XMPP Council - 2020-01-22

  1. larma has left
  2. larma has joined
  3. daniel has joined
  4. larma has left
  5. larma has joined
  6. larma has left
  7. larma has joined
  8. daniel has left
  9. larma has left
  10. larma has joined
  11. daniel has joined
  12. daniel has left
  13. stpeter has left
  14. sonny has joined
  15. debacle has left
  16. daniel has joined
  17. daniel has left
  18. stpeter has joined
  19. daniel has joined
  20. daniel has left
  21. daniel has joined
  22. daniel has left
  23. sonny has left
  24. susmit88 has left
  25. sonny has joined
  26. daniel has joined
  27. stpeter has left
  28. daniel has left
  29. daniel has joined
  30. Tobias has joined
  31. daniel has left
  32. stpeter has joined
  33. daniel has joined
  34. stpeter has left
  35. daniel has left
  36. sonny has left
  37. sonny has joined
  38. paul has joined
  39. daniel has joined
  40. daniel has left
  41. sonny has left
  42. sonny has joined
  43. daniel has joined
  44. daniel has left
  45. sonny has left
  46. daniel has joined
  47. jonas’ \o/
  48. sonny has joined
  49. sonny has left
  50. sonny has joined
  51. sonny has left
  52. sonny has joined
  53. paul has left
  54. sonny has left
  55. sonny has joined
  56. paul has joined
  57. debacle has joined
  58. debacle has left
  59. debacle has joined
  60. Wojtek has joined
  61. sonny has left
  62. sonny has joined
  63. sonny has left
  64. sonny has joined
  65. sonny has left
  66. sonny has joined
  67. Max has left
  68. Max has joined
  69. sonny has left
  70. sonny has joined
  71. stpeter has joined
  72. Guus has left
  73. Guus has joined
  74. sonny has left
  75. sonny has joined
  76. stpeter has left
  77. dwd The very unlikely has happened and I'll be here for the meeting.
  78. jonas’ \o/
  79. ralphm This is the second occurance of the very unlikely happening in a week. First Kev coming to the Summit after all, and now this.
  80. ralphm also yay
  81. daniel kev is coming to the summit; when did that happen?
  82. Kev It hasn't happened yet, it'll happen next Thursday :D
  83. ralphm :-D
  84. Ge0rG Coming to the Summit wasn't the problem all along, getting back was?
  85. ralphm We'll see how that works out.
  86. Kev Actually both. I had stuff scheduled for Thu/Fri nights, but I cancelled that. And yes, the getting back - but for that I decided to get home late Friday night, which I hoped to be less risky than Saturday morning.
  87. ralphm So before 23:00 UTC?
  88. Kev I won't be home until considerably later than that, but I should be back in the UK by then, yes.
  89. Ge0rG it's pretty off-topic, but what's the currently anticipated legal relationship after midnight that day?
  90. Kev I believe nothing much *should* change initially.
  91. ralphm It is said that 'nothing will change significantly for a while'. But hey, this is new territory.
  92. Kev "Nothing could possibly go wrong", etc. Just seemed excessively risky that I'd end up delayed or something, when I have to be back home for Saturday evening for reasons.
  93. ralphm Curious if AWS will rename eu-west-2.
  94. dwd non-eu-west-1 ?
  95. jonas’ europe-the-continent-west-2?
  96. ralphm or more mundane, uk-east-1
  97. Kev To be fair, we'll still be in Europe, just not the EU.
  98. ralphm Out is out, dude.
  99. Kev No-one has yet proposed a geographical relocation - although I expect that to follow.
  100. moparisthebest Now that would be fun to watch
  101. dwd FWIW, while I don't think anything much will change immediately, one thing I'm not clear on is whether th treaty that places passport control in Brussels Midi actually remains in force, or whether that one is predicated on the UK being in the EU. If not, then who knows what might happen.
  102. Kev I'm hoping that whatever does happen happens Saturday and not Friday.
  103. dwd Kev, Well, assuming you're leaving before midnight EU time you're fine, surely?
  104. Kev That was the basis for my decision, yes.
  105. stpeter has joined
  106. daniel it's time
  107. Zash .
  108. dwd It was.
  109. dwd Perhaps jonas’ has succembed to the unforeseen.
  110. dwd Well, there's enough of us if we want to start anyway?
  111. daniel in light of next week not happening either I think we should start anyway
  112. jonas’ oh
  113. jonas’ sorry
  114. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  115. Zash Here
  116. dwd Here
  117. jonas’ too
  118. daniel here
  119. jonas’ daniel is too, obviously, Ge0rG said he’d be here too
  120. dwd Were we going to miss Ge0rG due to transport?
