XMPP Council - 2020-02-12


  1. Ge0rG

    It's the day.

  2. jonas’

    it is

  3. dwd

    'tis nearly the hour.

  4. jonas’

    that, too

  5. jonas’

    dwd, are you feeling better?

  6. dwd

    Well, mostly the antibiotics now. But those stopped today, so should be normalish by tomorrow.

  7. jonas’

    that’s good to hear

  8. jonas’

    'tis time

  9. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  10. dwd waves

  11. jonas’

    I sense a Ge0rG

  12. daniel

    Hi

  13. Ge0rG is there

  14. jonas’

    alrigth, that’s a quorum

  15. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  16. jonas’

    I note that I forgot about the of Bookmarks 2 which ends today, so we should probably briefly talk about that, too

  17. jonas’

    any other additions?

  18. dwd

    None from me.

  19. Zash

    Here, just sitting down

  20. Ge0rG

    Damn, I also totally forgot about Bookmarks 2.

  21. jonas’

    3) Items for a Vote

  22. jonas’

    3a) Issue a Last Call for XEP-0398 Title: User Avatar to vCard-Based Avatars Conversion URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0398.html Nominated-By: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/ 036914.html Abstract: This specification describes a method for using PEP based avatars and vCard based avatars in parallel by having the user’s server do a conversion between the two.

  23. jonas’

    3a) Issue a Last Call for XEP-0398 Title: User Avatar to vCard-Based Avatars Conversion URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0398.html Nominated-By: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/036914.html Abstract: This specification describes a method for using PEP based avatars and vCard based avatars in parallel by having the user’s server do a conversion between the two.

  24. jonas’

    I’m +1 on that one

  25. dwd

    +1 for a Last Call. Fairly confident it can get through.

  26. daniel

    +1 for lc

  27. Ge0rG

    +1 for LC

  28. Zash

    Sure, +1

  29. jonas’

    \o/

  30. jonas’

    3b) End of LC for XEP-0402

  31. jonas’

    I think there was list feedback which should be addressed by the author.

  32. daniel

    I think there is feedback

  33. dwd

    There was list feedback, I shall address it if JC doesn't beat me to it.

  34. jonas’

    even if no substantial changes are to be made, rationales for decisions need to be put in the document IMO so that they are discoverable.

  35. daniel

    But manageable feedback

  36. jonas’

    so nothing to vote on from our side at this point, the editor will issue another LC once the update gets in

  37. dwd

    I'm mildly concerned that part of the feedback was adding password back in - so as author I'd rather see a second LC.

  38. dwd

    (Afterward).

  39. jonas’

    also, the editor will change the title of the XEP with the next update, if nobody comes up with a better suggestion than "Atomic Bookmarks in Private PEP Storage" it’ll be that one.

  40. Ge0rG

    dwd: because you will implement that feedback?

  41. dwd

    It's unclear to me what we do about the request from Flow to have sundry metadata included.

  42. jonas’

    (sundry = unspecified diverse other things?)

  43. dwd

    Ge0rG, Yes, I think so - adding password back in seems to have general consensus.

  44. dwd

    jonas’, Yes, sorry. Generic metadata containment.

  45. Ge0rG

    I vaguely remember having issues regarding backward compatibility requirements, which felt weeker than in 0411.

  46. jonas’

    dwd, I think that the document needs to clearly say what happens to unspecified elements, since the elements pass through many entities

  47. jonas’

    (and clients may "re-write" entries)

  48. dwd

    Indeed.

  49. dwd

    But all this can be sorted on list.

  50. jonas’

    yes

  51. jonas’

    let’s do that

  52. daniel

    Yes I didn't voice that on list (yet). But I also agree that password should be added

  53. daniel

    Even though I don't like passwords

  54. daniel

    Otherwise we simply don't have an upgrade path

  55. jonas’

    4) Outstanding Votes

  56. jonas’

    none that I know of

  57. jonas’

    5) Date of Next

  58. dwd

    FWIW, it breaks on of my own rules of trying to impose things via a new protocol. Bind2 does the same in different ways and annoys me because of it.

