jonas’I’ll have to make amendments to the Agenda based on Tedds email anyway
jonas’1) Roll Call
jonas’I mean we have quorum, but barely.
jonas’so let’s move into
jonas’2) Agenda Bashing
jonas’I have a few amendments
jonas’thanks to Tedd, because he did what I intended to do but forgot for whatever reason
4d, 4f, need to be discussed separately
4e) canceled, because it’s already decided
jonas’any other notes?
jonas’3) Editor’s Update
- Accepted XEP-0393 (Message Styling) as Draft
- Accepted XEP-0444 (Message Reactions) as Experimental
jonas’4) Items for voting
jonas’4a) Issue LC for XEP-0443: Compliance Suites 2020
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.
jonas’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.
Ge0rGDaniel promised to add A/V but that's not blocking on an LC, and I'd like to hear more voices
dwdHiya, sorry for the lateness.
Zash(CS in Standards Track is weird)
Ge0rGZash: it's probably for historical reasons.
Ge0rGI don't mind though, because that gives us the full Standards process
dwdI'm OK with a Last Call, but I'm a little concerned that without community input this isn't a useful exercise.
Ge0rGand issuing LCs and RFIs is Good, IMHO
jonas’dwd, I think an LC is a good tool to ask the community for explicit input
Ge0rGdwd: isn't the goal of LC to obtain community input?
jonas’dwd, I take that as a +1?
jonas’4b) Request CFE for XEP-0363 or wait for OOB fixes/replacement
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.
dwdAlso yes, a LC is clearly asking community for feedback. But it's a last ditch attempt.
jonas’so what do we want to do with '363 and OOB?
Ge0rGI want to see a XEP defining the intended use of OOB for inline media.
dwdCFE does not require my input beforehand, and I am happy to give that input on list during the CFE.
jonas’dwd, it does not require it, indeed
jonas’yet, there was some controversy and I’d like to avoid unnecessary calls
jonas’so if you’re going to be strongly against '363 moving forward as-is, let’s sort that out early
danielmaybe we ask the editor to start one. and if something else - besides oob integration comes up - we can address that in one go
jonas’if that’s the consensus, also fine by me
jonas’(and it seems to be)
danielGe0rG, I would really like to avoid creating yet another XEP
danieli think we can just fix 66
jonas’let’s move that discussion elsewhere then
dwddaniel, That's entirely possible, as is including it in '363, or whatever else needs doing.
Ge0rGdaniel: "fix" is an euphemism, but you can surely add a section into 0066 outlining the "Use of OOB for Inline Media"
ZashOr say "Use SIMS!"
Zashor fix SIMS, if that's needed
dwddaniel, I'd be fine with a new XEP, personally, but whatever works.
Ge0rGWell, 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.
jonas’ok, let’s put that OOB discussion into AOB
jonas’4c) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0411: Bookmarks Conversion
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
Ge0rGWe can't do much about it right now, except from documenting it.
dwdFWIW, I'm not blocking on '66 for this for certain anyway, I'd like to see what the community says about that.
danielwell since nobody objected to that
danielmy feedback on 411
jonas’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
Ge0rG0411 is part of the current CS, BTW.
ZashTransition mechanisms being short-lived and obsoleted after they've done their job makes sense.
jonas’4c) ... fun
jonas’XEP-0292: vCard4 over XMPP was Last Called during the previous council, and then rejected.
Ge0rGis that a secondary 4c)?
jonas’hence, it is formally in Deferred by now
jonas’the Editor will clean that up and we have nothing to vote on
ZashI have an open PR for that
jonas’pinged the author there, hoping that will move something forward
jonas’4e) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0352: Client State Indication
That was already accepted, hence, nothing to vote on.
jonas’4f) same as 4d really.
dwd(Very low on battery BTW, so may vanish unexpectedly)
jonas’4g) MR#22: XEP-0308: modernize LMC sending rules
Restart vote after change from last week.
