XMPP Council - 2020-10-21

  1. Ge0rG

    I'm still sitting in a conference call and can't promise my attention

  2. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  3. Zash


  4. dwd


  5. dwd

    (Just in time!)

  6. jonas’

    do we get a daniel?

  7. daniel


  8. jonas’


  9. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  10. jonas’


  11. jonas’

    taking that as a no.

  12. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update - Accepted XEP-0352 (Client State Indication) as Draft - Accepted XEP-0411 (Bookmarks Conversion) as Draft

  13. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  14. jonas’

    4a) MR!22: add composer, date, genre, language, lyricist, and performer tags; make rating optional URL: https://gitlab.com/xsf/xeps/-/merge_requests/25/diffs Abstract: It seems, that "XEP-0118: User Tune" has been written mainly with pop music in mind, or maybe progressive rock. To make it more interesting for use with classical music or jazz, or audio books, some tags should be added, at least composer, date, genre, language, lyricist, and performer.

  15. Zash

    Hm, Draft

  16. jonas’


  17. Zash

    and non-versioned namespace

  18. jonas’


  19. jonas’

    not sure what to do with this

  20. jonas’

    would it make sense to put the new stuff in a separate namespace but under the same child?

  21. dwd

    My gut feeling on this is that the better solution might be to create an entirely new User Tune kind of thing. I'm guessing that there's probably a lot more other/prior art here now, thanks to the likes of Spotify etc.

  22. daniel

    probably what dwd said

  23. daniel

    i don’t really have an opinion on that tbh

  24. dwd

    At least better to explore that avenue first.

  25. daniel

    do people actually use that?

  26. jonas’

    from a practical perspective, I think no harm is done by adding elements scoped into a different namespace under the same child

  27. jonas’

    from a practical perspective, I think no harm is done by adding elements scoped into a different namespace under the same <tune/>

  28. dwd

    daniel, Yes, though Edwin Mons has been listening to the same music for possibly decades now.

  29. jonas’

    it’s obviously a 90% solution only, however, I doubt that we can get a 100% solution

  30. Zash

    There's probably not much harm in accepting this either, unless someone has a strict schema validator.

  31. Kev

    dwd: That sounds likely, TBH.

  32. dwd

    Kev, I admit the "progressive rock" reference in the PR did make me think of him...

  33. Zash

    Version 1.2 (2008-01-30) > Added rating element.

  34. Zash


  35. jonas’

    I’ll be bold and vote +1 on this.

  36. jonas’

    Zash, nice find!

  37. Zash

    Myeah, +1

  38. dwd

    I think I'm -0.

  39. jonas’

    any other votes?

  40. Kev

    What is the harm in namespacing it, vs the known harm of not doing so?

  41. Zash

    If someone does find a Right Proper standard for audio metadata that we could point to, that'd be cool as a User Tune 2

  42. Ge0rG

    I'm on-list

  43. Zash

    Kev, complicates implementations

  44. jonas’

    Kev, round trip with the MR author causing friction vs. potential strict schema validators breaking

  45. daniel

    if I vote -0 it takes a +1 from Ge0rG for it to go through right?

  46. jonas’

    daniel, true

  47. daniel

    -0 then

  48. jonas’


  49. jonas’


  50. jonas’

    moving on

  51. Kev

    jonas’: I note that those *are* a thing. People do deploy checkers to ensure content conforms to specs.

  52. dwd

    daniel, Ge0rG can take the pressure.

  53. jonas’

    4b) Propose Martin Dosch as Editor

  54. jonas’


  55. Ge0rG


  56. daniel


  57. Zash


  58. dwd

    I have had, I think, little contact with him, but anyone willing to put in the work sounds like a good idea, so +1.

  59. jonas’

    (formerly known as !XSF_Martin in xsf@)

  60. jonas’

    (nowadays knows as mdosch)

  61. dwd


  62. Kev

    (I feel this falls far short of "backwards-incompatible modifications shall be avoided if at all possible" FWIW, but will drop it now)

  63. jonas’

    (nowadays known as mdosch)

  64. jonas’

    Kev, you’re right

  65. jonas’

    5) Date of Next

  66. Zash


  67. jonas’

    (logs into calendar thing to find out)

  68. Zash looks at `ncal -b -3`

  69. daniel

    +1w wfm

  70. jonas’

    +1w should wfm, but it’s RIPE GM in that week, so I may not be able to chair

  71. Zash

    +1w wfm

  72. jonas’

    hoping that we’ll get quorum next week then

  73. jonas’

    6) AOB

  74. Zash

    None here

  75. jonas’

    ok, I’ll go ahead then: Elections are coming up

  76. jonas’

    put up your application if you want to (deadline is 2020-11-08) and/or encourage folks from the community of whom you’d think they’d be good in this role

  77. jonas’

    that’s it

  78. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  79. jonas’

    thanks everyone

  80. jonas’

    thanks Tedd

  81. Zash


  82. jonas’

    dwd, reminder that you wanted to start a thread on OOB vs. SIMS vs. ??? in the context of the CFE for http upload

  83. Zash

    Hmmmmmm, will I have more spare cycles next year?

  84. jonas’

    if 2020 taught us anything, it’s how unpredictable the world is *shrug*

  85. dwd

    Yes, I will.

  86. dwd

    In fact I've got the CFE up to reply to already. Just haven't written the email, but I will do now.

  87. jonas’

    neat :)

  88. Zash

    > Any changes to a Draft XEP that could reasonably be construed as material must be *provisionally published, announced and discussed on the Standards mailing list*, and formally approved by the XMPP Council

  89. dwd

    Zash, Process Smash!

  90. dwd

    Zash, Although I'm a lot more comfortable when changes are thoroughly discussed within the community.

  91. Zash

    Relevant discussion: https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2020-09-12?p=h#2020-09-12-7b989cb42bd803af