-
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
-
Ge0rG
It's time! :)
-
jonas’
1) Roll Call
-
daniel
Hi
-
jonas’
Hi
-
Zash
Hey
-
dwd
Hiya
-
jonas’
excellent, full house
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
any modifications?
-
Zash
None here
-
Ge0rG
I'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 URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html 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.
-
Ge0rG
There was also rather little feedback.
-
Zash
Yeah, a bit thin
-
jonas’
four different implementations
-
jonas’
I assume that daniel is happy with it because he proposed it for LCing.
-
Ge0rG
I'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
-
daniel
I did?
-
daniel
But 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
-
Zash
+1
-
MattJ
Author in favour of tribal knowledge going into a different document
-
Ge0rG
Zash: 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.
-
Ge0rG
Council in favor of Author creating that document
-
MattJ
No thanks
-
dwd
I 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?
-
Ge0rG
oh sorry
-
Ge0rG
+1
-
jonas’
thanks
-
jonas’
4b) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0411: Bookmarks Conversion URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0411.html Abstract: aThis specification describes a method to migrate to PEP based bookmarks without loosing compatibility with client that still use Private XML.
-
Ge0rG
I actually intended to write +1 above, but then changed the wording to not contain the magic symbols
-
daniel
i think i'd rather just deprecate that one
-
Zash
🦗️
-
daniel
or ignore it for a while
-
jonas’
daniel, elaborate?
-
Zash
Since it's set to be replaced by Bookmarks 2?
-
Ge0rG
probably because of 0402
-
daniel
bookmarks 2 replace the conversion mechanism
-
daniel
/ has one too
-
jonas’
ohh
-
Zash
It 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
-
daniel
i'm not entirely sure I want to "send a message" by deprecating it
-
Ge0rG
bookmarks 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?
-
daniel
but i'm also not keen on "sending a message" by advancing it
-
dwd
So, XEP-0411 got no feedback at all?
-
Zash
dwd, correct
-
jonas’
no feedback at all
-
daniel
i mean it kinda does it's job in the wild right now
-
Zash
"no news is good news" ? :)
-
daniel
but 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?✎ -
dwd
It'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? ✏
-
Zash
Yeah
-
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 ✏
-
Zash
Communication is hard
-
daniel
that's probably because our intent isn’t to send messages
-
jonas’
right, we’re not here for any kind of message transportation
-
Zash
So, should we extend the LC and poke implementations more?
-
dwd
Zash, 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?
-
daniel
extend and remind people that even if we draft we will propbably deprecate in a not too distant future?
-
dwd
Oh, it has implementations. That seemed clear. But no feedback suggests no interest.
-
jonas’
+1 to what daniel says
-
Ge0rG
+1 for extend & remind
-
daniel
i'm not sure that this will motivate people to provide feedback though. but we'll see
-
jonas’
sure
-
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
-
Zash
sounds good
-
dwd
+1 though if you need it for extending.
-
jonas’
We have pending votes on PR#975
-
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/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
-
daniel
yes i'm aware. but still on list
-
jonas’
ok, thanks
-
jonas’
6) Date of Next
-
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
-
Zash
+1w wfm
-
daniel
i probably won’t make it
-
dwd
+1 +1w.
-
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.
-
dwd
Forward planning: I'm off work the following week (ie, two weeks today) so might not be around.
-
daniel
and i'm entering a period with limited availability for ~1 month (I'm moving)
-
Ge0rG
I'm going to be away from computers in the next weeks as well, but can't say for sure when.
-
dwd
Are we all moving, then? I am too, at some point.
-
jonas’
crazy times
-
Ge0rG
I'm not moving but renovating
-
dwd
Close enough.
-
jonas’
that’s like moving but without leaving the place
-
dwd
Zash, you hvae to move house now.
-
jonas’
dwd, no, zash has to do the meetings
-
Zash
All alone? :(
-
Ge0rG
Zash: 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
-
Ge0rG
it 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’
7) AOB
- jonas’ hands the mic to Ge0rG
-
Ge0rG
so I was in a supermarket recently, and they had Halloween ornaments on sale.
-
Ge0rG
And that made me realize that it's time to create CS 2021
-
jonas’
and you’re volunteering for that?
-
Ge0rG
We had repeated discussions of whether the current CS format is good enough or not to achieve our goal.
-
Ge0rG
Yeah, I can do that.
-
daniel
assuming that there wouldn’t be any changes; would we still want to have a new one just to bump the year?
-
dwd
Well. Has any server implementation claimed compliance with 2020?
-
dwd
Or client, indeed.
-
jonas’
I hear that '215 may appear on it
-
Ge0rG
I'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
-
Ge0rG
daniel: if there are no changes, I'd be fine to just change the title to include 2021
-
Ge0rG
jonas’!
-
daniel
improving the format will be a lot of work and a lot of bike shedding
-
dwd
Ge0rG, As I say, I'd like to know whether anyone is "using" the existing one before bothering to do anything.
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: when reading 0411 I realized that Some Editor didn't change the title of 0402 in the xml elements template.
-
Zash
I 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 ✏
-
Ge0rG
Zash: that sounds like a task for a table, not for a XEP
-
Zash
or a survey and a blog post :)
-
Ge0rG
Zash: also CS 2020 lists notable XEPs that are not mandatory.
-
daniel
a biannual gift basket?
-
Ge0rG
Zash: you just volunteered, right?
-
Zash
😶️
-
Ge0rG
dwd: if only we had compliance badges.
-
dwd
Or compliance badgers.
-
Zash
I thought we had one of those
-
jonas’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI badgers!
-
daniel
ok. i think we should update, not change much, but introduce a new section for a/v calls
-
daniel
*new category
-
jonas’
daniel, interesting
-
Zash
Sounds good daniel
-
dwd
They could charge around in the undergrowth at night, savaging non-compliant implementations.
-
Ge0rG
daniel: that's a good suggestion!
-
Ge0rG
can we also vote 0423 forward into Final?
-
daniel
i'd be happy to create that new section
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, can you send me an email to put it on next week’s agenda?
-
daniel
but i'm not super keen on taking bike sheddy-feedback for the rest
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, although, don’t we want to move it to deprecated rather?
-
jonas’
we’re never going to find the two impls for Final
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: we will move it to Deprecated in 2021
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, final is not a prerequisite for deprecated
-
Zash
(and why are CSes not Informational anyways?)
-
jonas’
that sounds as if Ge0rG and daniel will have a fun collaboration on the 2021 ones?
-
jonas’
Zash, because, oddly enough, '0001 explicitly lists CS as Standards Track
-
jonas’
-> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#types-Standards-Track
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: dwd asked for existing implementations of 0423, so I thought proposing it for Final would yield feedback from implementors
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, I see
-
jonas’
we’re running out of time
-
jonas’
you can continue to discuss this here or in xsf@, but I’ll have to step out
-
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
-
Ge0rG
but ye..
-
dwd
Thanks jonas’ (and Tedd)
-
Ge0rG
where's jonas’?
-
jonas’
Thanks everyone, good luck, stay healthy, don’t fall victim to the protocol badgers
-
Zash
Psst, Link Mauve, since you wrote https://modules.prosody.im/mod_bookmarks.html could you answer the LC plz?