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
jonas’
just as a heads up
Ge0rG
Oh it's *that* late already?!
jonas’
close
Ge0rGrushed to update the MR
Zash
[-- PGP output follows (current time: 2020-10-14T16:50:11 CEST) --]
gpg: verify signatures failed: Unknown system error
[-- End of PGP output --]
jonas’
uh-oh?
Zash
Thanks gpg, not like I wanted to review the agenda or anything important.
jonas’
Zash, https://paste.debian.net/hidden/d557d9e6/
Zash
This with the follow-up patch?
jonas’
no
jonas’
I just copypastad from the mail
Zash
I opened another email client, so I'm good :)
jonas’
I’ll have to make amendments to the Agenda based on Tedds email anyway
jonas’
1) Roll Call
Ge0rG
It's Time!
Ge0rG
ah, perfect!
Zash
Here
jonas’
daniel?
jonas’
dwd?
jonas’
I mean we have quorum, but barely.
jonas’
so let’s move into
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
jonas’
I have a few amendments
daniel
I'm here
jonas’
thanks to Tedd, because he did what I intended to do but forgot for whatever reason
jonas’
4c) unchanged
4d, 4f, need to be discussed separately
4e) canceled, because it’s already decided
jonas’
any other notes?
jonas’
Hi daniel
jonas’
assuming no
jonas’
3) Editor’s Update
- Accepted XEP-0393 (Message Styling) as Draft
- Accepted XEP-0444 (Message Reactions) as Experimental
jonas’
4) Items for voting
dwdhas joined
jonas’
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.
Ge0rG
+1
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.
Ge0rG
Daniel promised to add A/V but that's not blocking on an LC, and I'd like to hear more voices
dwd
Hiya, sorry for the lateness.
Zash
(CS in Standards Track is weird)
Zash
+1
daniel
+1
Ge0rG
Zash: it's probably for historical reasons.
Ge0rG
I don't mind though, because that gives us the full Standards process
dwd
I'm OK with a Last Call, but I'm a little concerned that without community input this isn't a useful exercise.
Ge0rG
and issuing LCs and RFIs is Good, IMHO
jonas’
dwd, I think an LC is a good tool to ask the community for explicit input
Ge0rG
dwd: isn't the goal of LC to obtain community input?
jonas’
dwd, I take that as a +1?
dwd
Yes, +1.
jonas’
perfect
jonas’
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.
dwd
Also 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?
Ge0rG
I want to see a XEP defining the intended use of OOB for inline media.
dwd
CFE 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
daniel
maybe 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)
daniel
Ge0rG, I would really like to avoid creating yet another XEP
daniel
i think we can just fix 66
daniel
fix/'clarify'
jonas’
let’s move that discussion elsewhere then
dwd
daniel, That's entirely possible, as is including it in '363, or whatever else needs doing.
Ge0rG
daniel: "fix" is an euphemism, but you can surely add a section into 0066 outlining the "Use of OOB for Inline Media"
Zash
Or say "Use SIMS!"
Zash
or fix SIMS, if that's needed
dwd
daniel, I'd be fine with a new XEP, personally, but whatever works.
Ge0rG
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.
jonas’
ok, let’s put that OOB discussion into AOB
jonas’
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
Ge0rG
We can't do much about it right now, except from documenting it.
dwd
FWIW, I'm not blocking on '66 for this for certain anyway, I'd like to see what the community says about that.
daniel
well since nobody objected to that
daniel
my 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
Zash
+1
Ge0rG
0411 is part of the current CS, BTW.
Ge0rG
+1
dwd
+1
daniel
+1
jonas’
swift, thanks
Zash
Transition 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.
Ge0rG
is that a secondary 4c)?
jonas’
s/4c/4d/
jonas’
s/rejected/not advanced/
jonas’
hence, it is formally in Deferred by now
jonas’
the Editor will clean that up and we have nothing to vote on
Zash
I have an open PR for that
jonas’
yeah
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.
Zash
.
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
URL: https://gitlab.com/xsf/xeps/-/merge_requests/22
Restart vote after change from last week.
jonas’
dwd, I’ll prvoide you with a plain-text diff then
jonas’
(to save some battery)
Ge0rG
I've done some more changes.
jonas’
dwd, https://paste.debian.net/hidden/6d4c9b52/
jonas’
this is probably unreadable
jonas’
maybe that works better: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/6d4c9b52
daniel
+1 I guess
dwd
+1 on this, it looks clearer.
jonas’
+1
Ge0rG
+1, of course
Zash
+1
dwd
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.
jonas’
excellent
jonas’
5) Pending Votes
Zash
UX suggestions aren't normative, eh? :)
jonas’
+1 on the integer-as-max PR#988, but it needs editorial changes
+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’
:)
jonas’
excellent
jonas’
6) Date of Next
jonas’
+1w wfm
Ge0rG
+1w lgtm
daniel
+1w wfm
Zash
+1w wfm
dwd
Well, I hope the power's back on by then...
jonas’
good luck!
jonas’
7) AOB
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)
dwd
Oh, 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?
dwd
Sure, but start the CFE first.
daniel
I really don’t want http upload to wait on SIMS
jonas’
cool
jonas’
daniel, me neither
jonas’
and if I understood dwd correctly earlier, he doesn’t either
daniel
and i'm reasonably certain that what ever http upload does; does not influence SIMS or vice versa
jonas’
I agree
daniel
one can obviously use the other
Ge0rG
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*
dwd
I think that's true, but you can't build a file transfer system without '66 or SIMS or something.
daniel
i'll create a PR for 66
daniel
after i'm done with CS21
jonas’
I like that order :)
dwd
And 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.
Ge0rG
jonas’: is that a bad thing?
dwd
daniel, 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 :)
Ge0rG
what'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
dwd
jonas’, 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
dwd
Ge0rG, 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.
Ge0rG
jonas’: 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
Ge0rG
also Last Calls.
jonas’
oh right, expired votes can still have quorum, by the way
Ge0rG
jonas’: 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
Ge0rG
jonas’: yes
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 ✏
Ge0rG
so 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?
Ge0rG
and just give the list of nice-to-LC XEPs to Next Council
jonas’
yep
jonas’
although we churned through those pretty well
jonas’
there are just two left
jonas’
313 and 390
Lancehas left
Lancehas joined
jonas’
alright
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
Ge0rG
Well, 313 is probably rather contested, and I'm not sure who has 390 implemented
Ge0rG
Thanks, jonas’
jonas’
Ge0rG, MattJ asked us to wait for 313 to have his patches applied, and then we forgot about LCing it :/
daniel
Ge0rG, Babbler fwiw
jonas’
thanks Tedd, thanks everyone
daniel
thanks everyone
Ge0rG
I need to re-read 0390 and check whether it has sufficient provisions for server-side conversion and caching
Ge0rG
Surprisingly, disco#info requests are the #1 reason for mobile device wakeup.
Ge0rG
(also the most unneeded reason)
Wojtekhas joined
daniel
that would be nice to have
Ge0rG
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
Ge0rG
can we have something in CS that's not an XEP?
Ge0rG
Can somebody who remembers all the security issues of caps write such an XEP?
Zash
Does this require a XEP?
Ge0rG
Zash: see question 1
Ge0rG
but it'd be appropriate for Informational
Zash
Sounds good
Ge0rG
because how else am I supposed to reference it from CS'21?
Zash
:)
pep.
jonas’: thanks, I've read the feedback. will try to do that at some point this week