XMPP Council - 2020-01-22

  1. jonas’


  2. dwd

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

  3. jonas’


  4. 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.

  5. ralphm

    also yay

  6. daniel

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

  7. Kev

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

  8. ralphm


  9. Ge0rG

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

  10. ralphm

    We'll see how that works out.

  11. 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.

  12. ralphm

    So before 23:00 UTC?

  13. Kev

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

  14. Ge0rG

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

  15. Kev

    I believe nothing much *should* change initially.

  16. ralphm

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

  17. 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.

  18. ralphm

    Curious if AWS will rename eu-west-2.

  19. dwd

    non-eu-west-1 ?

  20. jonas’


  21. ralphm

    or more mundane, uk-east-1

  22. Kev

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

  23. ralphm

    Out is out, dude.

  24. Kev

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

  25. moparisthebest

    Now that would be fun to watch

  26. 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.

  27. Kev

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

  28. dwd

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

  29. Kev

    That was the basis for my decision, yes.

  30. daniel

    it's time

  31. Zash


  32. dwd

    It was.

  33. dwd

    Perhaps jonas’ has succembed to the unforeseen.

  34. dwd

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

  35. daniel

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

  36. jonas’


  37. jonas’


  38. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  39. Zash


  40. dwd


  41. jonas’ too

  42. daniel


  43. jonas’

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

  44. dwd

    Were we going to miss Ge0rG due to transport?

  45. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  46. jonas’

    anything beyond the lengthy agenda I posted to the list?

  47. dwd

    Agenda looks good to me.

  48. daniel

    i think i will have an aob

  49. daniel

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

  50. jonas’

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

  51. dwd


  52. Ge0rG

    I'm here

  53. Zash

    I might become grumpy due to hunger tho

  54. jonas’ sends virtual cake in Zashes direction

  55. jonas’

    daniel, ?

  56. daniel


  57. jonas’


  58. jonas’

    3) Items for a Vote

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. Ge0rG


  62. jonas’

    dead simple, I like it, +1

  63. Zash


  64. dwd

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

  65. pep.

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

  66. dwd

    (But that can and will be done in Experimental)

  67. 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

  68. pep.

    (that is without all the fancy language)

  69. daniel

    but +1 regardless

  70. jonas’

    okay, thanks

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. daniel


  74. Zash


  75. jonas’

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

  76. daniel


  77. jonas’

    I’m +1 on inbox, too

  78. dwd

    I am +1 to this.

  79. Ge0rG


  80. 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)

  81. jonas’


  82. jonas’

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

  83. daniel


  84. Ge0rG


  85. Zash


  86. 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.

  87. daniel

    to obsoleting cs19; not to what jonas’ said

  88. jonas’

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

  89. daniel

    although i'd probably +1 that too

  90. Zash

    Wasn't there precedent for doing both at once;

  91. Zash


  92. dwd

    Zash, We can vote seperately.

  93. jonas’

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

  94. jonas’


  95. Zash


  96. dwd

    +1 and +1 to obsolete.

  97. daniel


  98. jonas’

    Vote for moving CS-2019 to Obsolete

  99. jonas’


  100. jonas’

    (I assume Ge0rG will catch up)

  101. dwd

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

  102. jonas’


  103. Ge0rG

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

  104. Ge0rG

    tomorrow is a day full of boring meetings.

  105. Zash

    Feels a bit tight with things entering the inbox yesterday.

  106. jonas’

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

  107. Ge0rG

    jonas’: ye

  108. jonas’


  109. Ge0rG

    jonas’: yes. whatever works for Editor

  110. 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.

  111. ralphm

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

  112. jonas’

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

  113. daniel

    i talked to andy today

  114. jonas’

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

  115. pep.

    jonas’, he replied today on github

  116. ralphm


  117. 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

  118. pep.

    Probably a PR to close due to that

  119. daniel

    he suggested Syndace

  120. jonas’

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

  121. daniel

    i'd personally suggest vanitasvitae as well

  122. pep.

    ah right

  123. daniel

    either or both can do the job

  124. jonas’

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

  125. jonas’

    we need to ask them I guess

  126. jonas’

    I will do that

  127. daniel

    my suggestion would be to wait out the omemo sprint

  128. ralphm

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

  129. jonas’

    when is the OMEMO sprint?(

  130. jonas’

    when is the OMEMO sprint?

  131. daniel

    that is happening at the end of februray

  132. dwd

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

  133. daniel

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

  134. dwd

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

  135. ralphm


  136. pep.

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

  137. daniel

    it is very tightly related running sig-e2ee

  138. daniel

    and the xep

  139. 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

  140. daniel

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

  141. 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

  142. jonas’

    so I think adding both as authors makes sense to me

  143. daniel


  144. Ge0rG


  145. dwd

    Not a hill for me to die on.

  146. jonas’

    but we need to ask them first, either way

  147. jonas’

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

  148. jonas’

    (sprint would be OK by me)

  149. 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

  150. jonas’


  151. daniel

    so we might as well just wait

  152. daniel

    yes obviously we need to ask them

  153. daniel

    officially that is

  154. jonas’

    everyone good with waiting until sprint?

