry, meeting overran.

  9. daniel

    Hi

  10. jonas’

    I’m here

  11. jonas’

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

  12. Zash

    I also just came out of another meeting \o/

  13. dwd

    daniel, You want to, or shall I?

  14. daniel

    dwd, go ahead

  15. dwd

    OK.

  16. dwd

    1) Roll Call

  17. jonas’

  18. Zash

  19. dwd

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

  20. dwd

    2) Agenda Bashing

  21. dwd

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

  22. daniel

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

  23. daniel

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

  24. dwd

    daniel, WHat sort of vote?

  25. jonas’

    accept as experimental exp

  26. jonas’

    accept as experimental xep

  27. dwd

    Ah. OK.

  28. dwd

    3) Items for a vote:

  29. dwd

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

  30. jonas’

    +0

  31. 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).

  32. Zash

    I haven't refreshed myself on the threads yet.

  33. 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.

  34. jonas’

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

  35. jonas’

    and that their concerns have not been addressed

  36. jonas’

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

  37. daniel

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

  38. jonas’

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

  39. daniel

    dwds

  40. daniel

    sorry

  41. jonas’

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

  42. 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

  43. jonas’

    accepting this ProtoXEP allows the community to continue development of reactions

  44. daniel

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

  45. daniel

    but in that case i think council was just wrong

  46. 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

  47. dwd

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

  48. 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

  49. jonas’

    we haven’t gotten that

  50. jonas’

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

  51. jonas’

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

  52. jonas’

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

  53. 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.

  54. 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

  55. 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.

  56. daniel

    of better quality than a lot of other experimental xeps

  57. dwd

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

  58. 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.

  59. jonas’

    but yeah, they should’ve tried

  60. jonas’

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

  61. 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.

  62. daniel

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

  63. dwd

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

  64. daniel

    +1

  65. jonas’

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

  66. Kev

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

  67. daniel

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

  68. Kev

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

  69. 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

  70. dwd

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

  71. jonas’

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

  72. dwd

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

  73. Kev

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

  74. jonas’

    which I totally understand given the radio silence on-list

  75. Zash

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

  76. dwd

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

  77. daniel

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

  78. daniel

    it's good to get started on 'fastening'

  79. daniel

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

  80. Kev

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

  81. Kev

    (And aware that Dave wants to move things on)

  82. dwd

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

  83. dwd

    4) Next Meeting

  84. dwd

    Does this meeting time work for everyone?

  85. jonas’

    it does

  86. jonas’

    it does for me

  87. daniel

    yes

  88. dwd

    It works (mostly) for me.

  89. dwd

    So same time next week, then.

  90. dwd

    5) Any Other Business

  91. jonas’

    not from me today

  92. Zash

    +1w should work for me too

  93. dwd

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

  94. 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).

  95. jonas’

    dwd, jonas@sotecware.net please

  96. jonas’

    sent a request using the UI

  97. Zash

    ENOGOOG

  98. dwd

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

  99. dwd

    Any Other AOB?

  100. daniel

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

  101. daniel

    dwd, no

  102. dwd

    daniel, (b).

  103. dwd

    In that case:

  104. dwd

    6) Ite, Meeting Est

  105. dwd

    And thanks all.

  106. Kev

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

  107. jonas’

    edit access confirmed

  108. jonas’

    thanks for jumping in, dwd

  109. 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.

  110. 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.

  111. 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

  112. daniel

    and that's the basis for a revote

  113. Zash

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

  114. 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.

  115. moparisthebest

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

  116. moparisthebest

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