dwdThe very unlikely has happened and I'll be here for the meeting.
jonas’\o/
ralphmThis is the second occurance of the very unlikely happening in a week. First Kev coming to the Summit after all, and now this.
ralphmalso yay
danielkev is coming to the summit; when did that happen?
KevIt hasn't happened yet, it'll happen next Thursday :D
ralphm:-D
Ge0rGComing to the Summit wasn't the problem all along, getting back was?
ralphmWe'll see how that works out.
KevActually 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.
ralphmSo before 23:00 UTC?
KevI won't be home until considerably later than that, but I should be back in the UK by then, yes.
Ge0rGit's pretty off-topic, but what's the currently anticipated legal relationship after midnight that day?
KevI believe nothing much *should* change initially.
ralphmIt is said that 'nothing will change significantly for a while'. But hey, this is new territory.
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.
ralphmCurious if AWS will rename eu-west-2.
dwdnon-eu-west-1 ?
jonas’europe-the-continent-west-2?
ralphmor more mundane, uk-east-1
KevTo be fair, we'll still be in Europe, just not the EU.
ralphmOut is out, dude.
KevNo-one has yet proposed a geographical relocation - although I expect that to follow.
moparisthebestNow that would be fun to watch
dwdFWIW, 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.
KevI'm hoping that whatever does happen happens Saturday and not Friday.
dwdKev, Well, assuming you're leaving before midnight EU time you're fine, surely?
KevThat was the basis for my decision, yes.
stpeterhas joined
danielit's time
Zash.
dwdIt was.
dwdPerhaps jonas’ has succembed to the unforeseen.
dwdWell, there's enough of us if we want to start anyway?
danielin light of next week not happening either I think we should start anyway
jonas’oh
jonas’sorry
jonas’1) Roll Call
ZashHere
dwdHere
jonas’too
danielhere
jonas’daniel is too, obviously, Ge0rG said he’d be here too
dwdWere we going to miss Ge0rG due to transport?
jonas’2) Agenda Bashing
jonas’anything beyond the lengthy agenda I posted to the list?
dwdAgenda looks good to me.
danieli think i will have an aob
danielbut depending on time i can also do that in 2 weeks
jonas’okay, since the Agenda is going to be long, is everyone available for +15min?
dwdYes.
Ge0rGI'm here
ZashI might become grumpy due to hunger tho
jonas’sends virtual cake in Zashes direction
jonas’daniel, ?
danielyes
jonas’excellent
jonas’3) Items for a Vote
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.
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.
Ge0rGon-list
jonas’dead simple, I like it, +1
Zashon-list
dwd+1 - I'll almost certainly fold in MattJ's suggestions.
pep.fwiw, irregardless of the defined protocol, I generally like my specs dull and easy to understand :(
dwd(But that can and will be done in Experimental)
danieli 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
pep.(that is without all the fancy language)
danielbut +1 regardless
jonas’okay, thanks
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.
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.
daniel+1
Zashon-list
jonas’daniel, +1 to 3b, or +1 to what pep. says?
danielinbox
jonas’I’m +1 on inbox, too
dwdI am +1 to this.
Ge0rGon-list
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)
dwdFWIW, 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.
danielto obsoleting cs19; not to what jonas’ said
jonas’at the risk of being *that* guy, we need to go via Deprecated as per XEP-0001
danielalthough i'd probably +1 that too
ZashWasn't there precedent for doing both at once;
Zashs/.$/?/
dwdZash, We can vote seperately.
jonas’so for a fun technicality: Vote for moving CS-2019 to Deprecated
jonas’+1
Zash+1
dwd+1 and +1 to obsolete.
daniel+1
jonas’Vote for moving CS-2019 to Obsolete
jonas’+1
jonas’(I assume Ge0rG will catch up)
dwdjonas’, You get to chalk up more successful votes completed.
jonas’indeed!
Ge0rGI'll try hard to get my on-list's resolved in a timely manner
Ge0rGtomorrow is a day full of boring meetings.
ZashFeels a bit tight with things entering the inbox yesterday.
jonas’Ge0rG, can I take your initial +1 to the PR as +1 to moving CS-2019 to Deprecated and then to Obsolete?
