-
jonas’
\o/
-
dwd
The very unlikely has happened and I'll be here for the meeting.
-
jonas’
\o/
-
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.
-
ralphm
also yay
-
daniel
kev is coming to the summit; when did that happen?
-
Kev
It hasn't happened yet, it'll happen next Thursday :D
-
ralphm
:-D
-
Ge0rG
Coming to the Summit wasn't the problem all along, getting back was?
-
ralphm
We'll see how that works out.
-
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.
-
ralphm
So before 23:00 UTC?
-
Kev
I won't be home until considerably later than that, but I should be back in the UK by then, yes.
-
Ge0rG
it's pretty off-topic, but what's the currently anticipated legal relationship after midnight that day?
-
Kev
I believe nothing much *should* change initially.
-
ralphm
It 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.
-
ralphm
Curious if AWS will rename eu-west-2.
-
dwd
non-eu-west-1 ?
-
jonas’
europe-the-continent-west-2?
-
ralphm
or more mundane, uk-east-1
-
Kev
To be fair, we'll still be in Europe, just not the EU.
-
ralphm
Out is out, dude.
-
Kev
No-one has yet proposed a geographical relocation - although I expect that to follow.
-
moparisthebest
Now that would be fun to watch
-
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.
-
Kev
I'm hoping that whatever does happen happens Saturday and not Friday.
-
dwd
Kev, Well, assuming you're leaving before midnight EU time you're fine, surely?
-
Kev
That was the basis for my decision, yes.
-
daniel
it's time
-
Zash
.
-
dwd
It was.
-
dwd
Perhaps jonas’ has succembed to the unforeseen.
-
dwd
Well, there's enough of us if we want to start anyway?
-
daniel
in light of next week not happening either I think we should start anyway
-
jonas’
oh
-
jonas’
sorry
-
jonas’
1) Roll Call
-
Zash
Here
-
dwd
Here
- jonas’ too
-
daniel
here
-
jonas’
daniel is too, obviously, Ge0rG said he’d be here too
-
dwd
Were we going to miss Ge0rG due to transport?
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
anything beyond the lengthy agenda I posted to the list?
-
dwd
Agenda looks good to me.
-
daniel
i think i will have an aob
-
daniel
but 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?
-
dwd
Yes.
-
Ge0rG
I'm here
-
Zash
I might become grumpy due to hunger tho
- jonas’ sends virtual cake in Zashes direction
-
jonas’
daniel, ?
-
daniel
yes
-
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. ✏
-
Ge0rG
on-list
-
jonas’
dead simple, I like it, +1
-
Zash
on-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)
-
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
-
pep.
(that is without all the fancy language)
-
daniel
but +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
-
Zash
on-list
-
jonas’
daniel, +1 to 3b, or +1 to what pep. says?
-
daniel
inbox
-
jonas’
I’m +1 on inbox, too
-
dwd
I am +1 to this.
-
Ge0rG
on-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)
-
jonas’
thanks
-
jonas’
3c) Obsolete CS-2019 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/879
-
daniel
+1
-
Ge0rG
+1
-
Zash
+1
-
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.
-
daniel
to 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
-
daniel
although i'd probably +1 that too
-
Zash
Wasn't there precedent for doing both at once;
-
Zash
s/.$/?/
-
dwd
Zash, 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)
-
dwd
jonas’, You get to chalk up more successful votes completed.
-
jonas’
indeed!
-
Ge0rG
I'll try hard to get my on-list's resolved in a timely manner
-
Ge0rG
tomorrow is a day full of boring meetings.
-
Zash
Feels 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?
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: ye
-
jonas’
thanks
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: 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.
-
ralphm
I 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
-
daniel
i talked to andy today
-
jonas’
but if there’s discussion nevertheless, let’s do that
-
pep.
jonas’, he replied today on github
-
ralphm
Oh
-
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
-
pep.
Probably a PR to close due to that
-
daniel
he suggested Syndace
-
jonas’
pep., ... see what I wrote, please ;)
-
daniel
i'd personally suggest vanitasvitae as well
-
pep.
ah right
-
daniel
either 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
-
daniel
my suggestion would be to wait out the omemo sprint
-
ralphm
Ok, I still see Daniel as an author given his changes.
-
jonas’
when is the OMEMO sprint?(✎ -
jonas’
when is the OMEMO sprint? ✏
-
daniel
that is happening at the end of februray
-
dwd
I would rather not vanitasvitae, all things being equal, as he's leading the SIG-E2EE and that's probably enough workload.
-
daniel
and then with the new document make either or both of them author (the two will attend the sprint)
-
dwd
Nothing against vanitasvitae's ability, mind - just seems better to spread around the workload if we can.
-
ralphm
Agreed
-
pep.
I'm sure both of them would be contributing to it in any case
-
daniel
it is very tightly related running sig-e2ee
-
daniel
and 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
-
daniel
but 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
-
dwd
Not 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)
-
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
-
jonas’
indeed
-
daniel
so we might as well just wait
-
daniel
yes obviously we need to ask them
-
daniel
officially that is
-
jonas’
everyone good with waiting until sprint?
