XMPP Council - 2020-06-17


  1. stpeter has left
  2. Lance has left
  3. Lance has joined
  4. Lance has left
  5. stpeter has joined
  6. Lance has joined
  7. stpeter has left
  8. stpeter has joined
  9. debacle has left
  10. Lance has left
  11. Wojtek has left
  12. Lance has joined
  13. stpeter has left
  14. stpeter has joined
  15. stpeter has left
  16. Lance has left
  17. Tobias has joined
  18. undefined has left
  19. paul has joined
  20. undefined has joined
  21. stpeter has joined
  22. stpeter has left
  23. sonny has left
  24. sonny has joined
  25. undefined has left
  26. moparisthebest has left
  27. sonny has left
  28. sonny has joined
  29. sonny has left
  30. sonny has joined
  31. sonny has left
  32. sonny has joined
  33. undefined has joined
  34. Zash has left
  35. Zash has joined
  36. sonny has left
  37. sonny has joined
  38. undefined has left
  39. undefined has joined
  40. sonny has left
  41. sonny has joined
  42. sonny has left
  43. sonny has joined
  44. bear has left
  45. stpeter has joined
  46. vaulor has left
  47. SouL has left
  48. SouL has joined
  49. vaulor has joined
  50. susmit88 has joined
  51. bear has joined
  52. stpeter has left
  53. undefined has left
  54. undefined has joined
  55. undefined has left
  56. undefined has joined
  57. undefined has left
  58. undefined has joined
  59. undefined has left
  60. susmit88 has left
  61. susmit88 has joined
  62. undefined has joined
  63. susmit88 has left
  64. susmit88 has joined
  65. stpeter has joined
  66. stpeter has left
  67. sonny has left
  68. sonny has joined
  69. robertooo has left
  70. susmit88 has left
  71. susmit88 has joined
  72. sonny has left
  73. sonny has joined
  74. undefined has left
  75. undefined has joined
  76. robertooo has joined
  77. Kev has left
  78. stpeter has joined
  79. stpeter has left
  80. moparisthebest has joined
  81. Kev has joined
  82. undefined has left
  83. undefined has joined
  84. debacle has joined
  85. debacle has left
  86. debacle has joined
  87. undefined has left
  88. undefined has joined
  89. stpeter has joined
  90. stpeter has left
  91. undefined has left
  92. stpeter has joined
  93. Kev has left
  94. undefined has joined
  95. undefined has left
  96. undefined has joined
  97. Ge0rG It's this time of the week again!
  98. jonas’ quite
  99. dwd has joined
  100. Ge0rG I have a hard cut in +30m due to a company-wide corona party, so let's not stretch too much today
  101. dwd Mexican beer?
  102. Ge0rG I have no idea.
  103. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  104. daniel here
  105. Ge0rG
  106. Zash here
  107. undefined has left
  108. jonas’ I’ve spotted a dwd already, so full house, excellent
  109. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  110. jonas’ anything to modify?
  111. jonas’ assuming no
  112. dwd Not from me.
  113. jonas’ 3) Editor’s Update - Calls in progress - LC for XEP-0338 (ends on 2020-06-30)
  114. jonas’ 4) Items for voting
  115. jonas’ 4a) PR#959: XEP-0156: reorganize stating XRD/JRD requirements URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/959 Abstract: The reference to RFC 6120 was incorrect, what this really meant is RFC 6415. But instead of simply s/RFC 6120/RFC 6415/ here, I decided to reorganize stating the requirements of XRD and JRD a little.
  116. jonas’ This PR was amended to address council feedback from last session and is on the table again.
  117. jonas’ +1 on the PR now
  118. Zash +1
  119. jonas’ I think it improves the wording and could even count as editorial at this point.
  120. dwd +1, though if we want to change the last bit to read "additionally", that'd be possibly clearer.
  121. jonas’ oh, though, it makes JRD SHOULD instead of MAY
  122. Ge0rG +1
  123. jonas’ (OPTIONAL = MAY)
  124. susmit88 has left
  125. undefined has joined
  126. dwd Specifically, line 222 "It is possible to use an alternative JSON format..." - that always read that way but it might benefit from "additionally".
