XMPP Council - 2020-08-26

  1. jonas’

    so this is taking about 100% longer than I anticipated already and I am not sure I'll make todays meeting

  2. jonas’

    I'll probably be in right on time

  3. Ge0rG

    It's time! :)

  4. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  5. daniel


  6. jonas’


  7. Zash


  8. dwd


  9. jonas’

    excellent, full house

  10. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  11. jonas’

    any modifications?

  12. Zash

    None here

  13. Ge0rG

    I've got an AOB, and it's called Compliance Suite 2021

  14. jonas’

    oh my god

  15. jonas’

    let’s move on

  16. 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.)

  17. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  18. 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.

  19. jonas’

    I think the feedback on list was mostly positive.

  20. Ge0rG

    There was also rather little feedback.

  21. Zash

    Yeah, a bit thin

  22. jonas’

    four different implementations

  23. jonas’

    I assume that daniel is happy with it because he proposed it for LCing.

  24. Ge0rG

    I'd still like to see the tribal knowledge codified, but not at the expense of delaying this XEP.

  25. jonas’

    (dangerous assumption I know)

  26. jonas’

    I agree with Zash that the tribal knowledge should go in an informational document instead of a standards track document

  27. daniel

    I did?

  28. daniel

    But yes I am

  29. jonas’

    (very dangerous assumption apparently)

  30. jonas’

    daniel, you or someone claiming to be you: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-January/036914.html ;-)

  31. jonas’

    either way, I’m +1 on advancing

  32. Zash


  33. MattJ

    Author in favour of tribal knowledge going into a different document

  34. 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.

  35. Ge0rG

    Council in favor of Author creating that document

  36. MattJ

    No thanks

  37. dwd

    I felt that XEP-352 got "enough" feedback, myself. So +1 for advancing.

  38. daniel

    +1 for advancing

  39. jonas’

    Ge0rG, no clear +1 from you yet, intentionally?

  40. Ge0rG

    oh sorry

  41. Ge0rG


  42. jonas’


  43. 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.

  44. Ge0rG

    I actually intended to write +1 above, but then changed the wording to not contain the magic symbols

  45. daniel

    i think i'd rather just deprecate that one

  46. Zash


  47. daniel

    or ignore it for a while

  48. jonas’

    daniel, elaborate?

  49. Zash

    Since it's set to be replaced by Bookmarks 2?

  50. Ge0rG

    probably because of 0402

  51. daniel

    bookmarks 2 replace the conversion mechanism

  52. daniel

    / has one too

  53. jonas’


  54. Zash

    It is a thing that exists in the wild tho

  55. jonas’

    I was under the impression that this was Private XML / PEP Bookmarks 1 <-> Bookmarks 2

  56. daniel

    i'm not entirely sure I want to "send a message" by deprecating it

  57. Ge0rG

    bookmarks 2 covers the bookmarks 2 conversion, optionally.

  58. jonas’

    if it is a thing which exists, we can pull it to Draft and soon after Deprecate it in favour of 402?

  59. daniel

    but i'm also not keen on "sending a message" by advancing it

  60. dwd

    So, XEP-0411 got no feedback at all?

  61. Zash

    dwd, correct

  62. jonas’

    no feedback at all

  63. daniel

    i mean it kinda does it's job in the wild right now

  64. Zash

    "no news is good news" ? :)

  65. daniel

    but as far as standards are concerned i don’t think it has a future

  66. 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?

  67. dwd

    It's an interim standard at best, isn't it?

  68. 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?

  69. Zash


  70. jonas’

    I get the impression that (parts of) the community haven’t been happy with council perceivedly unanimously sending messages

  71. 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

  72. Zash

    Communication is hard

  73. daniel

    that's probably because our intent isn’t to send messages

  74. jonas’

    right, we’re not here for any kind of message transportation

  75. Zash

    So, should we extend the LC and poke implementations more?

  76. dwd

    Zash, That would work for me.

  77. jonas’

    obvious reminder that implementations are not necessary for LCs ;)

  78. jonas’

    so, what do you folks want?

  79. jonas’

    extend the LC?

  80. daniel

    extend and remind people that even if we draft we will propbably deprecate in a not too distant future?

  81. dwd

    Oh, it has implementations. That seemed clear. But no feedback suggests no interest.

  82. jonas’

    +1 to what daniel says

  83. Ge0rG

    +1 for extend & remind

  84. daniel

    i'm not sure that this will motivate people to provide feedback though. but we'll see

  85. jonas’


  86. jonas’

    let’s do that then, the editors can do that "in consultation with the approving body", I don’t think we need votes

  87. jonas’

    5) Pending Votes

  88. Zash

    sounds good

  89. dwd

    +1 though if you need it for extending.

  90. jonas’

    We have pending votes on PR#975

  91. jonas’


  92. jonas’

    by daniel only, actually

  93. 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

  94. daniel

    yes i'm aware. but still on list

  95. jonas’

    ok, thanks

  96. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  97. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  98. Zash

    +1w wfm

  99. daniel

    i probably won’t make it

  100. dwd

    +1 +1w.

  101. jonas’

    +1w wfm, with a hard cutoff

  102. jonas’

    ok, then I’d like to also quickly discuss who’ll fill in for me on the 9th and 16th of september

  103. 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.