  121. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  122. jonas’ anything beyond the lengthy agenda I posted to the list?
  123. dwd Agenda looks good to me.
  124. daniel i think i will have an aob
  125. daniel but depending on time i can also do that in 2 weeks
  126. jonas’ okay, since the Agenda is going to be long, is everyone available for +15min?
  127. dwd Yes.
  128. Ge0rG I'm here
  129. Zash I might become grumpy due to hunger tho
  130. jonas’ sends virtual cake in Zashes direction
  131. jonas’ daniel, ?
  132. daniel yes
  133. jonas’ excellent
  134. jonas’ 3) Items for a Vote
  135. jonas’ 3a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Full Text Search in MAM URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fulltext.html Abstract: This specification proposes a field in the MAM form for full text searching.
  136. jonas’ 3a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Full Text Search in MAM URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fulltext.html Abstract: This specification proposes a field in the MAM form for full text searching.
  137. Ge0rG on-list
  138. jonas’ dead simple, I like it, +1
  139. Zash on-list
  140. dwd +1 - I'll almost certainly fold in MattJ's suggestions.
  141. pep. fwiw, irregardless of the defined protocol, I generally like my specs dull and easy to understand :(
  142. dwd (But that can and will be done in Experimental)
  143. daniel i think i'd prefer it to contain a note saying that it must be interpreted word by word (instead of keywords); essentially like what mlink is doing
  144. pep. (that is without all the fancy language)
  145. daniel but +1 regardless
  146. jonas’ okay, thanks
  147. jonas’ 3b) Proposed XMPP Extension: Inbox URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/inbox.html Abstract: This specification proposes a mechanism by which clients can find a list of ongoing conversations and their state.
  148. jonas’ 3b) Proposed XMPP Extension: Inbox URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/inbox.html Abstract: This specification proposes a mechanism by which clients can find a list of ongoing conversations and their state.
  149. daniel +1
  150. Zash on-list
  151. jonas’ daniel, +1 to 3b, or +1 to what pep. says?
  152. daniel inbox
  153. jonas’ I’m +1 on inbox, too
  154. dwd I am +1 to this.
  155. Ge0rG on-list
  156. jonas’ (also, I’d like to note that publishing Inbox before summit may be a good tactical move to allow development based on it during summit under XSF IPR)
  157. jonas’ thanks
  158. jonas’ 3c) Obsolete CS-2019 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/879
  159. daniel +1
  160. Ge0rG +1
  161. Zash +1
  162. dwd FWIW, this is the intention behind getting all these down in XEP form; it hopefully means we have concrete things we can bash about in the Summit.
  163. daniel to obsoleting cs19; not to what jonas’ said
  164. jonas’ at the risk of being *that* guy, we need to go via Deprecated as per XEP-0001
  165. daniel although i'd probably +1 that too
  166. Zash Wasn't there precedent for doing both at once;
  167. Zash s/.$/?/
  168. dwd Zash, We can vote seperately.
  169. jonas’ so for a fun technicality: Vote for moving CS-2019 to Deprecated
  170. jonas’ +1
  171. Zash +1
  172. dwd +1 and +1 to obsolete.
  173. daniel +1
  174. jonas’ Vote for moving CS-2019 to Obsolete
  175. jonas’ +1
  176. jonas’ (I assume Ge0rG will catch up)
  177. dwd jonas’, You get to chalk up more successful votes completed.
  178. jonas’ indeed!
  179. Ge0rG I'll try hard to get my on-list's resolved in a timely manner
  180. Ge0rG tomorrow is a day full of boring meetings.
  181. Zash Feels a bit tight with things entering the inbox yesterday.
  182. jonas’ Ge0rG, can I take your initial +1 to the PR as +1 to moving CS-2019 to Deprecated and then to Obsolete?
  183. Ge0rG jonas’: ye
  184. jonas’ thanks
  185. Ge0rG jonas’: yes. whatever works for Editor
  186. jonas’ 3d) XEP-0384 (OMEMO Encryption): Authorship This is one from the Editor: I have noticed that XEP-0384 changes are typically queuing for weeks on author approval. I personally haven’t heard much, if anything, from the author on-list since the last big discussion about OMEMO. We should figure out if we can reach out to them and work with them to improve the fluidity of the spec, especially with the discussion at the moment.
  187. ralphm I did a git blame, and the Editor should just make Daniel co-author.
