XMPP Council - 2020-06-03

  1. Wojtek has left
  2. kusoneko has left
  3. kusoneko has joined
  4. SouL has left
  5. larma has left
  6. larma has joined
  7. moparisthebest has joined
  8. kusoneko has left
  9. kusoneko has joined
  10. kusoneko has left
  11. kusoneko has joined
  12. undefined has left
  13. undefined has joined
  14. stpeter has left
  15. sonny has left
  16. sonny has joined
  17. SouL has joined
  18. Tobias has joined
  19. undefined has left
  20. undefined has joined
  21. daniel has left
  22. daniel has joined
  23. daniel has left
  24. daniel has joined
  25. susmit88 has joined
  26. daniel has left
  27. daniel has joined
  28. sonny has left
  29. sonny has joined
  30. undefined has left
  31. kusoneko has left
  32. kusoneko has joined
  33. undefined has joined
  34. daniel has left
  35. daniel has joined
  36. bear has left
  37. sonny has left
  38. sonny has joined
  39. sonny has left
  40. sonny has joined
  41. undefined has left
  42. undefined has joined
  43. Zash has left
  44. Zash has joined
  45. sonny has left
  46. sonny has joined
  47. daniel has left
  48. daniel has joined
  49. undefined has left
  50. undefined has joined
  51. bear has joined
  52. daniel has left
  53. daniel has joined
  54. undefined has left
  55. undefined has joined
  56. eta has left
  57. eta has joined
  58. kusoneko has left
  59. kusoneko has joined
  60. daniel has left
  61. daniel has joined
  62. sonny has left
  63. sonny has joined
  64. SouL has left
  65. SouL has joined
  66. Zash has left
  67. Zash has joined
  68. sonny has left
  69. sonny has joined
  70. eta has left
  71. eta has joined
  72. undefined has left
  73. sonny has left
  74. sonny has joined
  75. undefined has joined
  76. undefined has left
  77. undefined has joined
  78. paul has left
  79. stpeter has joined
  80. jonas’ I may be 5min late
  81. Ge0rG I'm semi here and might have to disappear suddenly.
  82. susmit88 has left
  83. dwd Afternoon.
  84. Zash Hello.
  85. Ge0rG 🤔
  86. jonas’ here I am
  87. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  88. daniel Hi
  89. jonas’ everyone besides me was here already, great :)
  90. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  91. jonas’ seems like no additions
  92. jonas’ 3) Editor’s Update - Calls in Progress - CFE for XEP-0050 (ends at 2020-06-09)
  93. jonas’ 4) Items for a Vote
  94. jonas’ none as far as I can tell
  95. jonas’ 5) Outstanding Votes
  96. jonas’ Ge0rG, you have some, do you want to discuss any of them?
  97. Ge0rG IIRC I still have a week left, right?
  98. pep. jonas’, what about the 0157 change?
  99. pep. Are we waiting on something else to put the new revision to a vote?
  100. Ge0rG I wasn't able to catch up with the ML, sorry
  101. jonas’ pep., is it ready for council?
  102. pep. Suuuure?
  103. jonas’ ah, I think we should indeed quickly bring the thing about adding validation stuff to the registry to the list
  104. pep. I mean I'm fine with doing that next week
  105. pep. Just curious if there's actually something blocking
  106. jonas’ pep., next time, please send such suggestions in reply to the agenda
  107. jonas’ though in this case that should first go to the list
  108. pep. k
  109. jonas’ Ge0rG, yes, you still have a week left
  110. jonas’ 6) Date of Next
  111. jonas’ +1w wfm
  112. Ge0rG Phew.
  113. Zash +1w wfm
  114. daniel +1w wfm
  115. dwd Can we do +6 days, 23 hours, and 55 minutes? ;-)
  116. Ge0rG +1w wfm
  117. jonas’ :P
  118. jonas’ 7) AOB
  119. Kev Did my comments about 393 get through to the list? I would have expected *some* response unless they didn't get through, or I'm being shunned :)
  120. jonas’ Kev, they did, I read them, and I don’t think I had anything to add
  121. Kev Ok.
  122. dwd Kev, I think I did mention them, didn't I, in my response to larma?
