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’


  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’


  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


  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’


  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’


  113. jonas’


  114. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  115. Zash


  116. dwd


  117. jonas’ too

  118. daniel


  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


  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


  133. jonas’


  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


  138. jonas’

    dead simple, I like it, +1

  139. Zash


  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


  150. Zash


  151. jonas’

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

  152. daniel


  153. jonas’

    I’m +1 on inbox, too

  154. dwd

    I am +1 to this.

  155. Ge0rG


  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’


  158. jonas’

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

  159. daniel


  160. Ge0rG


  161. Zash


  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


  168. dwd

    Zash, We can vote seperately.

  169. jonas’

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

  170. jonas’


  171. Zash


  172. dwd

    +1 and +1 to obsolete.

  173. daniel


  174. jonas’

    Vote for moving CS-2019 to Obsolete

  175. jonas’


  176. jonas’

    (I assume Ge0rG will catch up)

  177. dwd

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

  178. jonas’


  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’


  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


  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


  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


  220. Ge0rG


  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’


  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


  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’


  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


  313. Zash


  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


  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


  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