  188. jonas’ so I would like to retract this Agendum given that @strb reacted to the PR
  189. daniel i talked to andy today
  190. jonas’ but if there’s discussion nevertheless, let’s do that
  191. pep. jonas’, he replied today on github
  192. ralphm Oh
  193. daniel he agrees that him being (an inactive) author doesn’t make any sense and he suggested that someone more involved in 'the omemo community' should take over
  194. pep. Probably a PR to close due to that
  195. daniel he suggested Syndace
  196. jonas’ pep., ... see what I wrote, please ;)
  197. daniel i'd personally suggest vanitasvitae as well
  198. pep. ah right
  199. daniel either or both can do the job
  200. jonas’ daniel, I’d be +1 with both either of those or you
  201. jonas’ we need to ask them I guess
  202. jonas’ I will do that
  203. daniel my suggestion would be to wait out the omemo sprint
  204. ralphm Ok, I still see Daniel as an author given his changes.
  205. jonas’ when is the OMEMO sprint?(
  206. jonas’ when is the OMEMO sprint?
  207. daniel that is happening at the end of februray
  208. dwd I would rather not vanitasvitae, all things being equal, as he's leading the SIG-E2EE and that's probably enough workload.
  209. daniel and then with the new document make either or both of them author (the two will attend the sprint)
  210. dwd Nothing against vanitasvitae's ability, mind - just seems better to spread around the workload if we can.
  211. ralphm Agreed
  212. pep. I'm sure both of them would be contributing to it in any case
  213. daniel it is very tightly related running sig-e2ee
  214. daniel and the xep
  215. jonas’ as author of an Experimental XEP, the main workload is, ironically, gatekeeping submissions. So I can see the benefit of the SIG-E2EE leader sharing this role
  216. daniel but i think after the sprint 'we' (including the two of them) have a better picture on who might be the better author
  217. jonas’ in the past, we’ve treated authorship as an OR and assume that if one of them consents, it is enough for applying the PR
  218. jonas’ so I think adding both as authors makes sense to me
  219. daniel +1
  220. Ge0rG +1
  221. dwd Not a hill for me to die on.
  222. jonas’ but we need to ask them first, either way
  223. jonas’ which I can do, or daniel can do in person at some point in the closer future
  224. jonas’ (sprint would be OK by me)
  225. daniel but i think the important note for now is that andy agrees; and it's not like anything would happen before the sprint anyway
  226. jonas’ indeed
  227. daniel so we might as well just wait
  228. daniel yes obviously we need to ask them
  229. daniel officially that is
  230. jonas’ everyone good with waiting until sprint?
  231. daniel i kinda asked them before
  232. Zash So, Syndace and vantasvitae to be asked about being added as authors on OMEMO? (sorry, got distracted)
  233. ralphm FWIW, we typically don't remove authors
  234. daniel yes as long as constent can be given be either author there is no reason to remove andy
  235. Ge0rG I'm okay with waiting, but there were people pushing for an urgent status change of 0384
  236. dwd I think removal of authors is bad, indeed.
  237. daniel (especially since we also said that he would like to continue providing input for the xep; and he will maybe also attend the sprint as well)
  238. daniel (we explicitly put the sprint location close-ish to where andy is; and also Paul)
  239. jonas’ moving on
  240. jonas’ 3e) SIG-E2EE ProtoXEP Update URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/881/files
  241. jonas’ + voting on SIG-E2EE
  242. Zash Do we have a leader?
  243. daniel that could have just been merged as it is still in inbox probbaly
  244. sonny has left
  245. jonas’ please also regard the mail I wrote about that. I’m still pretty confused as to how SIGs work and whether we start the SIG right away by voting this into Experimental
  246. daniel but in any case it is a change that council requested
  247. dwd jonas’, I think we may get to set precedet.
  248. jonas’ daniel, not sure, because a vote is ongoing about it, and changing the XEP which is being voted on is weird
  249. dwd jonas’, I think we may get to set precedent.
  250. Zash jonas’, I'm also confused. thanks for the writeup (did I send that email?)
  251. jonas’ Zash, I don’t think you did
  252. jonas’ dwd, so if we do, I think the process should be that we accept this as Experimental to iron out the details and once it’s Active it constitutes the SIG
  253. Zash Hrm
  254. Zash jonas’, then, +1
  255. jonas’ because discussing those details while the XEP is in ProtoXEP state is awkward, process and workflow-wise
  256. dwd jonas’, That would be my expectation, especially as the gateway onto Experimental was historically weak and in some cases non-existent.