  127. daniel +1 on the PR
  128. dwd And yes, I noted that this raises JRD to a SHOULD, I assumed that was for interoperability reasons?
  129. jonas’ I don’t think we should be nitpicking wording here on this level
  130. dwd jonas’, And I'm not. Just noting.
  131. jonas’ fair
  132. jonas’ I was tempted to reply, so I felt the need to say that instead :)
  133. jonas’ raising the level for JRD makes sense to me in the web context, so no objections and we can move on
  134. jonas’ 4b) PR#961: XEP-0030: Specify that the disco#info feature may not be explicitly set URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/961 Abstract: Since #715 got rejected by council, we may as well drop the requirement to specify this explicitly. See-Also: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/715
  135. jonas’ assuming my comments in the PR are addressed, I am still left to wonder what this imporoves.
  136. jonas’ assuming my comments in the PR are addressed, I am still left to wonder what this improves.
  137. jonas’ and I think we should set the bar for changing normative text of Final XEPs rather high.
  138. paul has left
  139. dwd jonas’, The problem this addresses is twofold: Firstly, it's clearly a bit weird to worry about discovering support for service discovery by first making a service discovery request to see if the response includes service discovery.
  140. jonas’ I mean, I see that announcing disco#info is kind of pointless in a disco#info response, but I also don’t see how this fixes any real-world problem.
  141. Zash Sure, disco#info might be redundant to advertise. But what jonas’ said.
  142. dwd jonas’, Secondly, ~none of our other XEP examples include this.
  143. dwd jonas’, So by making this optional, it immediately means our XEPs become conformant.
  144. Zash dwd, examples? are not normative
  145. daniel is there a mailing list post or something that describes the problem that this PR is trying to address?
  146. jonas’ I don’t see a problem with the latter. I advocated for blanket-including <!-- ... --> in disco#info examples if one is bothered by them not being complete (which I always felt to be obvious, because if every XEP had full disco#info examples we’d have much longer and more noisy texts for no gain)
  147. jonas’ daniel, not beyond that it’s the author’s follow-up to the rejection of https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/715
  148. dwd daniel, It's trying to document reality. Seems fine by me.
  149. jonas’ to me, it only documents reality of the examples in our documents; that it documents reality on the wire I’d like to see proven first.
  150. dwd That said, I'm -1 for the reasons jonas’ raiuses on the PR.
  151. paul has joined
  152. dwd jonas’, There was lots of discussion around this. Seems most implementations proudly return disco#info, if only to ensure there's at least one feature present.
  153. Ge0rG I'm on-list
  154. jonas’ -1, unless the author can find real-world issues which are solved by this PR. Specifically, if we don’t require disco#info and then stop requiring at-lesat-one element, it might break strict validators (the existence of which I could endorse given that this is a Final document and at-least-one is a MUST) for no good reason.
  155. Zash -1, agree with jonas’ & dwd
  156. daniel yes I agree with jonas’ here as well
  157. dwd I could go for "disco#info MAY be elided if other features are present" quite comfortably though.
  158. jonas’ as a sidenote, I would very much prefer us being explicit about disco#info replies specifically
  159. jonas’ as a sidenote, I would very much prefer us being explicit about disco#info replies specifically *not* being seen as complete in XEP examples, e.g. by using <!-- ... -->.
  160. Zash sure
  161. jonas’ because you could turn this the other way ’round too, if you wanted to be pedantic: if '45 does not include pubsub features, is a MUC which announces them non-comformant?
  162. dwd jonas’, I'd be fine with that as well.
  163. dwd jonas’, No, you can't.
  164. jonas’ moving on
  165. jonas’ dwd, as devil’s advocate, I find a way to disagree, but I don’t want to waste everyone’s time on this stupid argument of mine :)
  166. jonas’ 4c) PR#949: XEP-0157: Add status-addresses registrar entry URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/949 See-Also: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-May/037443.html See-Also: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-June/037537.html
  167. jonas’ We also had this one a few weeks back, but there was discussion about extending the registry without consent from '68. See the second linked mailing list thread.
