jonas’so this is taking about 100% longer than I anticipated already and I am not sure I'll make todays meeting
jonas’I'll probably be in right on time
Ge0rGIt's time! :)
jonas’1) Roll Call
jonas’excellent, full house
jonas’2) Agenda Bashing
Ge0rGI've got an AOB, and it's called Compliance Suite 2021
jonas’oh my god
jonas’let’s move on
jonas’3) Editor’s Update
- Ended LCs:
- XEP-0352 (Client State Indication) ended on 2020-08-18
- XEP-0411 (Bookmarks Conversion) ended on 2020-08-18
(Those LCs were missing from the Editor’s update because of a mistake when
using the LC tooling. The editors are now aware of the problem.)
jonas’4) Items for voting
jonas’4a) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0352: Client State Indication
Abstract: This document defines a way for the client to indicate its active/inactive state.
jonas’I think the feedback on list was mostly positive.
Ge0rGThere was also rather little feedback.
ZashYeah, a bit thin
jonas’four different implementations
jonas’I assume that daniel is happy with it because he proposed it for LCing.
Ge0rGI'd still like to see the tribal knowledge codified, but not at the expense of delaying this XEP.
jonas’(dangerous assumption I know)
jonas’I agree with Zash that the tribal knowledge should go in an informational document instead of a standards track document
danielBut yes I am
jonas’(very dangerous assumption apparently)
jonas’daniel, you or someone claiming to be you: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/036914.html ;-)
jonas’either way, I’m +1 on advancing
MattJAuthor in favour of tribal knowledge going into a different document
Ge0rGZash: the good thing about Informational XEPs is that they are not carved in stone, so they can be a living document of everything we know is good / bad.
Ge0rGCouncil in favor of Author creating that document
dwdI felt that XEP-352 got "enough" feedback, myself. So +1 for advancing.
daniel+1 for advancing
jonas’Ge0rG, no clear +1 from you yet, intentionally?
jonas’4b) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0411: Bookmarks Conversion
Abstract: aThis specification describes a method to migrate to PEP based bookmarks without loosing compatibility with client that still use Private XML.
Ge0rGI actually intended to write +1 above, but then changed the wording to not contain the magic symbols
danieli think i'd rather just deprecate that one
danielor ignore it for a while
ZashSince it's set to be replaced by Bookmarks 2?
Ge0rGprobably because of 0402
danielbookmarks 2 replace the conversion mechanism
daniel/ has one too
ZashIt is a thing that exists in the wild tho
jonas’I was under the impression that this was Private XML / PEP Bookmarks 1 <-> Bookmarks 2
danieli'm not entirely sure I want to "send a message" by deprecating it
Ge0rGbookmarks 2 covers the bookmarks 2 conversion, optionally.
jonas’if it is a thing which exists, we can pull it to Draft and soon after Deprecate it in favour of 402?
danielbut i'm also not keen on "sending a message" by advancing it
dwdSo, XEP-0411 got no feedback at all?
jonas’no feedback at all
danieli mean it kinda does it's job in the wild right now
Zash"no news is good news" ? :)
danielbut as far as standards are concerned i don’t think it has a future
jonas’suggestion: instead of sending a message on ourselves, I post in the '411 LC thread and ask the community for feedback, making the Draft -> Deprecation route as our default clear?
dwdIt's an interim standard at best, isn't it?
jonas’suggestion: instead of sending a message on our own, I post in the '411 LC thread and ask the community for feedback, making the Draft -> Deprecation route as our default clear?
jonas’I get the impression that (parts of) the community haven’t been happy with council perceivedly unanimously sending messages
jonas’I get the impression that (parts of) the community haven’t been happy with council perceivedly unexpectedly [without feedback from the community] sending messages
ZashCommunication is hard
danielthat's probably because our intent isn’t to send messages
jonas’right, we’re not here for any kind of message transportation
ZashSo, should we extend the LC and poke implementations more?
dwdZash, That would work for me.
jonas’obvious reminder that implementations are not necessary for LCs ;)
jonas’so, what do you folks want?
jonas’extend the LC?
danielextend and remind people that even if we draft we will propbably deprecate in a not too distant future?
dwdOh, it has implementations. That seemed clear. But no feedback suggests no interest.
jonas’+1 to what daniel says
Ge0rG+1 for extend & remind
danieli'm not sure that this will motivate people to provide feedback though. but we'll see
jonas’let’s do that then, the editors can do that "in consultation with the approving body", I don’t think we need votes
jonas’5) Pending Votes
dwd+1 though if you need it for extending.
jonas’We have pending votes on PR#975
jonas’by daniel only, actually
jonas’it doesn’t expire for another week, so no pressure here. If you need more time, that’s ok, and we can move on towards Ge0rG’s AOB
danielyes i'm aware. but still on list
jonas’6) Date of Next
danieli probably won’t make it
jonas’+1w wfm, with a hard cutoff
jonas’ok, then I’d like to also quickly discuss who’ll fill in for me on the 9th and 16th of september
jonas’I will not have the time to make a proper agenda since on the 9th, we’re on vacation and on the 16th, we’ll move.
dwdForward planning: I'm off work the following week (ie, two weeks today) so might not be around.
danieland i'm entering a period with limited availability for ~1 month (I'm moving)
Ge0rGI'm going to be away from computers in the next weeks as well, but can't say for sure when.
dwdAre we all moving, then? I am too, at some point.
Ge0rGI'm not moving but renovating
jonas’that’s like moving but without leaving the place
dwdZash, you hvae to move house now.
jonas’dwd, no, zash has to do the meetings
ZashAll alone? :(
Ge0rGZash: maybe you can get some voices from the floor
jonas’we could also agree to skip 9th/16th
jonas’though I’m not quite comfortable with skipping two weeks in a row
Ge0rGit might be 23rd and 30th for me.
jonas’I *could*, but cannot promise, maybe make an agenda on the 14th for the 16th with stuff which has aggregated in the meantime
jonas’ok, I see however that we’ll have difficulties to find a reliable chair in those weeks -- we’ll postpone this once more and find a solution next week
jonas’hands the mic to Ge0rG
Ge0rGso I was in a supermarket recently, and they had Halloween ornaments on sale.
Ge0rGAnd that made me realize that it's time to create CS 2021
jonas’and you’re volunteering for that?
Ge0rGWe had repeated discussions of whether the current CS format is good enough or not to achieve our goal.
Ge0rGYeah, I can do that.
danielassuming that there wouldn’t be any changes; would we still want to have a new one just to bump the year?
dwdWell. Has any server implementation claimed compliance with 2020?
dwdOr client, indeed.
jonas’I hear that '215 may appear on it
Ge0rGI'd just like to know whether we should just move on with the current form or somebody has a suggestion that reduces the churn and workload on the author.
jonas’delegate to compliance.conversations.im? :-X
Ge0rGdaniel: if there are no changes, I'd be fine to just change the title to include 2021
danielimproving the format will be a lot of work and a lot of bike shedding
dwdGe0rG, As I say, I'd like to know whether anyone is "using" the existing one before bothering to do anything.
Ge0rGjonas’: when reading 0411 I realized that Some Editor didn't change the title of 0402 in the xml elements template.
ZashI still think that it makes some sense to have snapshots of "what implementations do today" and then a separate "what we want to do in the future"
jonas’Ge0rG, ha! it’s a easter egg! I’ll update that
jonas’Ge0rG, ha! it’s a easter egg! I’ll update that, thanks
Ge0rGZash: that sounds like a task for a table, not for a XEP
Zashor a survey and a blog post :)
Ge0rGZash: also CS 2020 lists notable XEPs that are not mandatory.