XMPP Council - 2020-08-12


  1. Wojtek has joined

  2. Wojtek has left

  3. Lance has left

  4. Lance has joined

  5. stpeter has left

  6. pprrks has left

  7. Lance has left

  8. eta has left

  9. eta has joined

  10. pprrks has joined

  11. neox has left

  12. adiaholic_ has left

  13. adiaholic_ has joined

  14. Lance has joined

  15. Lance has left

  16. SouL has joined

  17. Tobias has joined

  18. Lance has joined

  19. raspbeguy has left

  20. raspbeguy has joined

  21. Lance has left

  22. Lance has joined

  23. bear has left

  24. marc0s has left

  25. marc0s has joined

  26. Lance has left

  27. Lance has joined

  28. sonny has left

  29. sonny has joined

  30. Lance has left

  31. sonny has left

  32. sonny has joined

  33. sonny has left

  34. sonny has joined

  35. sonny has left

  36. sonny has joined

  37. neox has joined

  38. Zash has left

  39. Zash has joined

  40. Lance has joined

  41. Lance has left

  42. debacle has joined

  43. eta has left

  44. eta has joined

  45. daniel has left

  46. Lance has joined

  47. Lance has left

  48. daniel has joined

  49. sonny has left

  50. sonny has joined

  51. sonny has left

  52. sonny has joined

  53. sonny has left

  54. sonny has joined

  55. Lance has joined

  56. Lance has left

  57. adiaholic_ has left

  58. Zash has left

  59. sonny has left

  60. sonny has joined

  61. adiaholic_ has joined

  62. sonny has left

  63. sonny has joined

  64. Lance has joined

  65. Zash has joined

  66. bear has joined

  67. Lance has left

  68. Wojtek has joined

  69. Lance has joined

  70. Ge0rG

    It's Council time!

  71. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  72. jonas’ is here

  73. Zash here is

  74. Ge0rG

  75. jonas’

    I need to switch devices

  76. jonas’

    one minute please

  77. daniel

    Hi

  78. jonas’

    here I am

  79. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  80. jonas’

    sorry for the dreadful return of PR#971

  81. jonas’

    any other complaints?

  82. Zash

    My coffee is cold!

  83. jonas’

    … about the agenda

  84. jonas’

    nice, now the work laptop is playing a snippet of metal in a very tight loop

  85. jonas’

    trying suspend-then-hibernate wasn’t a good plan

  86. jonas’

    ok, with that disturbance out of the way...

  87. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  88. jonas’

    - XEP-0045 v1.33.0 which removes 307 status code from service-caused kicks (as opposed to moderation-caused kicks)

  89. jonas’

    4) Items for Voting

  90. jonas’

    4a) Discuss whether PR#971 was rejected on false premises Sorry for this one. Flow brought up -- correctly -- that type="cancel" is special and we should discuss real quick if that changes anything for the folks who vetoed.

  91. jonas’

    since XEP-0004 states: > a data form of type "cancel" SHOULD NOT contain any <field/> elements. I think some of the arguments in my original email regarding this topic may be invalid

  92. jonas’

    since others based their vote on those arguments, please reconsider

  93. jonas’

    and let me know if we should re-vote on this one

  94. Zash

    I'm staring at a diff right now .

  95. Ge0rG

    I'm still unconvinced whether removing text adds clarity.

  96. Zash

    So.

  97. jonas’

    trivial example of where removing text adds clarity: > The form type "foo" has properties X. The properties Y and Z are only on form type "bar", which also has property X. Property W is found on both "foo" and "baz" types. vs. > "foo" has Property X and W, "bar" has property X, Y and Z, and "baz" has property W and X.

  98. jonas’

    trivial example of where removing text adds clarity: > The form type "foo" has properties X. The properties Y and Z are only on form type "bar", which also has property X. Property W is found on both "foo" and "baz" types. vs. > "foo" has Property X and W, "bar" has property X, Y and Z, and "baz" has property W only.

  99. jonas’

    or something similar, you get the gist :)

  100. daniel

    I'll read this again

  101. daniel

    The diff format with extremely long lines also makes this super hard to read

  102. Ge0rG

    jonas’: so the answer to your question is probably: we should re-vote #971

  103. jonas’

    re-writing my email from back then, I arrive at: Let me break this change down using the word diff (attached: ab.wdiff, pipe it through colordiff(1) for best viewing). Before: - type="form": @type SHOULD, absent implies "text-single" - type="submit": @type MAY, absent assumes available context(*) - type="result": @type MAY, absent undefined - type="error": SHOULD NOT have any fields, @type MAY After: - type="form": @type SHOULD, absent implies "text-single" - type="submit", type="result": @type MAY, absent assumes available context(*) - type="error": SHOULD NOT have any fields, @type MAY (*): It is assumed that the recipient of the form has enough context to infer the @type value. Bad design IMO, but we’re stuck with that. So while the PR reduces the amount of text, it introduces undefined behaviour for @type="error", which I don’t endorse.

