XMPP Council - 2019-12-11

  1. paul has left
  2. debacle has left
  3. Neustradamus has left
  4. vaulor has left
  5. stpeter has joined
  6. Zash has left
  7. stpeter has left
  8. ralphm has left
  9. ralphm has joined
  10. daniel has left
  11. daniel has joined
  12. daniel has left
  13. daniel has joined
  14. Neustradamus has joined
  15. Tobias has joined
  16. paul has joined
  17. daniel has left
  18. vaulor has joined
  19. daniel has joined
  20. ralphm has left
  21. ralphm has joined
  22. beta has joined
  23. beta has left
  24. beta has joined
  25. beta has left
  26. beta has joined
  27. beta has left
  28. beta has joined
  29. Zash has joined
  30. undefined has left
  31. undefined has joined
  32. Kev has joined
  33. Kev_ has joined
  34. susmit88 has joined
  35. beta has left
  36. beta has joined
  37. susmit88 has left
  38. Ge0rG has left
  39. Kev has left
  40. Ge0rG has joined
  41. debacle has joined
  42. Wojtek has joined
  43. Kev has joined
  44. Wojtek has left
  45. stpeter has joined
  46. Wojtek has joined
  47. stpeter has left
  48. jonas’ 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
  49. jonas’ (but don’t want to chair using mobile to spare you all some time)
  50. stpeter has joined
  51. stpeter has left
  52. daniel hi
  53. Zash Time?
  54. Kev 16:01
  55. dwd Afternoon
  56. dwd 1) Roll Call
  57. Zash Night (from the looks of it)
  58. Ge0rG Good morning everyone!
  59. Kev I think jonas’ pinged that he wanted me here, but I'm only semi paying attention (while looking at Fastening etc.).
  60. jonas’ .
  61. jonas’ here but mobile
  62. dwd daniel, ?
  63. daniel i'm here
  64. dwd OK.
  65. dwd 2) Agenda Bashing
  66. dwd Anyone got anything not in the agenda?
  67. dwd If not...
  68. Kev Fastening in MAM, depending on other discussions.
  69. dwd 3) Items for Voting
  70. dwd £a) Resurrection of Reactions
  71. dwd Oh, capital number, there.
  72. Kev I am attempting to zombify it At This Moment.
  73. Kev Or the Fastening element, at least.
  74. dwd Thanks.
  75. Kev I'm hoping to at least have replied to and triaged feedback by the end of the afternoon.
  76. Kev I remain convinced that Reactions are better done in the scope of something like Fastening, FWIW.
  77. Zash If the auhors of Reactions and Fastening can try to work this out then I'm not blocking.
  78. 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.
  79. 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.
  80. Ge0rG Zash: and even years later, clients had the <forwarded> <message> hierarchy wrong.
  81. Zash Not having a XEP number isn't stopping anyone from implementing.
  82. dwd Zash, True, but it does prevent people working on it within XSF IPR policies.
  83. dwd Do we have the Reactions authors present?
  84. daniel > Zash, True, but it does prevent people working on it within XSF IPR policies why is it a worthy goal to prevent that?
  85. 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.
  86. dwd daniel, It isn't.
  87. Kev That's the main drawback, I think.
  88. 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?
  89. daniel and/or a referable number
  90. Kev daniel: I think the answer to that is a definite 'maybe'.
  91. dwd daniel, Yes. The probl;em is that previous cases have seen authors essentially entrench their positions after being accepted.
  92. 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.
  93. daniel doesn’t the endorsing step come with 'draft'?
  94. Kev Should, yes.
  95. Kev Does, not really.
  96. daniel i'd be totally with you if that argument were raised on moving to draft
  97. Ge0rG Our protocol evolution step names are also broken, yes.
  98. daniel Ge0rG, can we unbreak them?
  99. 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.
  100. Kev (And if Mr. Chair would like me to go back to the peanut gallery at some point, I shall do so)
  101. daniel by making experimental 'everything goes' and instead move things to draft that belong to draft
  102. Ge0rG daniel: only by pouring massive amounts of time into it
  103. 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.
  104. Kev Which I hate in almost every way, other than that it might actually work.
  105. daniel Kev, that should be experimental
  106. daniel that is what experimental is for
  107. Kev daniel: Would that we lived in a world where 'should' counted for anything :)
  108. Ge0rG daniel: Carbons are essentially expired, and still so widely used that we don't dare breaking them.
  109. daniel i mean we can introduce the ietf draft thing…
  110. daniel but then a lot of the other stages don’t make sense
  111. dwd OK, I think we're not making progress.