  59. Ge0rG

    +1W most probably won't work for me.

  60. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  61. Zash

    +1w wfm

  62. jonas’

    Ge0rG, noted, thanks

  63. jonas’

    moving on

  64. jonas’

    6) AOB

  65. daniel

    None from me

  66. jonas’

    none from me, anyone else?

  67. Zash

    None

  68. Ge0rG

    I'm pondering about better titles for 402

  69. Ge0rG

    Atomic has a... nuclear ring to it

  70. dwd

    I really don't care about what we call it all that much. Though I'm apparently a lot more in favour of silliness than most.

  71. jonas’

    I mostly think of std::atomic<T>

  72. jonas’

    dwd, I’m in favour of peace, and this isn’t a hill for me (Editor) to die on ;)

  73. Ge0rG

    maybe "Atomic bookmarks in PEP" does convey the best message

  74. dwd

    jonas’, Likewise.

  75. Ge0rG

    We need to think of our target audience, which is developers

  76. jonas’

    exactly

  77. Ge0rG

    and it needs to be more attractive than Bookmarks.

  78. jonas’

    we can blow this up. "Atomic Peer Metadata in Private PEP Storage"

  79. daniel

    Can we end the council session before bike shedding that?

  80. Zash

    Bookmarks 2 ✔️

  81. daniel

    I don't think that it is councils job

  82. jonas’

    daniel, we certainly can

  83. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  84. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  85. Zash

    <fin/>

  86. dwd

    daniel, I was trying to come up with a name that included bikeshed, indeed.

  87. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  88. jonas’

    the editor shall duely issue an LC for XEP-0398 now

  89. Ge0rG

    Maybe "Bookmarks 2" isn't that bad after all. It has a clear and short message

  90. Ge0rG watches jonas’ switching hats

  91. Zash

    XEP-0317: Hats

  92. Zash

    We need it!

  93. Ge0rG

    jonas’: pedantic me claims that the LC for 0402 isn't over yet.

  94. jonas’

    Ge0rG, so?

  95. jonas’

    did I say it was?

  96. Ge0rG

    Hm. No.

  97. jonas’

    :)

  98. jonas’

    I am aware that its end is very muddy

  99. jonas’

    and I’d like to change the template, but that darn 14 day rule is making everything annoying

  100. Ge0rG

    which template?

  101. jonas’

    for LCs

  102. Ge0rG

    the email template?

  103. jonas’

    yeah

  104. jonas’

    instead of "close of business" (in which timezone?!)

  105. jonas’

    to something more clearly defined

  106. dwd

    Whichever timezone suits us, mostly.

  107. jonas’

    (like 6h before the council session on $date)

  108. pep.

    fwiw, I don't consider any of our bookmark XEP bookmarks atm. They're syncing mechanisms as long as "autojoin" is in there

  109. jonas’

    most of the things we do are syncing mechanisms

  110. jonas’

    the roster is, for example

  111. dwd

    Right, but the 14 days means that we cover 3 weeks between Council voting for LC and Council handling the LC outcome.

  112. jonas’

    MAM most certainly is

  113. jonas’

    dwd, yeah, that’s kind of annoying

  114. jonas’

    I’d like to make it 13 ½ days ;)

  115. pep.

    jonas’, I'd like to have a dumb JID/URI list that I can call bookmakrs :(

  116. pep.

    jonas’, I'd like to have a dumb JID/URI list that I can call bookmarks :(

  117. pep.

    We're going to have other ways to sync anyway, see Inbox, or whatever else is coming

  118. Ge0rG

    jonas’: but then you need to issue the LC right after the Council meeting, not the next day.

  119. jonas’

    Ge0rG, which is *generally* not an issue

  120. jonas’

    though, all of this is typically moot because most of the time we don’t agree on a LC in a single session

  121. dwd

    We generally agree on LC's. Not advancement, though.

  122. jonas’

    maybe

  123. jonas’

    sometimes people aren’t there tho