I’ll probably be able to attend via mobile since the party only starts at 16:30Z, not at 15:30Z as I originally thought
jonas’
(but don’t want to chair using mobile to spare you all some time)
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
daniel
hi
Zash
Time?
Kev
16:01
dwd
Afternoon
dwd
1) Roll Call
Zash
Night (from the looks of it)
Ge0rG
Good morning everyone!
Kev
I think jonas’ pinged that he wanted me here, but I'm only semi paying attention (while looking at Fastening etc.).
jonas’
.
jonas’
here but mobile
dwd
daniel, ?
daniel
i'm here
dwd
OK.
dwd
2) Agenda Bashing
dwd
Anyone got anything not in the agenda?
dwd
If not...
Kev
Fastening in MAM, depending on other discussions.
dwd
3) Items for Voting
dwd
£a) Resurrection of Reactions
dwd
Oh, capital number, there.
Kev
I am attempting to zombify it At This Moment.
Kev
Or the Fastening element, at least.
dwd
Thanks.
Kev
I'm hoping to at least have replied to and triaged feedback by the end of the afternoon.
Kev
I remain convinced that Reactions are better done in the scope of something like Fastening, FWIW.
Zash
If the auhors of Reactions and Fastening can try to work this out then I'm not blocking.
Zash
We did a similar thing with the Message Forwarding container XEP after publication of Carbons IIRC, so I don't see why you can't do something similar here during expermiental.
dwd
I would personally be happy to accept Reactions as-is if we could gain agreement that we'd solve the fastening issues as a priority. My concern is that with other Experimental XEPs of the same nature, such agreements have been ignored and the original authors have simply dug into their position having obtained any kind of concession.
Ge0rG
Zash: and even years later, clients had the <forwarded> <message> hierarchy wrong.
Zash
Not having a XEP number isn't stopping anyone from implementing.
dwd
Zash, True, but it does prevent people working on it within XSF IPR policies.
dwd
Do we have the Reactions authors present?
daniel
> Zash, True, but it does prevent people working on it within XSF IPR policies
why is it a worthy goal to prevent that?
Kev
I think there's a whole load of prior art to show that accepting something for expediency and expecting it to change significantly doesn't lead to it changing, and we end up in a Bad Place. Just looking at Fastening, I had every intention to immediately address feedback, and it's still taken me months because I was on holiday and missed the feedback.
dwd
daniel, It isn't.
Kev
That's the main drawback, I think.
daniel
assuming that reactions in it's current form will see adoption (not by me or Conversations fwiw) isn’t it better to have the ipr with the xsf?
daniel
and/or a referable number
Kev
daniel: I think the answer to that is a definite 'maybe'.
dwd
daniel, Yes. The probl;em is that previous cases have seen authors essentially entrench their positions after being accepted.
Kev
It /not/ having a number is a clear message that it's not yet endorsed. Despite the banners on Experimental XEPs, it's clear that as soon as it's got a number a good proportion of people believe it's been endorsed.
daniel
doesn’t the endorsing step come with 'draft'?
Kev
Should, yes.
Kev
Does, not really.
daniel
i'd be totally with you if that argument were raised on moving to draft
Ge0rG
Our protocol evolution step names are also broken, yes.
daniel
Ge0rG, can we unbreak them?
Kev
Sadly, the argument then becomes "It's Experimental, it's widely deployed because everyone ignored that it was Experimental, it should be made Draft despite it being clearly unsuitable" as does happen.
Kev
(And if Mr. Chair would like me to go back to the peanut gallery at some point, I shall do so)
daniel
by making experimental 'everything goes' and instead move things to draft that belong to draft
Ge0rG
daniel: only by pouring massive amounts of time into it
Kev
I'm actually coming around to (flo?'s) suggestion of a pre-experimental stage, where it doesn't get a number, or anything like that, but at least goes under IPR.
Kev
Which I hate in almost every way, other than that it might actually work.
daniel
Kev, that should be experimental
daniel
that is what experimental is for
Kev
daniel: Would that we lived in a world where 'should' counted for anything :)
Ge0rG
daniel: Carbons are essentially expired, and still so widely used that we don't dare breaking them.
daniel
i mean we can introduce the ietf draft thing…
daniel
but then a lot of the other stages don’t make sense
dwd
OK, I think we're not making progress.
