XMPP Council - 2020-01-22

\o/

The very unlikely has happened and I'll be here for the meeting.

\o/

This is the second occurance of the very unlikely happening in a week. First Kev coming to the Summit after all, and now this.

also yay

kev is coming to the summit; when did that happen?

It hasn't happened yet, it'll happen next Thursday :D

:-D

Coming to the Summit wasn't the problem all along, getting back was?

We'll see how that works out.

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.

So before 23:00 UTC?

I won't be home until considerably later than that, but I should be back in the UK by then, yes.

it's pretty off-topic, but what's the currently anticipated legal relationship after midnight that day?

I believe nothing much *should* change initially.

It is said that 'nothing will change significantly for a while'. But hey, this is new territory.

"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.

Curious if AWS will rename eu-west-2.

non-eu-west-1 ?

europe-the-continent-west-2?

or more mundane, uk-east-1

To be fair, we'll still be in Europe, just not the EU.

Out is out, dude.

No-one has yet proposed a geographical relocation - although I expect that to follow.

Now that would be fun to watch

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.

I'm hoping that whatever does happen happens Saturday and not Friday.

Kev, Well, assuming you're leaving before midnight EU time you're fine, surely?

That was the basis for my decision, yes.

it's time

.

It was.

Perhaps jonas’ has succembed to the unforeseen.

Well, there's enough of us if we want to start anyway?

in light of next week not happening either I think we should start anyway

oh

sorry

1) Roll Call

Here

Here

here

daniel is too, obviously, Ge0rG said he’d be here too

Were we going to miss Ge0rG due to transport?

2) Agenda Bashing

anything beyond the lengthy agenda I posted to the list?

Agenda looks good to me.

i think i will have an aob

but depending on time i can also do that in 2 weeks

okay, since the Agenda is going to be long, is everyone available for +15min?

Yes.

I'm here

I might become grumpy due to hunger tho

daniel, ?

yes

excellent

3) Items for a Vote

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. ✏

on-list

dead simple, I like it, +1

on-list

+1 - I'll almost certainly fold in MattJ's suggestions.

fwiw, irregardless of the defined protocol, I generally like my specs dull and easy to understand :(

(But that can and will be done in Experimental)

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

(that is without all the fancy language)

but +1 regardless

okay, thanks

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. ✏

+1

on-list

daniel, +1 to 3b, or +1 to what pep. says?

inbox

I’m +1 on inbox, too

I am +1 to this.

on-list

(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)

thanks

3c) Obsolete CS-2019 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/879

+1

+1

+1

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.

to obsoleting cs19; not to what jonas’ said

at the risk of being *that* guy, we need to go via Deprecated as per XEP-0001

although i'd probably +1 that too

Wasn't there precedent for doing both at once;

s/.$/?/

Zash, We can vote seperately.

so for a fun technicality: Vote for moving CS-2019 to Deprecated

+1

+1

+1 and +1 to obsolete.

+1

Vote for moving CS-2019 to Obsolete

+1

(I assume Ge0rG will catch up)

jonas’, You get to chalk up more successful votes completed.

indeed!

I'll try hard to get my on-list's resolved in a timely manner

tomorrow is a day full of boring meetings.

Feels a bit tight with things entering the inbox yesterday.

Ge0rG, can I take your initial +1 to the PR as +1 to moving CS-2019 to Deprecated and then to Obsolete?

jonas’: ye

thanks

jonas’: yes. whatever works for Editor

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.

I did a git blame, and the Editor should just make Daniel co-author.

so I would like to retract this Agendum given that @strb reacted to the PR

i talked to andy today

but if there’s discussion nevertheless, let’s do that

jonas’, he replied today on github

Oh

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

Probably a PR to close due to that

he suggested Syndace

pep., ... see what I wrote, please ;)

i'd personally suggest vanitasvitae as well

ah right

either or both can do the job

daniel, I’d be +1 with both either of those or you

we need to ask them I guess

I will do that

my suggestion would be to wait out the omemo sprint

Ok, I still see Daniel as an author given his changes.

when is the OMEMO sprint? ✏

that is happening at the end of februray

I would rather not vanitasvitae, all things being equal, as he's leading the SIG-E2EE and that's probably enough workload.

and then with the new document make either or both of them author (the two will attend the sprint)

Nothing against vanitasvitae's ability, mind - just seems better to spread around the workload if we can.

Agreed

I'm sure both of them would be contributing to it in any case

it is very tightly related running sig-e2ee

and the xep

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

but i think after the sprint 'we' (including the two of them) have a better picture on who might be the better author

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

so I think adding both as authors makes sense to me

+1

+1

Not a hill for me to die on.

but we need to ask them first, either way

which I can do, or daniel can do in person at some point in the closer future

(sprint would be OK by me)

but i think the important note for now is that andy agrees; and it's not like anything would happen before the sprint anyway

indeed

so we might as well just wait

yes obviously we need to ask them

officially that is

everyone good with waiting until sprint?

i kinda asked them before

So, Syndace and vantasvitae to be asked about being added as authors on OMEMO? (sorry, got distracted)

FWIW, we typically don't remove authors

yes as long as constent can be given be either author there is no reason to remove andy

I'm okay with waiting, but there were people pushing for an urgent status change of 0384

I think removal of authors is bad, indeed.

