XMPP Council - 2020-10-14

I have people here who are in the final steps of assembling a kitchen. it is possible, and likely as per Murphy, that I need to pay them right when the council meeting has just started

just as a heads up

Oh it's *that* late already?!

close

[-- PGP output follows (current time: 2020-10-14T16:50:11 CEST) --] gpg: verify signatures failed: Unknown system error [-- End of PGP output --]

uh-oh?

Thanks gpg, not like I wanted to review the agenda or anything important.

Zash, https://paste.debian.net/hidden/d557d9e6/

This with the follow-up patch?

no

I just copypastad from the mail

I opened another email client, so I'm good :)

I’ll have to make amendments to the Agenda based on Tedds email anyway

1) Roll Call

It's Time!

ah, perfect!

Here

daniel?

dwd?

I mean we have quorum, but barely.

so let’s move into

2) Agenda Bashing

I have a few amendments

I'm here

thanks to Tedd, because he did what I intended to do but forgot for whatever reason

4c) unchanged 4d, 4f, need to be discussed separately 4e) canceled, because it’s already decided

any other notes?

Hi daniel

assuming no

3) Editor’s Update - Accepted XEP-0393 (Message Styling) as Draft - Accepted XEP-0444 (Message Reactions) as Experimental

4) Items for voting

4a) Issue LC for XEP-0443: Compliance Suites 2020 URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0443.html Abstract: This document defines XMPP application categories for different use cases (Core, Web, IM, and Mobile), and specifies the required XEPs that client and server software needs to implement for compliance with the use cases.

+1

I am +1 on this; even if the LC won’t come to a good conclusion until this council term ends, it gives the authors valuable feedback to patch things up so that next council can advance it quickly.

Daniel promised to add A/V but that's not blocking on an LC, and I'd like to hear more voices

Hiya, sorry for the lateness.

(CS in Standards Track is weird)

+1

+1

Zash: it's probably for historical reasons.

I don't mind though, because that gives us the full Standards process

I'm OK with a Last Call, but I'm a little concerned that without community input this isn't a useful exercise.

and issuing LCs and RFIs is Good, IMHO

dwd, I think an LC is a good tool to ask the community for explicit input

dwd: isn't the goal of LC to obtain community input?

dwd, I take that as a +1?

Yes, +1.

perfect

4b) Request CFE for XEP-0363 or wait for OOB fixes/replacement URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0363.html Abstract: Do we want it? Normally, CFE does not need to be authorized by Council, however, some would like to discuss the OOB integration first.

Also yes, a LC is clearly asking community for feedback. But it's a last ditch attempt.

so what do we want to do with '363 and OOB?

I want to see a XEP defining the intended use of OOB for inline media.

CFE does not require my input beforehand, and I am happy to give that input on list during the CFE.

dwd, it does not require it, indeed

yet, there was some controversy and I’d like to avoid unnecessary calls

so if you’re going to be strongly against '363 moving forward as-is, let’s sort that out early

maybe we ask the editor to start one. and if something else - besides oob integration comes up - we can address that in one go

if that’s the consensus, also fine by me

(and it seems to be)

Ge0rG, I would really like to avoid creating yet another XEP

i think we can just fix 66

fix/'clarify'

let’s move that discussion elsewhere then

daniel, That's entirely possible, as is including it in '363, or whatever else needs doing.

daniel: "fix" is an euphemism, but you can surely add a section into 0066 outlining the "Use of OOB for Inline Media"

Or say "Use SIMS!"

or fix SIMS, if that's needed

daniel, I'd be fine with a new XEP, personally, but whatever works.

Well, it was clear from the start that SIMS is the right vehicle for this, but that didn't stop implementors from going on with OOB.

ok, let’s put that OOB discussion into AOB

4c) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0411: Bookmarks Conversion URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0411.html Abstract: This specification describes a method to migrate to PEP based bookmarks without loosing compatibility with client that still use Private XML. Feedback = Daniel (author) https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-September/037781.html

We can't do much about it right now, except from documenting it.

FWIW, I'm not blocking on '66 for this for certain anyway, I'd like to see what the community says about that.

well since nobody objected to that

my feedback on 411

I am +1 on advancing; we should definitely deprecate it in the not-too-distant future, but on it’s own it’s good as is, I think

+1

0411 is part of the current CS, BTW.

+1

+1

+1

swift, thanks

Transition mechanisms being short-lived and obsoleted after they've done their job makes sense.

4c) ... fun

XEP-0292: vCard4 over XMPP was Last Called during the previous council, and then rejected.

is that a secondary 4c)?

s/4c/4d/

s/rejected/not advanced/

hence, it is formally in Deferred by now

the Editor will clean that up and we have nothing to vote on

I have an open PR for that

yeah

pinged the author there, hoping that will move something forward

4e) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0352: Client State Indication That was already accepted, hence, nothing to vote on.

