XMPP Council - 2021-03-03

1) Roll Call

Hi

Here

dwd?

2) Agenda Bashing

Here too!

awesome

let's see if we can manage to fit everything into half an hour.

Sorry I'm late, it totally wasn't because I was in a secret room having a secret conversation with a cabal.

3) Editor’s Update

Nothing

4) Items for Voting

4a) Update mix namespace for XEP-0406 and XEP-0408 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1041 This is against experimental XEPs, but the editor would like guidance on whether this would require a namespace bump in the respective documents.

do we want to or have to form an opinion on that?

ISTM that it changes the elements allowed/expected in the affected PubSub nodes and I wonder if that needs a bump.

I don't think it does, this looks like an errata correction to me.

in that case I’d still wonder how to deal with NS-bumping '369 in the future then; would that ripple through the entire stack of XEPs?

jonas’: it would need a bump where exactly?

Ge0rG, the @node would need a change I suppose?

How's this been handled with eg Jingle?

ohh no wait

jonas’: so it would be urn:xmpp:mix:nodes:config:1 then?

i think the particular PR is fine

Matrix room versions PITA style?

this is very confusion

i'm not sure if this can be said about all general cases

daniel, I think both is true

(i.e. this one is ok, others may not)

There is also urn:xmpp:mix:admin:0 which is already namespaced.

I’d also note that I don’t think we’re doing ourselves a favour with that namespace versioning on a spec level anyway

plus it's experimental stil so we can do what ever, no?

daniel, yep

or authors can do what ever

not we

The editor was just wondering

Does it make sense to bump all MIX elements in lockstep, or will each element evolutionize on its own?

Ge0rG, that’s the question in the end

I think we’ll have to make judgement calls about that in the future

I think I'll just continue pretending that MIX doesn't exist.

realistically we won’t be able to bump mix once it's implemented/used/draft

just like MUC

:)

yes

MUC doesn't even have a number to bump

what even are version numbers

daniel: does that mean we should remove the fig-leaf number from MIX?

Ge0rG, during "Experimental" (whatever that means aside from XEP status) it’s good to have ✏

Ge0rG, i'm not the author. but i think i agree with jonas’

Alright

thanks

5) Pending Votes

There are none.

6) Date of Next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm2

+1w wfm

+1

+1 wfm

great!

7) AOB

does anyone have anything?

None from me

None here

taking the absence of chat state notifications as a no

thanks

8) Ite Meeting Est

Thanks everyone, thanks Tedd.

Thanks Tedd, thanks jonas’, thanks all.

from the late gallery: the MIX namespace bump proposal in related specs is mostly to avoid confusing implementors as MIX interest has seen an uptick lately

mathieui, yep, understood it as that

I was just wondering how it should happen in non-experimental there :)

yes, makes sense