Ge0rGjonas’: ye
jonas’thanks
Ge0rGjonas’: yes. whatever works for Editor
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.
ralphmI did a git blame, and the Editor should just make Daniel co-author.
jonas’so I would like to retract this Agendum given that @strb reacted to the PR
danieli talked to andy today
jonas’but if there’s discussion nevertheless, let’s do that
pep.jonas’, he replied today on github
ralphmOh
danielhe 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
pep.Probably a PR to close due to that
danielhe suggested Syndace
jonas’pep., ... see what I wrote, please ;)
danieli'd personally suggest vanitasvitae as well
pep.ah right
danieleither or both can do the job
jonas’daniel, I’d be +1 with both either of those or you
jonas’we need to ask them I guess
jonas’I will do that
danielmy suggestion would be to wait out the omemo sprint
ralphmOk, I still see Daniel as an author given his changes.
jonas’when is the OMEMO sprint?(
jonas’when is the OMEMO sprint?
danielthat is happening at the end of februray
dwdI would rather not vanitasvitae, all things being equal, as he's leading the SIG-E2EE and that's probably enough workload.
danieland then with the new document make either or both of them author (the two will attend the sprint)
dwdNothing against vanitasvitae's ability, mind - just seems better to spread around the workload if we can.
ralphmAgreed
pep.I'm sure both of them would be contributing to it in any case
danielit is very tightly related running sig-e2ee
danieland the xep
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
danielbut i think after the sprint 'we' (including the two of them) have a better picture on who might be the better author
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
jonas’so I think adding both as authors makes sense to me
daniel+1
Ge0rG+1
dwdNot a hill for me to die on.
jonas’but we need to ask them first, either way
jonas’which I can do, or daniel can do in person at some point in the closer future
jonas’(sprint would be OK by me)
danielbut i think the important note for now is that andy agrees; and it's not like anything would happen before the sprint anyway
jonas’indeed
danielso we might as well just wait
danielyes obviously we need to ask them
danielofficially that is
jonas’everyone good with waiting until sprint?
danieli kinda asked them before
ZashSo, Syndace and vantasvitae to be asked about being added as authors on OMEMO? (sorry, got distracted)
ralphmFWIW, we typically don't remove authors
danielyes as long as constent can be given be either author there is no reason to remove andy
Ge0rGI'm okay with waiting, but there were people pushing for an urgent status change of 0384
dwdI think removal of authors is bad, indeed.
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)
daniel(we explicitly put the sprint location close-ish to where andy is; and also Paul)
danielthat could have just been merged as it is still in inbox probbaly
sonnyhas left
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
danielbut in any case it is a change that council requested
dwdjonas’, I think we may get to set precedet.
jonas’daniel, not sure, because a vote is ongoing about it, and changing the XEP which is being voted on is weird
dwdjonas’, I think we may get to set precedent.
Zashjonas’, I'm also confused. thanks for the writeup (did I send that email?)
jonas’Zash, I don’t think you did
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
ZashHrm
Zashjonas’, then, +1
jonas’because discussing those details while the XEP is in ProtoXEP state is awkward, process and workflow-wise
dwdjonas’, That would be my expectation, especially as the gateway onto Experimental was historically weak and in some cases non-existent.
jonas’dwd, indeed, I forgot about that history
jonas’that makes it very clear to me
jonas’+1 on SIG-E2EE then
dwdYes, +1 from me as well (again).
daniellet me +1 here as well
jonas’then we’ve got votes by everyone, excellent
jonas’4) Outstanding Votes
dwdjonas’, I would appreciate input from Board on that changed bullet point, if you could mention that to ralphm.
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
sonnyhas joined
jonas’now it’s up to date
Ge0rGjonas’: I'm not seeing my +1 to deprecate CS'19
jonas’anyone who wants to still cast votes?
jonas’Ge0rG, yes, because you only voted on the process-wise incorrect "Obsoletion right away"
ralphmdwd: hmm?
dwdI've added Ge0rG's vote on the assumption that was one.
jonas’daniel and Zash are missing for the Obsoletion vote, too
dwdralphm, SIG-E2EE has a line about external representation. Not our bag here, but Board might have some views on it.
Zashjonas’, +1 to obsolete
ZashThought I did that
daniel+1 on obsolete
jonas’5) Date of Next
Ge0rGjonas’: sorry, I intended to say that I +1 both.
danieleven though i thought i did that
ZashHow about that Buttons ProtoXEP I started, perfect for voting ;)
jonas’+1w will probably not work due to travel for many of us
ralphmdwd: ah that, yeah, I agree with your earlier hesitance on this, and will discuss it in Board tomorrow.