  104. dwd

    Forward planning: I'm off work the following week (ie, two weeks today) so might not be around.

  105. daniel

    and i'm entering a period with limited availability for ~1 month (I'm moving)

  106. Ge0rG

    I'm going to be away from computers in the next weeks as well, but can't say for sure when.

  107. dwd

    Are we all moving, then? I am too, at some point.

  108. jonas’

    crazy times

  109. Ge0rG

    I'm not moving but renovating

  110. dwd

    Close enough.

  111. jonas’

    that’s like moving but without leaving the place

  112. dwd

    Zash, you hvae to move house now.

  113. jonas’

    dwd, no, zash has to do the meetings

  114. Zash

    All alone? :(

  115. Ge0rG

    Zash: maybe you can get some voices from the floor

  116. jonas’

    we could also agree to skip 9th/16th

  117. jonas’

    though I’m not quite comfortable with skipping two weeks in a row

  118. Ge0rG

    it might be 23rd and 30th for me.

  119. jonas’

    I *could*, but cannot promise, maybe make an agenda on the 14th for the 16th with stuff which has aggregated in the meantime

  120. 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

  121. jonas’

    7) AOB

  122. jonas’ hands the mic to Ge0rG

  123. Ge0rG

    so I was in a supermarket recently, and they had Halloween ornaments on sale.

  124. Ge0rG

    And that made me realize that it's time to create CS 2021

  125. jonas’

    and you’re volunteering for that?

  126. Ge0rG

    We had repeated discussions of whether the current CS format is good enough or not to achieve our goal.

  127. Ge0rG

    Yeah, I can do that.

  128. daniel

    assuming that there wouldn’t be any changes; would we still want to have a new one just to bump the year?

  129. dwd

    Well. Has any server implementation claimed compliance with 2020?

  130. dwd

    Or client, indeed.

  131. jonas’

    I hear that '215 may appear on it

  132. 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.

  133. jonas’

    delegate to compliance.conversations.im? :-X

  134. Ge0rG

    daniel: if there are no changes, I'd be fine to just change the title to include 2021

  135. Ge0rG


  136. daniel

    improving the format will be a lot of work and a lot of bike shedding

  137. dwd

    Ge0rG, As I say, I'd like to know whether anyone is "using" the existing one before bothering to do anything.

  138. Ge0rG

    jonas’: when reading 0411 I realized that Some Editor didn't change the title of 0402 in the xml elements template.

  139. 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"

  140. jonas’

    Ge0rG, ha! it’s a easter egg! I’ll update that

  141. jonas’

    Ge0rG, ha! it’s a easter egg! I’ll update that, thanks

  142. Ge0rG

    Zash: that sounds like a task for a table, not for a XEP

  143. Zash

    or a survey and a blog post :)

  144. Ge0rG

    Zash: also CS 2020 lists notable XEPs that are not mandatory.

  145. daniel

    a biannual gift basket?

  146. Ge0rG

    Zash: you just volunteered, right?

  147. Zash


  148. Ge0rG

    dwd: if only we had compliance badges.

  149. dwd

    Or compliance badgers.

  150. Zash

    I thought we had one of those

  151. jonas’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI badgers!

  152. daniel

    ok. i think we should update, not change much, but introduce a new section for a/v calls

  153. daniel

    *new category

  154. jonas’

    daniel, interesting

  155. Zash

    Sounds good daniel

  156. dwd

    They could charge around in the undergrowth at night, savaging non-compliant implementations.

  157. Ge0rG

    daniel: that's a good suggestion!

  158. Ge0rG

    can we also vote 0423 forward into Final?

  159. daniel

    i'd be happy to create that new section

  160. jonas’

    Ge0rG, can you send me an email to put it on next week’s agenda?

  161. daniel

    but i'm not super keen on taking bike sheddy-feedback for the rest

  162. jonas’

    Ge0rG, although, don’t we want to move it to deprecated rather?

  163. jonas’

    we’re never going to find the two impls for Final

  164. Ge0rG

    jonas’: we will move it to Deprecated in 2021

  165. jonas’

    Ge0rG, final is not a prerequisite for deprecated

  166. Zash

    (and why are CSes not Informational anyways?)

  167. jonas’

    that sounds as if Ge0rG and daniel will have a fun collaboration on the 2021 ones?

  168. jonas’

    Zash, because, oddly enough, '0001 explicitly lists CS as Standards Track

  169. jonas’

    -> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#types-Standards-Track

  170. Ge0rG

    jonas’: dwd asked for existing implementations of 0423, so I thought proposing it for Final would yield feedback from implementors

  171. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I see

  172. jonas’

    we’re running out of time

  173. jonas’

    you can continue to discuss this here or in xsf@, but I’ll have to step out

  174. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  175. Ge0rG

    but ye..

  176. dwd

    Thanks jonas’ (and Tedd)

  177. Ge0rG

    where's jonas’?

  178. jonas’

    Thanks everyone, good luck, stay healthy, don’t fall victim to the protocol badgers

  179. Zash

    Psst, Link Mauve, since you wrote https://modules.prosody.im/mod_bookmarks.html could you answer the LC plz?