so this is taking about 100% longer than I anticipated already and I am not sure I'll make todays meeting
stpeterhas left
bearhas left
sonnyhas joined
jonas’
I'll probably be in right on time
danielhas left
sonnyhas left
danielhas joined
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
bearhas joined
Wojtekhas joined
Ge0rG
It's time! :)
sonnyhas joined
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 ✏
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
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?
sonnyhas left
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
sonnyhas joined
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"