  104. jonas’

    re-writing my email from back then, I arrive at: Let me break this change down using the word diff (attached: ab.wdiff, pipe it through colordiff(1) for best viewing). Before: - type="form": @type SHOULD, absent implies "text-single" - type="submit": @type MAY, absent assumes available context(*) - type="result": @type MAY, absent undefined - type="error": SHOULD NOT have any fields, @type undefined After: - type="form": @type SHOULD, absent implies "text-single" - type="submit", type="result": @type MAY, absent assumes available context(*) - type="error": SHOULD NOT have any fields, @type MAY (*): It is assumed that the recipient of the form has enough context to infer the @type value. Bad design IMO, but we’re stuck with that. So while the PR reduces the amount of text, it introduces undefined behaviour for @type="error", which I don’t endorse.

  105. jonas’

    and I think I prefer that a lot and would also suggest to re-vote

  106. jonas’

    daniel, hence wdiff + colordiff

  107. Zash

    + aha | htmlpaste

  108. jonas’

    :)

  109. jonas’

    I’m still in favour of my patch though, because that handles the case where an entity violates the SHOULD NOT for type="error" and clearly spells out what’s going on

  110. jonas’

    I guess I’ll propose my patch as separate PR and then we can vote on both?

  111. daniel

    Sounds good

  112. Ge0rG

    jonas’: great

  113. Zash

    Sure

  114. Ge0rG

    and maybe Zash can provide a rendered html-diff of it ;)

  115. dwd has joined

  116. jonas’

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/975

  117. dwd

    Gah. Afternoon, sorry for being late.

  118. jonas’

    oh great, dwd

  119. jonas’

    I suppose you’ll have strong opinions regarding how we should handle Process here

  120. jonas’

    (and I’d really like to hear them)

  121. Zash

    https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/ZYq7Ie4XUavFzq0k/pr971.html

  122. Ge0rG

    jonas’: is there really Process for bringing up the same PR again?

  123. jonas’

    Ge0rG, probably not written down, but dwd still might have a valuable opinion on that :)

  124. Ge0rG

    Zash: it is HTML, but it's not HTML.

  125. jonas’

    Zash, those \" make it harder to read :/

  126. dwd

    PRs are nothing but a convenient way to give things to Council, I don';t think there's anything preventing us using the same one twice is there?

  127. Zash

    pandoc does that

  128. jonas’

    dwd, no, it’s about re-voting on the same thing after council pretty clearly vetoed it before

  129. jonas’

    Zash, can you do the diff on the xml instead of whatever pandoc did there?

  130. jonas’

    I think the colour-coding would already hep

  131. jonas’

    I think the colour-coding would already help

  132. dwd

    Ah. So there's nothing that prevents us doing so, but unless new things have come to light I feel a little concerned about doing that.

  133. jonas’

    (hoping that none of us has red-green-weakness)

  134. Ge0rG

    dwd: new things like the realization that the first voting Member was wrong, and the other ones just copy&pasted the rationale?

  135. jonas’

    dwd, I expected as much. Do you think that new things did indeed come to light based on what I wrote earlier (in the agenda announcement and above, I shall quote from above): since XEP-0004 states: > a data form of type "cancel" SHOULD NOT contain any <field/> elements. I think some of the arguments in my original email regarding this topic may be invalid since others based their vote on those arguments, please reconsider

  136. jonas’

    or as Ge0rG put it, indeed

  137. Zash

    jonas’: Main difference is extra noise and lack of line breaks in paragraphs.

  138. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I really like your wording as displayed by Zash's colored "html" version

  139. jonas’

    that’s not my wording tho?

  140. jonas’

    that’s flows wording

  141. Zash

    That wasn't jonas’

  142. dwd

    Ge0rG, Well, there's a good argument to avoid "me too" veto votes, of course. :-)

  143. Ge0rG

    dwd: yes, I'm guilty of that. But the rationale that was provided really sounded convincing back then!

  144. jonas’

    it’s easy to construct convincing-sounding rationales for '4, '45 and '60.

  145. jonas’

    (and probably '369 et al. too)

  146. Ge0rG

    whoops.

  147. jonas’

    though I’ll clearly state that this was not my intention and I simply wasn’t aware of the type="cancel" specialcasing

  148. Ge0rG

    So I really like flow's wording then. Can we also get a pr975.html, please? Zash?

  149. dwd

    I like the table. ISTR I was on-list because I was confused about what the wording used to say and what it now says, which at the very least suggests that the wording needs improvement.

  150. jonas’

    what table are we talking about?

  151. Ge0rG

    the one in your mail?

  152. jonas’

    I didn’t consider that to be a table

  153. jonas’

    but ok

  154. dwd

    Bullet point list. Table. It's hot.

  155. jonas’

    I agree

  156. Zash

    ^C^V that into the XEP and call it a day?©

  157. jonas’

    I can do a PR for that, too

  158. jonas’

    or maybe instead of #975

  159. jonas’

    okay, either way

  160. jonas’

    we’re close to the end of the meeting and everyone is confused

  161. dwd

    But if I understand correctly, we're happy about the intent in flow's PR, just not so much about the wording?