  168. jonas’ Hence, the validation stuff has been removed from the PR
  169. jonas’ Hence, the validation stuff has been removed from the PR and converted into explicit wording, which I think is a reasonable compromise.
  170. jonas’ This would allow us to move forward with extending '68 with validation and then amend the registry entry without breaking anything.
  171. jonas’ so +1
  172. dwd +1 for this. Noting my misgivings in general about how the Registrar is operating currently.
  173. Zash +1
  174. jonas’ you mean, not at all? :)
  175. jonas’ I endorse how you rejected a PR of mine to hack into the '45 registry on that grounds (to motivate me to fix the registry), but let other’s PRs pass :)
  176. jonas’ (no offense intended, I am glad that you don’t veto this one)
  177. jonas’ (no offense intended or taken, I am glad that you don’t veto this one)
  178. daniel +1
  179. dwd Well, in this case the additional entry related closely to the XEP it's in.
  180. jonas’ Ge0rG, anything from you?
  181. daniel pregaming for the corona party?
  182. jonas’ assuming on-list then
  183. jonas’ (also due to lack of chat states)
  184. jonas’ 5) Outstanding Votes - daniel and Zash are pending on PR#598 (expiring next week) AFAIK (<https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/598>)
  185. jonas’ other than that, just the pending ones from Ge0rG from this session
  186. jonas’ 6) Date of Next
  187. jonas’ +1w wfm
  188. Zash +1w wfm
  189. jonas’ thooough I might have a very hard cutoff that day
  190. jonas’ and/or might find during the week that I need a replacement
  191. jonas’ no plans yet, but it’s a date which might cause high-priority plans to appear out of nowhere
  192. Ge0rG +1 for 0157
  193. Ge0rG Sorry, got distracted
  194. pep. woo
  195. jonas’ so if someone is happy to stand in as chair in case I miss the meeting, of course with a prepared agenda, that’d be good
  196. dwd I can be a stand-in chair.
  197. jonas’ thank you
  198. dwd If a chair *can* be a stand-in.
  199. stpeter Please, people, it's not safe to stand in a chair.
  200. jonas’ waves to stpeter
  201. daniel i’m going to be on a train for the first time in forever next wednesday. but I think i'll be able to participate from my phone
  202. jonas’ daniel, wear your mask!
  203. jonas’ okay, we’ll see what we can manage
  204. jonas’ I don’t expect a lot of things to pop up anyways
  205. jonas’ 7) AOB
  206. pep. Yeah wearing a mask is important to participate from a phone
  207. jonas’ anyone got any?
  208. stpeter BTW https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/905 is on my radar screen, I just need to carve out time to look at it more closely.
  209. Zash Nah
  210. jonas’ stpeter, excellent
  211. jonas’ thanks for that
  212. Zash stpeter, while you're here, may I poke vrt vcard4? iirc it got into LC but then ???
  213. dwd I was wondering if we wanted to get a video call together for us, specifically *not* as a Council meeting, but as a more general chat.
  214. stpeter Do always feel free to poke me (hard it necessary) about PRs.
  215. jonas’ dwd, that sounds like fun
  216. jonas’ I hear the video call stacks around the world got a lot better in the past few months
  217. dwd Obviously we'll need to spend some time considering what platform to use.
  218. stpeter Zash: hmm, OK - as I recall, there wasn't strong interest at the time
  219. Zash FWIW I'll have a lot more time from next week
  220. jonas’ dwd, please no bikeshedding on that
  221. jonas’ if you want it to be a general chat
  222. jonas’ if nobody objects, I’d just suggest some jitsi instance, be it the official one or the ffmuc one
  223. Ge0rG daniel: your optimism implies that you will be travelling abroad? ;)
  224. dwd Jitsi is fine by me. I'll sling some time suggestions around the Council list and see if there's interest there.
  225. stpeter Clearly we should create a list of all possible videoconferencing options and randomly select using the procedures in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3797
  226. jonas’ dwd, that sounds excellent, thank you
  227. jonas’ any other AOB?
  228. stpeter (But seriously I'd just use Jitsi.)