  257. jonas’ dwd, indeed, I forgot about that history
  258. jonas’ that makes it very clear to me
  259. jonas’ +1 on SIG-E2EE then
  260. dwd Yes, +1 from me as well (again).
  261. daniel let me +1 here as well
  262. jonas’ then we’ve got votes by everyone, excellent
  263. jonas’ 4) Outstanding Votes
  264. dwd jonas’, I would appreciate input from Board on that changed bullet point, if you could mention that to ralphm.
  265. Ge0rG +1 on SIG-E2EE
  266. Zash yes, +1
  267. jonas’ please observe: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANu9KGmNf2r-qpLYqF7NdJTtqA1GIu55rf2deKbM0GA
  268. jonas’ I didn’t get around to update all votes from today, but the CS-2019 ones are up-to-date and you might want to complete them since everyone seemed to be in general agreement
  269. sonny has joined
  270. jonas’ now it’s up to date
  271. Ge0rG jonas’: I'm not seeing my +1 to deprecate CS'19
  272. jonas’ anyone who wants to still cast votes?
  273. jonas’ Ge0rG, yes, because you only voted on the process-wise incorrect "Obsoletion right away"
  274. ralphm dwd: hmm?
  275. dwd I've added Ge0rG's vote on the assumption that was one.
  276. jonas’ daniel and Zash are missing for the Obsoletion vote, too
  277. dwd ralphm, SIG-E2EE has a line about external representation. Not our bag here, but Board might have some views on it.
  278. Zash jonas’, +1 to obsolete
  279. Zash Thought I did that
  280. daniel +1 on obsolete
  281. jonas’ 5) Date of Next
  282. Ge0rG jonas’: sorry, I intended to say that I +1 both.
  283. daniel even though i thought i did that
  284. Zash How about that Buttons ProtoXEP I started, perfect for voting ;)
  285. jonas’ +1w will probably not work due to travel for many of us
  286. ralphm dwd: ah that, yeah, I agree with your earlier hesitance on this, and will discuss it in Board tomorrow.
  287. Ge0rG +1W works for me, won't be at the Summit
  288. Ge0rG will try to webex in though
  289. jonas’ I’d be available, too
  290. jonas’ Zash?
  291. daniel i’m arriving in brussels north at 17:26 local. so if we can get the meeting done in under 26min it should be fine
  292. daniel assuming the train has wifi which it usually has
  293. Zash Not going, so +1W could work.
  294. jonas’ ok, I’m taking this as a "let’s give this a shot"
  295. jonas’ 6) AOB
  296. jonas’ 6a) daniel
  297. dwd [I'm on a train during the meeting; no idea if I'll have bandwidth but if I do I'll join]
  298. daniel in talking to andy we discovered that the current process of deferring is confusing because it is not automated and seemingly random. the somewhat obvious solution would be to finally automate / cron that; but if that's too complicated could we maybe have an expiry date on them (like the IETF has for drafts)
  299. jonas’ daniel, thanks for the reminder for me to run the deferrals once a week when I do the xeps sweep
  300. daniel the expiry date would also make that obvious to people who are just passing by and haven’t read xep0001
  301. daniel i don’t know; not really important; what jonas’ just said obviously works as well
  302. dwd Certainly a more frequent deferral run would be good.
  303. daniel just thought to bring this up because i just came out of a chat with andy
  304. jonas’ (FTR, currently no unprocessed deferrals )
  305. jonas’ any other AOB?
  306. dwd Quick AOB, since we appear to have a bit of time?
  307. jonas’ dwd, go ahead
  308. pep. fwiw I'd be of the opinion to get rid of deferred maybe.. If the goal of that is to make people aware that it's been some time the XEP hasn't been edited (whatever that could mean in itself), there's already a date at the top of the document.. But that can be discussed on-list I guess
  309. dwd We have a bunch of XEPs in Experimental (and Deferred) that could be candidates for a Last Call and advancement.
  310. jonas’ dwd, agreed
  311. Zash Pick one and random and LC it?
  312. Zash at?
  313. Zash s/and/at/
  314. daniel agreed; i'd still be interested in hearing which specific xeps you are talking about
  315. dwd Well, we need to identify a few, coordinate with authors, etc.
  316. dwd But for example, XEP-0313 is deferred.
  317. Ge0rG looks at 0280 in horror
  318. dwd Ge0rG, We don't talk about that one.
  319. daniel yeah exactly; because 280 is *not* a good candidate
  320. daniel and even 313 has it's problems…
  321. Ge0rG daniel: it got much better recently, I was told. It just needs an exhaustive definition of what's "IM"
  322. dwd But in general terms, we shuld be advancing, or else deciding what needs fixing.
