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


  53. Zash


  54. Kev


  55. dwd


  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


  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


  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