  112. 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.
  113. Zash Kev: More like the IETF model?
  114. Kev Zash: No number until ready? Yes, essentially.
  115. Kev Depending which model you mean :)
  116. 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).
  117. Zash dwd: Chair on.
  118. Kev I suggest Council apply pressure to me if I miss something again.
  119. Kev I care about this a lot.
  120. Ge0rG We should be discussing the best way to do Fastening instead of meta-discussing process? ;)
  121. dwd Kev, Thanks.
  122. dwd 4) Outstanding Votes
  123. dwd ... are all about Reactions/Fastening.
  124. dwd 5) Date of Next
  125. dwd Same time next week work for us all?
  126. Ge0rG I missed last, and I'll on-list everything Fastening/Reactions'y to the latest date possible
  127. 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
  128. Ge0rG There is nothing on my calendar in +1W
  129. daniel maybe not now
  130. daniel +1w works for me
  131. dwd 6) AOB
  132. Ge0rG daniel: that meta-discussion has been happening in this MUC since Reactions was first proposed
  133. 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)
  134. Kev Can I have a quick AOB on Fastening/MAM, please?
  135. 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.
  136. Kev Damn, AFK 60 seconds.
  137. dwd And since Kev wants to talk about Fastening/MAM...
  138. Kev Sorry, bad point for a doorbell.
  139. Kev So, two things about Fastening/MAM.
  140. 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.
  141. 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.
  142. daniel it might be Board's to approve but current and past councils certainly have a lot of valuable insights here
  143. daniel Kev, i need to be convinced that fastening will actually work with MAM and that we don’t have to rewrite it later
  144. 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?
  145. daniel if that convincing happens via protocol or by other means is open
  146. dwd Kev, (1) I disagree with that view. I agree it urgently needs solving, but without fastening it's useless.
  147. 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.
  148. 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.
  149. dwd Kev, (3) I also have a horse in the Inbox race, too.
  150. Kev I'm hoping to get Fastening 'done' and then move onto MAM2/3/4
  151. Kev And *hoping* that someone else then sorts Inbox using the same mechanism.
  152. 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.
  153. Kev There are many problems to be solved with inbox. Several of them come with fastening and enhanced archiving.
  154. Kev Some are additional. This is why I'd like to put it off, and ideally someone else do it :)
  155. dwd I hope it's the solutions, not the problems, that come.
  156. Ge0rG dwd: also Chat States play into that, which we wanted to move from message to presence semantics
  157. dwd Ge0rG, Good point.
  158. Ge0rG A herd of unshaved yaks.
  159. dwd I'll commit to resurrecting Inbox talks.
  160. dwd We already rely on ESL's design.
  161. Ge0rG what's ESL's design?
  162. Kev ESL's design?
  163. dwd Since we're coming up on the half hour, does anyone have anything else?
  164. daniel not from my side
  165. Ge0rG nothing else here
  166. dwd Ge0rG, https://mongooseim.readthedocs.io/en/latest/modules/mod_inbox/
  167. dwd Ge0rG, The documentation isn't, I find, very clear - but the fundamental shape of it works.
  168. dwd OK, if there's nothing else, I'll close the meeting, but as usual people are welcome to continue chatting.
  169. dwd 7) Ite, Meeting Est
  170. dwd Thank you all.
  171. Kev Thanks. And jonas's ping to join because something relevant was discussed was useful, I think.
  172. dwd Indeed - it was a good idea to explicitly request people join. A plan worth repeating.
  173. Kev (Dave says, smuggly, having been a proponent for yeras)
  174. Kev (Dave says, smuggly, having been a proponent for years)
  175. Kev (Dave says, smugly, having been a proponent for years)
  176. stpeter has joined
  177. debacle has left
  178. daniel has left
  179. daniel has joined
  180. daniel has left
  181. daniel has joined
  182. SouL has left
  183. SouL has joined
  184. Wojtek has left
  185. ralphm has left
  186. ralphm has joined
  187. sonny has left
  188. sonny has joined
  189. SouL has left
  190. vaulor has left
  191. stpeter has left
  192. stpeter has joined
  193. moparisthebest has left
  194. moparisthebest has joined
  195. Tobias has left
  196. paul has left
  197. paul has joined
  198. Kev has left
  199. Kev_ has left
  200. moparisthebest has left
  201. pep. > at some point we need to have that meta discussion As a board member I'm happy to have that discussion (you need board anyway to change all that..)
  202. Lance has joined
  203. Lance has left