  323. daniel Ge0rG, by whom?
  324. dwd (Like a XEP which clearly defines what "IM" means)
  325. Ge0rG daniel: I don't remember.
  326. Zash Profiles something?
  327. Zash https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html
  328. dwd Anyway - let's go find some to advance.
  329. jonas’ I agree
  330. jonas’ I proposed that last term already, but it didn’t get anywhere I think
  331. jonas’ I also wonder if we should maybe send a call to the list about this and ask people to propose XEPs even if they aren’t the authors
  332. dwd jonas’, Good plan.
  333. jonas’ because people implementing stuff may know things
  334. jonas’ I’ll send the call to standadrs@ then
  335. jonas’ any other any other AOB?
  336. daniel we could maybe also 'final' some…
  337. jonas’ same difference, but yes
  338. Ge0rG I had a bunch of AOBs that I was carrying around last year
  339. Ge0rG Ah, persistence of message errors.
  340. jonas’ Ge0rG, does that fit in 5 minutes?
  341. Ge0rG jonas’: no
  342. dwd Ge0rG, And by tradition, these are mentioned each week and moved to the next meeting.
  343. jonas’ it also sounds like something which could be enqueued in summit
  344. daniel yeah i made a mental list on what i would like to LC on
  345. jonas’ daniel, you can reply to my mail to standards@ in five minutes :)
  346. jonas’ okay, I don’t see any more AOB, so ...
  347. jonas’ 7) Ite Meeting Est
  348. jonas’ Sorry for the delayed start, thanks everyone.
  349. dwd Thanks jonas’
  350. daniel thank you jonas’
  351. Zash Thanks
  352. jonas’ And thanks specifically to Tedd Sterr again for continuously delivering high-quality minutes for quite some time now.
  353. Zash Praise Tedd Sterr
  354. Zash How about $(curl https://xmpp.org/extensions/xeplist.xml | xml2 | 2csv xep-infos/xep number title status | grep ,Deferred$ | shuf -n 1) ?
  355. pep. I'd say go through the compliance suites XEPs and consider these first
  356. daniel that's what i did to compose my mental list
  357. Zash Myeah why can the compliance suite point to non-Draft+ XEPs?
  358. pep. Zash, who knows
  359. dwd pep., Didn't respond earlier, but I think Deferred is (or should) be useful by leaving Experimental as a list of actively-worked upon XEPs.
  360. daniel because the UX would be shitty if you didn’t
  361. jonas’ -> xsf@?
  362. Zash → closest pizza place
  363. pep. dwd, then a version with a date at the top should be sufficient?
  364. dwd pep., No, I mean, if you go here: https://xmpp.org/extensions/ then anything Deferred isn't listed because it's not an actively worked upon or used XEP. Which is clearly not true.
  365. pep. It's not true indeed
  366. pep. I didn't understand what you meant then by "leaving Experimental"
  367. dwd Hence I'd like to Last Call a bunch of the actively used XEPs in Deferred (and Experimental if that makes sense) so that we restore some utility there.
  368. pep. For example 313 is deferred but that doesn't mean there hasn't been any attention around it for the past year. Matt even sent changes on xsf@ to ask for feedback at some point. Not sure about the status for these
  369. vanitasvitae has left
  370. vanitasvitae has joined
  371. dwd Well, if he didn't get any, let's Last Call it.
  372. sonny has left
  373. sonny has joined
  374. sonny has left
  375. Ge0rG jonas’: are you still accepting votes in here?
  376. sonny has joined
  377. sonny has left
  378. sonny has joined
  379. sonny has left
  380. sonny has joined
  381. jonas’ Ge0rG, on list please
  382. jonas’ because they won’t make it in the minutes if they’re outside of a meeting
  383. jonas’ and nobody’s going to find them when retracing thing
  384. jonas’ and nobody’s going to find them when retracing things
  385. sonny has left
  386. Ge0rG Right, of course. I'm now awkwardly awaiting for the kind soul who does the minutes to do the minutes.
  387. ralphm You can still send an e-mail to council@? E.g. in response to the agenda.
  388. sonny has joined
  389. sonny has left
  390. Wojtek has left
  391. sonny has joined
  392. debacle has left
  393. sonny has left
  394. Tobias has left
  395. Syndace has left
  396. Syndace has joined
  397. sonny has joined
  398. daniel has left
  399. daniel has joined
  400. sonny has left
  401. debacle has joined
  402. daniel has left
  403. daniel has joined
  404. daniel has left
  405. paul has left
  406. daniel has joined