Kev
My view remains (although a minority) that we should work as much as we can to get Reactions to the stage that it's 'ready' and avoid the issue. I realise the blame for stalling Fastening lies with me.
Zash
Kev: More like the IETF model?
Kev
Zash: No number until ready? Yes, essentially.
Kev
Depending which model you mean :)
dwd
I see Kev pouring out email to the list, so unless that results in no further movement I'm going to honour the previous Council's decision (and I really hope we can get this all sorted).
Zash
dwd: Chair on.
Kev
I suggest Council apply pressure to me if I miss something again.
Kev
I care about this a lot.
Ge0rG
We should be discussing the best way to do Fastening instead of meta-discussing process? ;)
dwd
Kev, Thanks.
dwd
4) Outstanding Votes
dwd
... are all about Reactions/Fastening.
dwd
5) Date of Next
dwd
Same time next week work for us all?
Ge0rG
I missed last, and I'll on-list everything Fastening/Reactions'y to the latest date possible
daniel
> We should be discussing the best way to do Fastening instead of meta-discussing process? 😉
at some point we need to have that meta discussion
Ge0rG
There is nothing on my calendar in +1W
daniel
maybe not now
daniel
+1w works for me
dwd
6) AOB
Ge0rG
daniel: that meta-discussion has been happening in this MUC since Reactions was first proposed
Kev
(I agree with daniel that a metadiscussion being scheduled at some point is sane, even if I don't have a horse in that race now)
Kev
Can I have a quick AOB on Fastening/MAM, please?
dwd
I would note - and here seems as good a time as any - that a discussion on process is a thing that ought to happen on the list, and it's a Board thing to approve anyway.
Kev
Damn, AFK 60 seconds.
dwd
And since Kev wants to talk about Fastening/MAM...
Kev
Sorry, bad point for a doorbell.
Kev
So, two things about Fastening/MAM.
dwd
The other thing to consider would be some form of Inbox. ESL's is a reasonable model to start, and will similarly need to understand concepts of fastening and other ancillary messages.
Kev
1) I agree that we need that story told. There's been some suggestion that Fastening isn't usable until MAM3 has also been specified. I'm wondering how strongly people hold that view, if at all.
daniel
it might be Board's to approve but current and past councils certainly have a lot of valuable insights here
daniel
Kev, i need to be convinced that fastening will actually work with MAM and that we don’t have to rewrite it later
Kev
2) We came up with a rough story at the Summit, which is similar to Evgeny's that was recently posted. Get the messages independently or with metadata, including possibly sumarries of metadata. Are people still ok with that, or do they have more input before I try to spec something?
daniel
if that convincing happens via protocol or by other means is open
dwd
Kev, (1) I disagree with that view. I agree it urgently needs solving, but without fastening it's useless.
Kev
3) (of 2) There's also the inbox story. I'd like to punt that one for the moment, even though I want it.
dwd
Kev, (2) I'd greatly appreciate it if we threw some ever-more-concrete ideas around on the mailing list. I have a horse in this race.
dwd
Kev, (3) I also have a horse in the Inbox race, too.
Kev
I'm hoping to get Fastening 'done' and then move onto MAM2/3/4
Kev
And *hoping* that someone else then sorts Inbox using the same mechanism.
dwd
One problem with Inbox is that it needs an understanding of message receipts, so we need consensus on whether this means Message Receipts, Chat Markers, or Something New.
Kev
There are many problems to be solved with inbox. Several of them come with fastening and enhanced archiving.
Kev
Some are additional. This is why I'd like to put it off, and ideally someone else do it :)
dwd
I hope it's the solutions, not the problems, that come.
Ge0rG
dwd: also Chat States play into that, which we wanted to move from message to presence semantics
dwd
Ge0rG, Good point.
Ge0rG
A herd of unshaved yaks.
dwd
I'll commit to resurrecting Inbox talks.
dwd
We already rely on ESL's design.
Ge0rG
what's ESL's design?
Kev
ESL's design?
dwd
Since we're coming up on the half hour, does anyone have anything else?