  123. jonas’ though I have to admit that I’m kind of fatigued about this discussion
  124. Ge0rG &
  125. Kev dwd: Oh. My bad. I missed that somehow.
  126. SamWhited Kev: I think I lost them in the wall of emails; reading now, sorry.
  127. dwd Kev, I meant to, anyway. I did quite like the suggestion of a flag to indicate "I know what I'm doing so you can strip the markup".
  128. dwd Kev, Though that *really* needs a formal grammar, IMHO.
  129. Kev SamWhited: The short version is that if you include an opt-in then it signals to a client using a screen reader (for example) that it can strip the markup so it can be usefully accessible. Without changing other semantics.
  130. SamWhited Kev: I see, that is a good point. I'll have to think about how that interacts with things, but that's a fairly convincing argument at first blush
  131. Kev Which doesn't solve all cases (e.g. clients that do something like 393 without saying so), but significantly helps accessibility for some cases.
  132. jonas’ since the '393 discussion on-list is going quite vividly, I’d prefer to move this out of this meeting
  133. jonas’ we do have things about XEP-0050 to discuss
  134. dwd Overall, though, I found larma's treatise on it very useful indeed.
  135. jonas’ which I want to treat with priority given the CFE
  136. SamWhited Yes, sorry, let's take this OOB.
  137. jonas’ 7a) The 'execute' Problem of XEP-0050
  138. Kev Deja vu :)
  139. jonas’ but it’s useful that Kev is around, since he was involved in the previous iteration of this :)
  140. dwd Kev, ISTR you had a concrete suggestion of what to do here?
  141. Kev ISTR I did too.
  142. Kev GOK what it was.
  143. jonas’ Tedd nicely quoted from the minutes from some time, which I’ll quote here: 3) XEP-0050 'execute' Issue … Kev explains that it's possible to have an illegal state because 'execute' is overloaded in weird ways - there is an execute action, and an execute attribute for setting a default action, but the execute-attribute default action is not the execute action, which may well be invalid. … Dave attempts to clarify that the default for the execute action is 'complete', unless other actions are specified whereby the default is 'next' which may not even be present - Kev confirms. Kev mentions PR #598 (https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/598) as his attempt to address the issue by unifying the execute attribute and action into one, and that everyone should consider carefully whether this solution will break anything. Kev explains further that currently if execute is set to 'complete' and the execute command is run, it's actually 'next' that's run; and if there is no 'next' action defined, that's obviously a problem. Dave is justifiably mystified. Dave suggests an alternative solution might be to deprecate the execute action; Kev thinks this could be a better solution. Peter utters from the shadows that he recently found his marked-up paper copy of XEP-0050 from several years ago - Kev asks whether it fixes this issue - alas, they are mostly editorial notes. Dave repeats his suggestion of deprecating the execute action, on the basis of unexpected behaviour; Sam agrees this seems like a good solution as multiple people have been confused in a similar way.
  144. jonas’ So looking at the PR, I (editor hat) closed this because it was for the previous council period and nobody cared enough to process it
  145. jonas’ I suggest we re-open the PR and vote on it next week
  146. jonas’ In addition, I’d like to ask Kev (as the owner of the PR) to add a bit of wording around deprecation of the execute action to avoid any pitfalls
  147. Zash Wishlist: ELI5 this plz
  148. pep. Zash, 'execute' has weird semantics. burn it!
  149. Kev pep.: Which 'execute'?
  150. Kev (Which is the issue)
  151. jonas’ Zash, - action='execute' is always allowed - if the @execute is not set, action='execute' is equivalent to action='next' - if the form specifies a list of actions which does not include next -> undefined behaviour
  152. pep. Kev, I see. Sorry that wasn't helpful :)
  153. Kev That's remarkably coherent, thanks jonas’.
  154. jonas’ Zash, - action='execute' is always allowed - if the @execute is not set, action='execute' is equivalent to action='next' - if the form specifies a list of allowed actions which does not include next -> undefined behaviour
  155. jonas’ which Kev’s PR addresses in a good way IMO
  156. jonas’ I’d just like to have another paragraph somewhere which hints people at not using 'execute' if it can be avoided
  157. Kev I would need to re-read it to be sure, and to see how it's different to Dave's suggestion.
  158. jonas’ Kev, I think it’s orthogonal. Your PR states explicitly that no @execute + actions without next = invalid.
