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


  84. Zash


  85. Ge0rG


  86. jonas’

    here I am

  87. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  88. daniel


  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.


  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.


  109. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yes, you still have a week left

  110. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  111. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  112. Ge0rG


  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’


  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


  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