.

4f) same as 4d really.

(Very low on battery BTW, so may vanish unexpectedly)

4g) MR#22: XEP-0308: modernize LMC sending rules URL: https://gitlab.com/xsf/xeps/-/merge_requests/22 Restart vote after change from last week.

dwd, I’ll prvoide you with a plain-text diff then

(to save some battery)

I've done some more changes.

dwd, https://paste.debian.net/hidden/6d4c9b52/

this is probably unreadable

maybe that works better: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/6d4c9b52

+1 I guess

+1 on this, it looks clearer.

+1

+1, of course

+1

And matches reality. Though I'm a bit "meh" on the warning, which feels like sucky UX, but I'm very low F-number on that.

excellent

5) Pending Votes

UX suggestions aren't normative, eh? :)

+1 on the integer-as-max PR#988, but it needs editorial changes

see: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/988#issuecomment-707850648

+1 on PR#988 after jonas’ does the editorial changes

I do not intend to do them

I intend to let pep. do them ;)

+1 on PR#988 after jonas’ approves the editorial changes

:)

excellent

6) Date of Next

+1w wfm

+1w lgtm

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

Well, I hope the power's back on by then...

good luck!

7) AOB

7a) OOB vs. SIMS vs. ??? do we need to discuss this in a Council meeting, or will xsf@ do?

(quick show of hands if there are other AOBs)

Oh, on the list, please!

or the list, if that’s nicer

dwd, will you start a thread? :)

or will you hijack the '363 CFE?

Sure, but start the CFE first.

I really don’t want http upload to wait on SIMS

cool

daniel, me neither

and if I understood dwd correctly earlier, he doesn’t either

and i'm reasonably certain that what ever http upload does; does not influence SIMS or vice versa

I agree

one can obviously use the other

as I said, I don't mind if this is put into its own XEP, into 66 or into 0363, as long as it is documented *somewhere*

I think that's true, but you can't build a file transfer system without '66 or SIMS or something.

i'll create a PR for 66

after i'm done with CS21

I like that order :)

And I think that's the experience people have of HTTP upload. But we'll see.

(which i haven’t started 🙁 )

7b) Elections Season! The elections are up. At this point, there is just one applicant for Council.

jonas’: is that a bad thing?

daniel, Could you look at '266 and 299 as well and see if they need updating (I suspect so)

I think it’d be nice if I weren’t completely alone on the next council, so encourage some people to run or apply for yourself :)

what's the point of no return for our Council term, i.e. when we must not start any new votes?

Ge0rG, in the very last session

jonas’, Maybe you could be the sole Board member as well? Basically *be* the XSF?

since we’re pretty good this term with not letting stuff expire

dwd, I don’t like board stuff

Ge0rG, The problem point is Last Calls, since they restart after a Council election.

Ge0rG, the elections are formally held on 2020-11-24, hence, our las tsession will be 2020-11-18, if we vote consistently.

jonas’: well, we two voted today on a vote that was going to expire in the next 5 minutes

Ge0rG, true again

2020-11-04 it would be then

also Last Calls.

oh right, expired votes can still have quorum, by the way

jonas’: yes, but only after they expire.

so if the council term ends and 3/5 voted, that’s good enough I think

but let’s not let it get to that

jonas’: yes

so 2020-11-04 is the last session for a full 2w vote, today (next week if we bend the rules slightly and get full editor cooperation) is the last session for an LC with a full 2w vote afterwards ✏

so maybe we shouldn't start any more LCs next week either.

Ge0rG, that’d be nice

alright, any other AOB or more comments on this AOB item?

and just give the list of nice-to-LC XEPs to Next Council

yep

although we churned through those pretty well

there are just two left

313 and 390

alright

8) Ite Meeting Est

Well, 313 is probably rather contested, and I'm not sure who has 390 implemented

Thanks, jonas’

Ge0rG, MattJ asked us to wait for 313 to have his patches applied, and then we forgot about LCing it :/

Ge0rG, Babbler fwiw

thanks Tedd, thanks everyone

thanks everyone

I need to re-read 0390 and check whether it has sufficient provisions for server-side conversion and caching

Surprisingly, disco#info requests are the #1 reason for mobile device wakeup.

(also the most unneeded reason)

that would be nice to have

daniel: there is no XEP for server-side disco#info caching, but there is https://modules.prosody.im/mod_auto_answer_disco_info.html and it would be really great to have something like that in CS'21

can we have something in CS that's not an XEP?

Can somebody who remembers all the security issues of caps write such an XEP?

Does this require a XEP?

Zash: see question 1

but it'd be appropriate for Informational

Sounds good

because how else am I supposed to reference it from CS'21?

:)

jonas’: thanks, I've read the feedback. will try to do that at some point this week

.