(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)

(we explicitly put the sprint location close-ish to where andy is; and also Paul)

moving on

3e) SIG-E2EE ProtoXEP Update URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/881/files

+ voting on SIG-E2EE

Do we have a leader?

that could have just been merged as it is still in inbox probbaly

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

but in any case it is a change that council requested

daniel, not sure, because a vote is ongoing about it, and changing the XEP which is being voted on is weird

jonas’, I think we may get to set precedent. ✏

jonas’, I'm also confused. thanks for the writeup (did I send that email?)

Zash, I don’t think you did

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

Hrm

jonas’, then, +1

because discussing those details while the XEP is in ProtoXEP state is awkward, process and workflow-wise

jonas’, That would be my expectation, especially as the gateway onto Experimental was historically weak and in some cases non-existent.

dwd, indeed, I forgot about that history

that makes it very clear to me

+1 on SIG-E2EE then

Yes, +1 from me as well (again).

let me +1 here as well

then we’ve got votes by everyone, excellent

4) Outstanding Votes

jonas’, I would appreciate input from Board on that changed bullet point, if you could mention that to ralphm.

+1 on SIG-E2EE

yes, +1

please observe: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANu9KGmNf2r-qpLYqF7NdJTtqA1GIu55rf2deKbM0GA

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

now it’s up to date

jonas’: I'm not seeing my +1 to deprecate CS'19

anyone who wants to still cast votes?

Ge0rG, yes, because you only voted on the process-wise incorrect "Obsoletion right away"

dwd: hmm?

I've added Ge0rG's vote on the assumption that was one.

daniel and Zash are missing for the Obsoletion vote, too

ralphm, SIG-E2EE has a line about external representation. Not our bag here, but Board might have some views on it.

jonas’, +1 to obsolete

Thought I did that

+1 on obsolete

5) Date of Next

jonas’: sorry, I intended to say that I +1 both.

even though i thought i did that

How about that Buttons ProtoXEP I started, perfect for voting ;)

+1w will probably not work due to travel for many of us

dwd: ah that, yeah, I agree with your earlier hesitance on this, and will discuss it in Board tomorrow.

+1W works for me, won't be at the Summit

will try to webex in though

I’d be available, too

Zash?

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

assuming the train has wifi which it usually has

Not going, so +1W could work.

ok, I’m taking this as a "let’s give this a shot"

6) AOB

6a) daniel

[I'm on a train during the meeting; no idea if I'll have bandwidth but if I do I'll join]

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)

daniel, thanks for the reminder for me to run the deferrals once a week when I do the xeps sweep

the expiry date would also make that obvious to people who are just passing by and haven’t read xep0001

i don’t know; not really important; what jonas’ just said obviously works as well

Certainly a more frequent deferral run would be good.

just thought to bring this up because i just came out of a chat with andy

(FTR, currently no unprocessed deferrals )

any other AOB?

Quick AOB, since we appear to have a bit of time?

dwd, go ahead

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

We have a bunch of XEPs in Experimental (and Deferred) that could be candidates for a Last Call and advancement.

dwd, agreed

Pick one and random and LC it?

at?

s/and/at/

agreed; i'd still be interested in hearing which specific xeps you are talking about

Well, we need to identify a few, coordinate with authors, etc.

But for example, XEP-0313 is deferred.

Ge0rG, We don't talk about that one.

yeah exactly; because 280 is *not* a good candidate

and even 313 has it's problems…

daniel: it got much better recently, I was told. It just needs an exhaustive definition of what's "IM"

But in general terms, we shuld be advancing, or else deciding what needs fixing.

Ge0rG, by whom?

(Like a XEP which clearly defines what "IM" means)

daniel: I don't remember.

Profiles something?

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html

Anyway - let's go find some to advance.

I agree

I proposed that last term already, but it didn’t get anywhere I think

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

jonas’, Good plan.

because people implementing stuff may know things

I’ll send the call to standadrs@ then

any other any other AOB?

we could maybe also 'final' some…

same difference, but yes

I had a bunch of AOBs that I was carrying around last year

Ah, persistence of message errors.

Ge0rG, does that fit in 5 minutes?

jonas’: no

Ge0rG, And by tradition, these are mentioned each week and moved to the next meeting.

it also sounds like something which could be enqueued in summit

yeah i made a mental list on what i would like to LC on

daniel, you can reply to my mail to standards@ in five minutes :)

okay, I don’t see any more AOB, so ...

7) Ite Meeting Est

Sorry for the delayed start, thanks everyone.

Thanks jonas’

thank you jonas’

Thanks

And thanks specifically to Tedd Sterr again for continuously delivering high-quality minutes for quite some time now.

Praise Tedd Sterr

How about $(curl https://xmpp.org/extensions/xeplist.xml | xml2 | 2csv xep-infos/xep number title status | grep ,Deferred$ | shuf -n 1) ?

I'd say go through the compliance suites XEPs and consider these first

that's what i did to compose my mental list

Myeah why can the compliance suite point to non-Draft+ XEPs?

Zash, who knows

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.

because the UX would be shitty if you didn’t

-> xsf@?

dwd, then a version with a date at the top should be sufficient?

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.

It's not true indeed

I didn't understand what you meant then by "leaving Experimental"

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.

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

Well, if he didn't get any, let's Last Call it.

jonas’: are you still accepting votes in here?

Ge0rG, on list please

because they won’t make it in the minutes if they’re outside of a meeting

and nobody’s going to find them when retracing things ✏

Right, of course. I'm now awkwardly awaiting for the kind soul who does the minutes to do the minutes.

You can still send an e-mail to council@? E.g. in response to the agenda.