  159. Kev I do remember that this is one of those "Everything is broken, you can't fix it without something being broken" situations.
  160. jonas’ I’d like to have a bit of wording in there which also states "Don’t 'execute', it’s weird"
  161. Kev I think the odds of me providing that wording at the moment are vanishingly small, I'm afraid.
  162. jonas’ Kev, good to know, I’ll hijack that PR then
  163. jonas’ with my editor powers
  164. jonas’ and then I’ll re-propose it for next week’s council
  165. flow I wonder why #598 was closed in the first place?
  166. pep. "jonas’> So looking at the PR, I (editor hat) closed this because it was for the previous council period and nobody cared enough to process it"
  167. Kev "So looking at the PR, I (editor hat) closed this because it was for the previous council period and nobody cared enough to process it" (Jonas)
  168. jonas’ flow, it was dormant, and I (Editor hat) did a cleanup of stale PRs
  169. jonas’ I think we have a way forward until next week.
  170. jonas’ Any other AOB?
  171. dwd None from me.
  172. pep. (Maybe the best would have been to bring it back to council, but I don't think that was a wrong decision anyway, and it's done now :x)
  173. flow I'd like to point out that there was an alternative suggestion by me in PR #591
  174. flow I think 598 and 591 are the two options to move forward
  175. jonas’ > council vetoed a few months ago and discussed rewording to make the intention clear. (from #598)
  176. jonas’ either way, not in this meeting
  177. jonas’ 8) Ite Meeting Est
  178. jonas’ thanks everyone
  179. jonas’ s/598/591/, sorry
  180. pep. hmm, digging through issues: https://lab.louiz.org/poezio/slixmpp/issues/3432 this looks oddly similar?
  181. flow pep., it does indeed
  182. dwd jonas’, Thanks!
  183. Zash The only action I can see anything in Prosody care about is 'cancel'
  184. pep. I have a MR still waiting for this, but I wasn't sure if it was correct in the first place
  185. flow Zash, does prosody initiate a lot of ad-hoc commands?
  186. jonas’ flow, at a first glance, 591 has multiple problems: - It defines previously undefined behaviour, making implementations which were previously neutral non-compliant - It does not solve the issue for when neither next nor complete are allowed.
  187. Zash flow, no? why does that matter?
  188. flow jonas’, 1. is also true for 598
  189. flow 2. I think it states that execute is mapped to next in that case
  190. jonas’ flow, but in a different way
  191. jonas’ moving this to xsf@
  192. flow I think what Kev said is right, that is one of those "Everything is broken, you can't fix it without something being broken" situations
  193. flow love to discuss this, but my bike is waiting
  194. Wojtek has joined
  195. paul has joined
  196. paul has left
  197. paul has joined
  198. bear has left
  199. bear has joined
  200. sonny has left
  201. sonny has joined
  202. bear has left
  203. bear has joined
  204. sonny has left
  205. sonny has joined
  206. debacle has joined
  207. debacle has left
  208. debacle has joined
  209. kusoneko has left
  210. kusoneko has joined
  211. sonny has left
  212. sonny has joined
  213. sonny has left
  214. sonny has joined
  215. sonny has left
  216. sonny has joined
  217. sonny has left
  218. sonny has joined
  219. sonny has left
  220. sonny has joined
  221. kusoneko has left
  222. kusoneko has joined
  223. kusoneko has left
  224. kusoneko has joined
  225. kusoneko has left
  226. kusoneko has joined
  227. kusoneko has left
  228. kusoneko has joined
  229. sonny has left
  230. Tobias has left
  231. moparisthebest has left
  232. moparisthebest has joined
  233. robertooo has left
  234. robertooo has joined
  235. stpeter has left
  236. stpeter has joined
  237. stpeter has left
  238. debacle has left
  239. kusoneko has left
  240. kusoneko has joined
  241. kusoneko has left
  242. kusoneko has joined
  243. stpeter has joined