  155. daniel

    i kinda asked them before

  156. Zash

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

  157. ralphm

    FWIW, we typically don't remove authors

  158. daniel

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

  159. Ge0rG

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

  160. dwd

    I think removal of authors is bad, indeed.

  161. 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)

  162. daniel

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

  163. jonas’

    moving on

  164. jonas’

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

  165. jonas’

    + voting on SIG-E2EE

  166. Zash

    Do we have a leader?

  167. daniel

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

  168. 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

  169. daniel

    but in any case it is a change that council requested

  170. dwd

    jonas’, I think we may get to set precedet.

  171. jonas’

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

  172. dwd

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

  173. Zash

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

  174. jonas’

    Zash, I don’t think you did

  175. 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

  176. Zash


  177. Zash

    jonas’, then, +1

  178. jonas’

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

  179. dwd

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

  180. jonas’

    dwd, indeed, I forgot about that history

  181. jonas’

    that makes it very clear to me

  182. jonas’

    +1 on SIG-E2EE then

  183. dwd

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

  184. daniel

    let me +1 here as well

  185. jonas’

    then we’ve got votes by everyone, excellent

  186. jonas’

    4) Outstanding Votes

  187. dwd

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

  188. Ge0rG

    +1 on SIG-E2EE

  189. Zash

    yes, +1

  190. jonas’

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

  191. 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

  192. jonas’

    now it’s up to date

  193. Ge0rG

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

  194. jonas’

    anyone who wants to still cast votes?

  195. jonas’

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

  196. ralphm

    dwd: hmm?

  197. dwd

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

  198. jonas’

    daniel and Zash are missing for the Obsoletion vote, too

  199. dwd

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

  200. Zash

    jonas’, +1 to obsolete

  201. Zash

    Thought I did that

  202. daniel

    +1 on obsolete

  203. jonas’

    5) Date of Next

  204. Ge0rG

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

  205. daniel

    even though i thought i did that

  206. Zash

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

  207. jonas’

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

  208. ralphm

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

  209. Ge0rG

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

  210. Ge0rG

    will try to webex in though

  211. jonas’

    I’d be available, too

  212. jonas’


  213. 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

  214. daniel

    assuming the train has wifi which it usually has

  215. Zash

    Not going, so +1W could work.

  216. jonas’

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

  217. jonas’

    6) AOB

  218. jonas’

    6a) daniel

  219. dwd

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

  220. 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)

  221. jonas’

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

  222. daniel

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

  223. daniel

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

  224. dwd

    Certainly a more frequent deferral run would be good.

  225. daniel

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

  226. jonas’

    (FTR, currently no unprocessed deferrals )

  227. jonas’

    any other AOB?

  228. dwd

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

  229. jonas’

    dwd, go ahead

  230. 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

  231. dwd

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

  232. jonas’

    dwd, agreed

  233. Zash

    Pick one and random and LC it?

  234. Zash


  235. Zash


  236. daniel

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

  237. dwd

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

  238. dwd

    But for example, XEP-0313 is deferred.

  239. Ge0rG looks at 0280 in horror

  240. dwd

    Ge0rG, We don't talk about that one.

  241. daniel

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

  242. daniel

    and even 313 has it's problems…

  243. Ge0rG

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

  244. dwd

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

  245. daniel

    Ge0rG, by whom?

  246. dwd

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

  247. Ge0rG

    daniel: I don't remember.

  248. Zash

    Profiles something?

  249. Zash


  250. dwd

    Anyway - let's go find some to advance.

  251. jonas’

    I agree

  252. jonas’

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

  253. 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

  254. dwd

    jonas’, Good plan.

  255. jonas’

    because people implementing stuff may know things

  256. jonas’

    I’ll send the call to standadrs@ then

  257. jonas’

    any other any other AOB?

  258. daniel

    we could maybe also 'final' some…

  259. jonas’

    same difference, but yes

  260. Ge0rG

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

  261. Ge0rG

    Ah, persistence of message errors.

  262. jonas’

    Ge0rG, does that fit in 5 minutes?

  263. Ge0rG

    jonas’: no

  264. dwd

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

  265. jonas’

    it also sounds like something which could be enqueued in summit

  266. daniel

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

  267. jonas’

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

  268. jonas’

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

  269. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  270. jonas’

    Sorry for the delayed start, thanks everyone.

  271. dwd

    Thanks jonas’

  272. daniel

    thank you jonas’

  273. Zash


  274. jonas’

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

  275. Zash

    Praise Tedd Sterr

  276. Zash

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

  277. pep.

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

  278. daniel

    that's what i did to compose my mental list

  279. Zash

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

  280. pep.

    Zash, who knows

  281. 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.

  282. daniel

    because the UX would be shitty if you didn’t

  283. jonas’

    -> xsf@?

  284. Zash → closest pizza place

  285. pep.

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

  286. 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.

  287. pep.

    It's not true indeed

  288. pep.

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

  289. 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.

  290. 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

  291. dwd

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

  292. Ge0rG

    jonas’: are you still accepting votes in here?

  293. jonas’

    Ge0rG, on list please

  294. jonas’

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

  295. jonas’

    and nobody’s going to find them when retracing thing

  296. jonas’

    and nobody’s going to find them when retracing things

  297. Ge0rG

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

  298. ralphm

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