-
daniel
i kinda asked them before
-
Zash
So, Syndace and vantasvitae to be asked about being added as authors on OMEMO? (sorry, got distracted)
-
ralphm
FWIW, we typically don't remove authors
-
daniel
yes as long as constent can be given be either author there is no reason to remove andy
-
Ge0rG
I'm okay with waiting, but there were people pushing for an urgent status change of 0384
-
dwd
I 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)
-
jonas’
moving on
-
jonas’
3e) SIG-E2EE ProtoXEP Update URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/881/files
-
jonas’
+ voting on SIG-E2EE
-
Zash
Do we have a leader?
-
daniel
that could have just been merged as it is still in inbox probbaly
-
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
-
daniel
but in any case it is a change that council requested
-
dwd
jonas’, 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
-
dwd
jonas’, I think we may get to set precedent. ✏
-
Zash
jonas’, 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
-
Zash
Hrm
-
Zash
jonas’, then, +1
-
jonas’
because discussing those details while the XEP is in ProtoXEP state is awkward, process and workflow-wise
-
dwd
jonas’, 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
-
dwd
Yes, +1 from me as well (again).
-
daniel
let me +1 here as well
-
jonas’
then we’ve got votes by everyone, excellent
-
jonas’
4) Outstanding Votes
-
dwd
jonas’, I would appreciate input from Board on that changed bullet point, if you could mention that to ralphm.
-
Ge0rG
+1 on SIG-E2EE
-
Zash
yes, +1
-
jonas’
please observe: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANu9KGmNf2r-qpLYqF7NdJTtqA1GIu55rf2deKbM0GA
-
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
-
jonas’
now it’s up to date
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: 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"
-
ralphm
dwd: hmm?
-
dwd
I've added Ge0rG's vote on the assumption that was one.
-
jonas’
daniel and Zash are missing for the Obsoletion vote, too
-
dwd
ralphm, SIG-E2EE has a line about external representation. Not our bag here, but Board might have some views on it.
-
Zash
jonas’, +1 to obsolete
-
Zash
Thought I did that
-
daniel
+1 on obsolete
-
jonas’
5) Date of Next
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: sorry, I intended to say that I +1 both.
-
daniel
even though i thought i did that
-
Zash
How about that Buttons ProtoXEP I started, perfect for voting ;)
-
jonas’
+1w will probably not work due to travel for many of us
-
ralphm
dwd: 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
-
Ge0rG
will try to webex in though
-
jonas’
I’d be available, too
-
jonas’
Zash?
-
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
-
daniel
assuming the train has wifi which it usually has
-
Zash
Not 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]
-
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)
-
jonas’
daniel, thanks for the reminder for me to run the deferrals once a week when I do the xeps sweep
-
daniel
the expiry date would also make that obvious to people who are just passing by and haven’t read xep0001
-
daniel
i don’t know; not really important; what jonas’ just said obviously works as well
-
dwd
Certainly a more frequent deferral run would be good.
-
daniel
just 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?
-
dwd
Quick 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
-
dwd
We have a bunch of XEPs in Experimental (and Deferred) that could be candidates for a Last Call and advancement.
-
jonas’
dwd, agreed
-
Zash
Pick one and random and LC it?
-
Zash
at?
-
Zash
s/and/at/
-
daniel
agreed; i'd still be interested in hearing which specific xeps you are talking about
-
dwd
Well, we need to identify a few, coordinate with authors, etc.
-
dwd
But for example, XEP-0313 is deferred.
- Ge0rG looks at 0280 in horror
-
dwd
Ge0rG, We don't talk about that one.
-
daniel
yeah exactly; because 280 is *not* a good candidate
-
daniel
and even 313 has it's problems…
-
Ge0rG
daniel: it got much better recently, I was told. It just needs an exhaustive definition of what's "IM"
-
dwd
But in general terms, we shuld be advancing, or else deciding what needs fixing.
-
daniel
Ge0rG, by whom?
-
dwd
(Like a XEP which clearly defines what "IM" means)
-
Ge0rG
daniel: I don't remember.
-
Zash
Profiles something?
-
Zash
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0226.html
-
dwd
Anyway - 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
-
dwd
jonas’, 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?
-
daniel
we could maybe also 'final' some…
-
jonas’
same difference, but yes
-
Ge0rG
I had a bunch of AOBs that I was carrying around last year
-
Ge0rG
Ah, persistence of message errors.
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, does that fit in 5 minutes?
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: no
-
dwd
Ge0rG, 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
-
daniel
yeah 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.
-
dwd
Thanks jonas’
-
daniel
thank you jonas’
-
Zash
Thanks
-
jonas’
And thanks specifically to Tedd Sterr again for continuously delivering high-quality minutes for quite some time now.
-
Zash
Praise Tedd Sterr
-
Zash
How 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
-
daniel
that's what i did to compose my mental list
-
Zash
Myeah why can the compliance suite point to non-Draft+ XEPs?
-
pep.
Zash, who knows
-
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.
-
daniel
because 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?
-
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.
-
pep.
It's not true indeed
-
pep.
I didn't understand what you meant then by "leaving Experimental"
-
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.
-
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
-
dwd
Well, if he didn't get any, let's Last Call it.
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: are you still accepting votes in here?
-
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 ✏
-
Ge0rG
Right, of course. I'm now awkwardly awaiting for the kind soul who does the minutes to do the minutes.
-
ralphm
You can still send an e-mail to council@? E.g. in response to the agenda.