Ge0rG+1W works for me, won't be at the Summit
Ge0rGwill try to webex in though
jonas’I’d be available, too
jonas’Zash?
danieli’m arriving in brussels north at 17:26 local. so if we can get the meeting done in under 26min it should be fine
danielassuming the train has wifi which it usually has
ZashNot going, so +1W could work.
jonas’ok, I’m taking this as a "let’s give this a shot"
jonas’6) AOB
jonas’6a) daniel
dwd[I'm on a train during the meeting; no idea if I'll have bandwidth but if I do I'll join]
danielin 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)
jonas’daniel, thanks for the reminder for me to run the deferrals once a week when I do the xeps sweep
danielthe expiry date would also make that obvious to people who are just passing by and haven’t read xep0001
danieli don’t know; not really important; what jonas’ just said obviously works as well
dwdCertainly a more frequent deferral run would be good.
danieljust thought to bring this up because i just came out of a chat with andy
jonas’(FTR, currently no unprocessed deferrals )
jonas’any other AOB?
dwdQuick AOB, since we appear to have a bit of time?
jonas’dwd, go ahead
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
dwdWe have a bunch of XEPs in Experimental (and Deferred) that could be candidates for a Last Call and advancement.
jonas’dwd, agreed
ZashPick one and random and LC it?
Zashat?
Zashs/and/at/
danielagreed; i'd still be interested in hearing which specific xeps you are talking about
dwdWell, we need to identify a few, coordinate with authors, etc.
dwdBut for example, XEP-0313 is deferred.
Ge0rGlooks at 0280 in horror
dwdGe0rG, We don't talk about that one.
danielyeah exactly; because 280 is *not* a good candidate
danieland even 313 has it's problems…
Ge0rGdaniel: it got much better recently, I was told. It just needs an exhaustive definition of what's "IM"
dwdBut in general terms, we shuld be advancing, or else deciding what needs fixing.
danielGe0rG, by whom?
dwd(Like a XEP which clearly defines what "IM" means)
Ge0rGdaniel: I don't remember.
ZashProfiles something?
Zashhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html
dwdAnyway - let's go find some to advance.
jonas’I agree
jonas’I proposed that last term already, but it didn’t get anywhere I think
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
dwdjonas’, Good plan.
jonas’because people implementing stuff may know things
jonas’I’ll send the call to standadrs@ then
jonas’any other any other AOB?
danielwe could maybe also 'final' some…
jonas’same difference, but yes
Ge0rGI had a bunch of AOBs that I was carrying around last year
Ge0rGAh, persistence of message errors.
jonas’Ge0rG, does that fit in 5 minutes?
Ge0rGjonas’: no
dwdGe0rG, And by tradition, these are mentioned each week and moved to the next meeting.
jonas’it also sounds like something which could be enqueued in summit
danielyeah i made a mental list on what i would like to LC on
jonas’daniel, you can reply to my mail to standards@ in five minutes :)
jonas’okay, I don’t see any more AOB, so ...
jonas’7) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’Sorry for the delayed start, thanks everyone.
dwdThanks jonas’
danielthank you jonas’
ZashThanks
jonas’And thanks specifically to Tedd Sterr again for continuously delivering high-quality minutes for quite some time now.
ZashPraise Tedd Sterr
ZashHow about $(curl https://xmpp.org/extensions/xeplist.xml | xml2 | 2csv xep-infos/xep number title status | grep ,Deferred$ | shuf -n 1) ?
pep.I'd say go through the compliance suites XEPs and consider these first
danielthat's what i did to compose my mental list
ZashMyeah why can the compliance suite point to non-Draft+ XEPs?
pep.Zash, who knows
dwdpep., Didn't respond earlier, but I think Deferred is (or should) be useful by leaving Experimental as a list of actively-worked upon XEPs.
danielbecause the UX would be shitty if you didn’t
jonas’-> xsf@?
Zash→ closest pizza place
pep.dwd, then a version with a date at the top should be sufficient?
dwdpep., 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.
pep.It's not true indeed
pep.I didn't understand what you meant then by "leaving Experimental"
dwdHence 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.
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
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
dwdWell, if he didn't get any, let's Last Call it.
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
Ge0rGjonas’: are you still accepting votes in here?
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
jonas’Ge0rG, on list please
jonas’because they won’t make it in the minutes if they’re outside of a meeting
jonas’and nobody’s going to find them when retracing thing
jonas’and nobody’s going to find them when retracing things
sonnyhas left
Ge0rGRight, of course. I'm now awkwardly awaiting for the kind soul who does the minutes to do the minutes.
ralphmYou can still send an e-mail to council@? E.g. in response to the agenda.