-
Ge0rG
It's Council time!
-
jonas’
1) Roll Call
- jonas’ is here
- Zash here is
- Ge0rG
-
jonas’
I need to switch devices
-
jonas’
one minute please
-
daniel
Hi
-
jonas’
here I am
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
sorry for the dreadful return of PR#971
-
jonas’
any other complaints?
-
Zash
My coffee is cold!
-
jonas’
… about the agenda
-
jonas’
nice, now the work laptop is playing a snippet of metal in a very tight loop
-
jonas’
trying suspend-then-hibernate wasn’t a good plan
-
jonas’
ok, with that disturbance out of the way...
-
jonas’
3) Editor’s Update
-
jonas’
- XEP-0045 v1.33.0 which removes 307 status code from service-caused kicks (as opposed to moderation-caused kicks)
-
jonas’
4) Items for Voting
-
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.
-
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
-
jonas’
since others based their vote on those arguments, please reconsider
-
jonas’
and let me know if we should re-vote on this one
-
Zash
I'm staring at a diff right now .
-
Ge0rG
I'm still unconvinced whether removing text adds clarity.
-
Zash
So.
-
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.✎ -
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. ✏
-
jonas’
or something similar, you get the gist :)
-
daniel
I'll read this again
-
daniel
The diff format with extremely long lines also makes this super hard to read
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: so the answer to your question is probably: we should re-vote #971
-
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.✎ -
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. ✏
-
jonas’
and I think I prefer that a lot and would also suggest to re-vote
-
jonas’
daniel, hence wdiff + colordiff
-
Zash
+ aha | htmlpaste
-
jonas’
:)
-
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
-
jonas’
I guess I’ll propose my patch as separate PR and then we can vote on both?
-
daniel
Sounds good
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: great
-
Zash
Sure
-
Ge0rG
and maybe Zash can provide a rendered html-diff of it ;)
-
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/975
-
dwd
Gah. Afternoon, sorry for being late.
-
jonas’
oh great, dwd
-
jonas’
I suppose you’ll have strong opinions regarding how we should handle Process here
-
jonas’
(and I’d really like to hear them)
-
Zash
https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/ZYq7Ie4XUavFzq0k/pr971.html
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: is there really Process for bringing up the same PR again?
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, probably not written down, but dwd still might have a valuable opinion on that :)
-
Ge0rG
Zash: it is HTML, but it's not HTML.
-
jonas’
Zash, those \" make it harder to read :/
-
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?
-
Zash
pandoc does that
-
jonas’
dwd, no, it’s about re-voting on the same thing after council pretty clearly vetoed it before
-
jonas’
Zash, can you do the diff on the xml instead of whatever pandoc did there?
-
jonas’
I think the colour-coding would already hep✎ -
jonas’
I think the colour-coding would already help ✏
-
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.
-
jonas’
(hoping that none of us has red-green-weakness)
-
Ge0rG
dwd: new things like the realization that the first voting Member was wrong, and the other ones just copy&pasted the rationale?
-
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
-
jonas’
or as Ge0rG put it, indeed
-
Zash
jonas’: Main difference is extra noise and lack of line breaks in paragraphs.
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: I really like your wording as displayed by Zash's colored "html" version
-
jonas’
that’s not my wording tho?
-
jonas’
that’s flows wording
-
Zash
That wasn't jonas’
-
dwd
Ge0rG, Well, there's a good argument to avoid "me too" veto votes, of course. :-)
-
Ge0rG
dwd: yes, I'm guilty of that. But the rationale that was provided really sounded convincing back then!
-
jonas’
it’s easy to construct convincing-sounding rationales for '4, '45 and '60.
-
jonas’
(and probably '369 et al. too)
-
Ge0rG
whoops.
-
jonas’
though I’ll clearly state that this was not my intention and I simply wasn’t aware of the type="cancel" specialcasing
-
Ge0rG
So I really like flow's wording then. Can we also get a pr975.html, please? Zash?
-
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.
-
jonas’
what table are we talking about?
-
Ge0rG
the one in your mail?
-
jonas’
I didn’t consider that to be a table
-
jonas’
but ok
-
dwd
Bullet point list. Table. It's hot.
-
jonas’
I agree
-
Zash
^C^V that into the XEP and call it a day?©
-
jonas’
I can do a PR for that, too
-
jonas’
or maybe instead of #975
-
jonas’
okay, either way
-
jonas’
we’re close to the end of the meeting and everyone is confused
-
dwd
But if I understand correctly, we're happy about the intent in flow's PR, just not so much about the wording?
-
jonas’
I am
-
jonas’
as I said in my original email
-
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)
-
jonas’
5) Date of Next
-
Zash
+1w?
-
jonas’
+1w wfm
-
Zash
+1w wfm
-
daniel
+1w wfm
-
Ge0rG
+1W WFM✎ -
Ge0rG
+1w wfm ✏
-
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.
-
jonas’
excellent
-
jonas’
except the IPv4 port✎ -
jonas’
except the IPv4 part ✏
-
jonas’
6) AOB
-
jonas’
(I skipped over pending votes...)
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, wanna vote on the SASL-EXTERNAL one? it expires today.
-
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/963
-
Ge0rG
I'm pretty sure I already +1ed SASL-EXTERNAL, but consider it being casted now.
-
Ge0rG
*cast
-
jonas’
ok, maybe I missed it from last week
-
jonas’
thanks
-
Ge0rG
It's hot.
-
jonas’
any other AOB?
-
Ge0rG
I sent a mail to standards@ re MUC-PMs vs. Direct Messages
-
jonas’
it contained several words I find highly complex and I am out of my safe operating parameters✎ -
Ge0rG
There was one response so far. I'd love to see more.
-
jonas’
it contained several words I find highly complex and I am outside my safe operating parameters ✏
-
Ge0rG
Did I curse, accidentally?
-
dwd
I would like to second Ge0rG's observation that it is hot.
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, no, but you said nasty words like "MUC-PM", "Carbons", and "MAM"
-
Ge0rG
or are those words "RECOMMENDED" and "SHOULD NOT"?
-
Zash
Heh
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: I was just setting the stage. The mail is mostly harmless.
-
jonas’
https://share.dreckshal.de/dpm/Ct5F9khjRIzTuqrGSBM_Nr0URuHpdsbwWdzOdWXhW48.png
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, thanks for the hint, I’ll take a look and see that I can reply soon-ish
-
jonas’
if you don’t see an email from me in that thread by the end of the week, feel free to poke.
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: thanks
-
jonas’
AO-AO-AOB?
-
jonas’
(real quick, because we’re past the time)
-
jonas’
no typing notification and no previous mention, taking that as a no
-
jonas’
7) Ite Meeting Est
-
jonas’
Thanks everyone for appearing despite the straining weather conditions
-
jonas’
and for participating
-
Zash
Thanks
-
Ge0rG
Thanks jonas’ and Tedd
-
jonas’
I updated PR#975: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/975
-
Ge0rG
+1
-
Zash
Text looks good.
-
Zash
XML error tho
-
jonas’
Zash, thanks, fixed
-
Zash
> the recieving entity can infer the 'type' attribute value from context often, but not allways
-
jonas’
not my choice of wording, unfortunately
-
Zash
https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/rbYit4kCAuY1LCQu/pr971.html
-
Zash
eh, where's the diff?
-
Zash
oh, 971
-
Zash
https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/wWubXvCY6TocdW5Z/pr975.html
-
Zash
There