XMPP Council - 2020-08-05

  1. jonas’

    Ge0rG, you may be intersted in what I wrote about PR#971 on-list just now.

  2. jonas’

    may help guide the discussion about that PR today

  3. Ge0rG

    jonas’: great, thanks

  4. jonas’

    (Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2020-07-22, really just now, so it’ll arrive on-list probably five minutes after the meeting started, as the list server hates me :))

  5. Ge0rG

    jonas’: as you'll also only arrive after the meeting started, I hope this won't be much of an issue ;)

  6. jonas’

    it also contians my vote on the PR as-is, which is a -1, so if any of you have strong opinions on that, it’d be good if we discussed them now...

  7. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I’ll not arrive at all today, sooo...

  8. Ge0rG

    jonas’: well, that's surely also after the meeting start ;)

  9. jonas’


  10. jonas’

    Ge0rG, mail passed through

  11. jonas’

    note that the vote expires this week.

  12. Ge0rG


  13. Ge0rG

    I'm working on a new variant of the MUC-PM diff

  14. Ge0rG

    Tis time.

  15. Zash


  16. Ge0rG

    1) Roll Call

  17. Zash


  18. Ge0rG

    hi Zash

  19. Ge0rG

    jonas’ is excused.

  20. daniel


  21. Ge0rG

    Hi daniel

  22. Ge0rG

    Do we have a dwd?

  23. Ge0rG

    Anyway, it looks like a quorum, so let's proceed.

  24. Zash

    Does not look like we do

  25. Ge0rG

    2) Agenda Bashing

  26. Ge0rG

    jonas’ isn't here, so feel free to bash as much as you want.

  27. Ge0rG

    I wanted to add a follow-up to https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/854 but will postpone for another Council Meeting

  28. Ge0rG

    jonas’ provided some more context on PR#972, which we could discuss later.

  29. Ge0rG

    Doesn't look like there are any other additions.

  30. Ge0rG

    3) Editor’s Update

  31. Ge0rG

    I put on my jonas’ hat.

  32. Ge0rG

    - XEP-0048 (Bookmarks) deprecated in favour of XEP-0402 (PEP Native Bookmarks) - Ongoing Calls: - Last Call for XEP-0352 (Client State Indication), ends on 2020-08-18 - Last Call for XEP-0411 (Bookmark Conversion), ends on 2020-08-18

  33. Ge0rG

    okay, enough of the cosplay.

  34. Ge0rG

    4) Items for voting

  35. Ge0rG

    4a) Discuss PR#971: XEP-0004: Clarify field type omission for 'submit' and 'result' form field types

  36. Ge0rG

    this is a recurring topic that's apparently expiring today.

  37. Ge0rG

    jonas’ vetoed it on-list today, with some advice on how to improve the wording

  38. Zash

    I tried to read that on my phone, it sounded sensible.

  39. Ge0rG

    I was confused before, at how removing words can increase the clarity, but with jonas’’ remark about type="error" being undefined, I think that it actually doesn't improve the situation and should be reworded in a better way

  40. Ge0rG

    therefore -1

  41. Zash

    same, -1, "what jonas said" 🙂

  42. Ge0rG

    daniel: would you like to add to this?

  43. daniel

    what jonas said. -1

  44. Ge0rG

    Thanks everyone. Looks like dwd is going to expire from this.

  45. Ge0rG

    5) Pending Votes

  46. Ge0rG

    I'd also like to +1 PR#963, so that I'm down to zero pending now.

  47. Ge0rG

    Zash: did you vote on #972 already? This is just a formalism though.

  48. Zash

    The other xep4 one? I think I did

  49. Ge0rG

    it's not in the spreadsheet of doom.

  50. Ge0rG

    well, it's vetoed multiple times anyway, so it wouldn't make a difference.

  51. Ge0rG

    6) Date of Next

  52. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  53. daniel

    +1w wfm

  54. Zash

    +1w wfm

  55. Ge0rG

    great! Let's assume +1W then

  56. Ge0rG

    7) AOB

  57. Zash

    I got nothing

  58. Ge0rG

    Anybody? I have https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/854 for which I wanted to discuss some wording.

  59. Zash

    Discuss ahead

  60. Ge0rG

    I want to add a rationale along the lines of "if you send a PM to somebody who's also your contact, it might be rendered as coming from a separate person"

  61. Ge0rG

    but I fail to find the right words that are adequate for a formal standards document

  62. Zash

    Maybe this is more for ModernXMPP?

  63. daniel

    The discoverabilty of modern xmpp is questionable at best

  64. Ge0rG

    Also modernxmpp is not a stick you can wield to convince developers to improve their sh... app

  65. daniel

    I find should not too strong for a retroactive recommendation

  66. Ge0rG

    SHOULD was discouraged last time I brought this topic up

  67. Ge0rG

    And then I totally forgot to make a new proposal, which I just recently rediscovered.

  68. Zash

    Hiding it deep in 0045 isn't optimal for discoverability either 😛

  69. daniel

    Certainly not

  70. Ge0rG

    but it's something that I can point developers to

  71. MattJ

    and you can't point them to modernxmpp.org?

  72. Ge0rG

    MattJ: I can point them to <anyrandomwebsite>, but it's not convincing.

  73. MattJ

    I'm certainly not against having it in the XEP, but I don't see that much difference

  74. Ge0rG

    well, I *can* try to convince a developer by linking to modernxmpp, just to see if it works.

  75. MattJ

    It's not more discoverable, and it's a protocol document while you're discussing UX considerations

  76. MattJ

    The primary benefit is that it's XSF-official

  77. MattJ


  78. Ge0rG

    but I am focusing on protocol considerations that arise from UX considerations.

  79. Ge0rG

    that's a very strong benefit.

  80. Zash

    If SHOULD is too strong then maybe just an implementation note.. but then modernxmpp seems marginally better IMO

  81. Ge0rG

    also it adds significantly to the discoverability

  82. daniel

    Yes in any case there is too much should and should not in that pr

  83. daniel

    Maybe try modernxmpp first

  84. Ge0rG

    daniel: it's already there: https://docs.modernxmpp.org/client/groupchat/#private-messages

  85. daniel

    And come back if that didn't yield the desired results

  86. Zash

    Could you raise it on the list?

  87. Ge0rG

    Zash: I think so

  88. Ge0rG

    Okay, so that's probably the next step to do, then. Thanks everybody.

  89. Ge0rG

    7a) AAOB?

  90. daniel

    None here

  91. Ge0rG

    8) U-0004

  92. Ge0rG

    Thanks everyone

  93. Zash


  94. jonas’


  95. jonas’

    flow brought up what I assume is a valid point about type="cancel" (instead of type="error", I constantly mistyped that) not having any fields at all

  96. jonas’

    so type="error" being undefined is pretty irrelevant