  229. jonas’ (to clarify, when I say Jitsi, I generally refer to Jitsi Meet)
  230. daniel Ge0rG, no. just to the other side of country
  231. jonas’ (although I’m aware that’s incorrect)
  232. jonas’ assuming no council-relevant AOB, so
  233. Ge0rG daniel: I don't think there was significant improvement of mobile network coverage in the last months ;)
  234. jonas’ 8) Ite Meeting Est
  235. jonas’ have a splendid evening/remainder of the day everyone
  236. dwd Thanks jonas’!
  237. Zash Thanks jonas’, all
  238. Ge0rG thanks jonas’
  239. stpeter +1
  240. jonas’ the weather here is amazing if you can repress the nagging thoughts about dryness and climate change
  241. daniel oh. I had honestly forgotten that this is an issue
  242. dwd jonas’, BTW, I was looking at Gitlab/Github mirroring; I'd not realised that Gitlab can do that automagically for you these days.
  243. jonas’ dwd, to be honest, we’d hack that in CI jobs
  244. jonas’ to have more control over when a mirror action happens and to have it push based and to be able to constrain the permissions
  245. Zash what about the locust attack in east africa?
  246. jonas’ (using deploy keys instead of oauth permissions)
  247. Ge0rG speaking of which: I really liked the gitlab proposal, and I don't care much if gitlab or github is our primary venue, and I'm okay with shutting down the other one altogether after the proof-of-concept phase
  248. jonas’ Ge0rG, thanks for the feedback
  249. jonas’ dwd, the main issue we’re having with the gitlab migration though is the lack of the CLA bot thing... we’ll have to improvise something there, unfortunately.
  250. jonas’ that’s really a bummer
  251. pep. It's curious really that there's no CLA bot
  252. pep. That seems to be a common thing to have CLAs (unfortunately?)
  253. jonas’ they don’t have an "app" platform at all
  254. jonas’ AFAIK
  255. jonas’ so that might be why
  256. jonas’ or it’s simply a popularity issue
  257. pep. maybe
  258. jonas’ I mean there is an implementation, but you have to do AWS Lambda webscale stuff and host it yourself, which I don’t quite appreciate right now
  259. jonas’ -> https://github.com/ScottLogic/gitlab-cla-bot/
  260. pep. yeah no thanks
  261. jonas’ exactly
  262. jonas’ I mean the API should give you enough info based on that, so maybe someone from the community wants to step up and build a thing *hinthint* *nudgenudge*
  263. jonas’ we could do a basic "hey, we don’t know you yet" comment thing in the CI with appropriate credentials, but it’d still lack any kind of interactiveness
  264. pep. kinda lost when it comes to searching for this specific issue
  265. pep. kinda lost when it comes to searching for this specific problem
  266. pep. re keywords
  267. jonas’ FTR: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/15899
  268. pep. If we can make CI figure out if somebody has signed we can "just" make it terminate early right? We don't actually need to have any API in issues for that I guess?
  269. pep. Maybe it's just a flag on the issue? dunno if we can set stuff like that
  270. jonas’ -> editor@
  271. Lance has joined
  272. Wojtek has joined
  273. undefined has left
  274. daniel has left
  275. daniel has joined
  276. undefined has joined
  277. daniel has left
  278. daniel has joined
  279. daniel has left
  280. daniel has joined
  281. undefined has left
  282. undefined has joined
  283. undefined has left
  284. undefined has joined
  285. paul has left
  286. paul has joined
  287. Wojtek has left
  288. Wojtek has joined
  289. undefined has left
  290. undefined has joined
  291. sonny has left
  292. sonny has joined
  293. sonny has left
  294. sonny has joined
  295. sonny has left
  296. sonny has joined
  297. sonny has left
  298. sonny has joined
  299. sonny has left
  300. sonny has joined
  301. paul has left
  302. paul has joined
  303. sonny has left
  304. sonny has joined
  305. bear has left
  306. Tobias has left
  307. jonas’ has left
  308. bear has joined
  309. robertooo has left
  310. robertooo has joined
  311. debacle has left
  312. paul has left
  313. kusoneko has left
  314. kusoneko has joined
  315. David has left
  316. David has joined
  317. daniel has left
  318. daniel has joined
  319. kusoneko has left
  320. kusoneko has joined
  321. David has left
  322. David has joined