jonas’dwd, I’ll prvoide you with a plain-text diff then
Ge0rG+1 on PR#988 after jonas’ does the editorial changes
jonas’I do not intend to do them
jonas’I intend to let pep. do them ;)
Ge0rG+1 on PR#988 after jonas’ approves the editorial changes
jonas’6) Date of Next
dwdWell, I hope the power's back on by then...
jonas’7a) OOB vs. SIMS vs. ???
do we need to discuss this in a Council meeting, or will xsf@ do?
jonas’(quick show of hands if there are other AOBs)
dwdOh, on the list, please!
jonas’or the list, if that’s nicer
jonas’dwd, will you start a thread? :)
jonas’or will you hijack the '363 CFE?
dwdSure, but start the CFE first.
danielI really don’t want http upload to wait on SIMS
jonas’daniel, me neither
jonas’and if I understood dwd correctly earlier, he doesn’t either
danieland i'm reasonably certain that what ever http upload does; does not influence SIMS or vice versa
danielone can obviously use the other
Ge0rGas 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*
dwdI think that's true, but you can't build a file transfer system without '66 or SIMS or something.
danieli'll create a PR for 66
danielafter i'm done with CS21
jonas’I like that order :)
dwdAnd I think that's the experience people have of HTTP upload. But we'll see.
daniel(which i haven’t started 🙁 )
jonas’7b) Elections Season!
The elections are up. At this point, there is just one applicant for Council.
Ge0rGjonas’: is that a bad thing?
dwddaniel, Could you look at '266 and 299 as well and see if they need updating (I suspect so)
jonas’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 :)
Ge0rGwhat's the point of no return for our Council term, i.e. when we must not start any new votes?
jonas’Ge0rG, in the very last session
dwdjonas’, Maybe you could be the sole Board member as well? Basically *be* the XSF?
jonas’since we’re pretty good this term with not letting stuff expire
jonas’dwd, I don’t like board stuff
dwdGe0rG, The problem point is Last Calls, since they restart after a Council election.
jonas’Ge0rG, the elections are formally held on 2020-11-24, hence, our las tsession will be 2020-11-18, if we vote consistently.
Ge0rGjonas’: well, we two voted today on a vote that was going to expire in the next 5 minutes
jonas’Ge0rG, true again
jonas’2020-11-04 it would be then
Ge0rGalso Last Calls.
jonas’oh right, expired votes can still have quorum, by the way
Ge0rGjonas’: yes, but only after they expire.
jonas’so if the council term ends and 3/5 voted, that’s good enough I think
jonas’but let’s not let it get to that
jonas’so 2020-11-04 is the last session for a full 2w vote, today (next week if we bend the rules slightly) is the last session for an LC with a full 2w vote afterwards
jonas’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
Ge0rGso maybe we shouldn't start any more LCs next week either.
jonas’Ge0rG, that’d be nice
jonas’alright, any other AOB or more comments on this AOB item?
Ge0rGand just give the list of nice-to-LC XEPs to Next Council
jonas’although we churned through those pretty well
jonas’there are just two left
jonas’313 and 390
jonas’8) Ite Meeting Est
Ge0rGWell, 313 is probably rather contested, and I'm not sure who has 390 implemented
jonas’Ge0rG, MattJ asked us to wait for 313 to have his patches applied, and then we forgot about LCing it :/
danielGe0rG, Babbler fwiw
jonas’thanks Tedd, thanks everyone
Ge0rGI need to re-read 0390 and check whether it has sufficient provisions for server-side conversion and caching
Ge0rGSurprisingly, disco#info requests are the #1 reason for mobile device wakeup.
Ge0rG(also the most unneeded reason)
danielthat would be nice to have
Ge0rGdaniel: 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
Ge0rGcan we have something in CS that's not an XEP?
Ge0rGCan somebody who remembers all the security issues of caps write such an XEP?
ZashDoes this require a XEP?
Ge0rGZash: see question 1
Ge0rGbut it'd be appropriate for Informational
Ge0rGbecause how else am I supposed to reference it from CS'21?
pep.jonas’: thanks, I've read the feedback. will try to do that at some point this week