  162. jonas’

    I am

  163. jonas’

    as I said in my original email

  164. jonas’

    I take that we should re-vote on PR#971 and/or PR#975 next week. Please read carefully everyone, I’ll update PR#975 with a more major reformatting after this meeting (taking the suggestion to pull my "table" from the email into the document)

  165. jonas’

    5) Date of Next

  166. Zash

    +1w?

  167. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  168. Zash

    +1w wfm

  169. daniel

    +1w wfm

  170. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  171. Ge0rG

    +1w wfm

  172. Lance has left

  173. dwd

    +1. Having (a) moved my XMPP server to AWS off the machine that was failing, and (b) moved DNS to a machine with IPv4, I might even be able to join properly.

  174. jonas’

    excellent

  175. jonas’

    except the IPv4 port

  176. jonas’

    except the IPv4 part

  177. jonas’

    6) AOB

  178. jonas’

    (I skipped over pending votes...)

  179. jonas’

    Ge0rG, wanna vote on the SASL-EXTERNAL one? it expires today.

  180. jonas’

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/963

  181. Ge0rG

    I'm pretty sure I already +1ed SASL-EXTERNAL, but consider it being casted now.

  182. Ge0rG

    *cast

  183. jonas’

    ok, maybe I missed it from last week

  184. jonas’

    thanks

  185. Ge0rG

    It's hot.

  186. jonas’

    any other AOB?

  187. Ge0rG

    I sent a mail to standards@ re MUC-PMs vs. Direct Messages

  188. jonas’

    it contained several words I find highly complex and I am out of my safe operating parameters

  189. Ge0rG

    There was one response so far. I'd love to see more.

  190. jonas’

    it contained several words I find highly complex and I am outside my safe operating parameters

  191. Ge0rG

    Did I curse, accidentally?

  192. dwd

    I would like to second Ge0rG's observation that it is hot.

  193. jonas’

    Ge0rG, no, but you said nasty words like "MUC-PM", "Carbons", and "MAM"

  194. Ge0rG

    or are those words "RECOMMENDED" and "SHOULD NOT"?

  195. Zash

    Heh

  196. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I was just setting the stage. The mail is mostly harmless.

  197. jonas’

    https://share.dreckshal.de/dpm/Ct5F9khjRIzTuqrGSBM_Nr0URuHpdsbwWdzOdWXhW48.png

  198. debacle has left

  199. jonas’

    Ge0rG, thanks for the hint, I’ll take a look and see that I can reply soon-ish

  200. jonas’

    if you don’t see an email from me in that thread by the end of the week, feel free to poke.

  201. Ge0rG

    jonas’: thanks

  202. jonas’

    AO-AO-AOB?

  203. jonas’

    (real quick, because we’re past the time)

  204. jonas’

    no typing notification and no previous mention, taking that as a no

  205. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  206. jonas’

    Thanks everyone for appearing despite the straining weather conditions

  207. jonas’

    and for participating

  208. Zash

    Thanks

  209. Ge0rG

    Thanks jonas’ and Tedd

  210. jonas’

    I updated PR#975: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/975

  211. Ge0rG

    +1

  212. marc0s has left

  213. marc0s has joined

  214. Lance has joined

  215. Zash

    Text looks good.

  216. Zash

    XML error tho

  217. jonas’

    Zash, thanks, fixed

  218. Zash

    > the recieving entity can infer the 'type' attribute value from context often, but not allways

  219. jonas’

    not my choice of wording, unfortunately

  220. Zash

    https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/rbYit4kCAuY1LCQu/pr971.html

  221. Zash

    eh, where's the diff?

  222. Zash

    oh, 971

  223. Zash

    https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/wWubXvCY6TocdW5Z/pr975.html

  224. Zash

    There

  225. stpeter has joined

  226. Lance has left

  227. sonny has left

  228. sonny has joined

  229. sonny has left

  230. sonny has joined

  231. Lance has joined

  232. ralphm has left

  233. paul has left

  234. paul has joined

  235. ralphm has joined

  236. sonny has left

  237. marc0s has left

  238. adiaholic_ has left

  239. adiaholic_ has joined

  240. marc0s has joined

  241. adiaholic_ has left

  242. Guus has left

  243. Guus has joined

  244. bear has left

  245. sonny has joined

  246. bear has joined

  247. sonny has left

  248. sonny has joined

  249. bear has left

  250. bear has joined

  251. stpeter has left

  252. Tobias has left

  253. stpeter has joined

  254. stpeter has left

  255. sonny has left

  256. sonny has joined

  257. stpeter has joined

  258. stpeter has left

  259. stpeter has joined

  260. eta has left

  261. eta has joined

  262. vaulor has left

  263. SouL has left

  264. stpeter has left

  265. bear has left

  266. neox has left