Ge0rGlet's see if we can manage to fit everything into half an hour.
dwdSorry I'm late, it totally wasn't because I was in a secret room having a secret conversation with a cabal.
jonas’3) Editor’s Update
jonas’4) Items for Voting
jonas’4a) Update mix namespace for XEP-0406 and XEP-0408
This is against experimental XEPs, but the editor would like guidance on
whether this would require a namespace bump in the respective documents.
jonas’do we want to or have to form an opinion on that?
jonas’ISTM that it changes the elements allowed/expected in the affected PubSub nodes and I wonder if that needs a bump.
dwdI don't think it does, this looks like an errata correction to me.
jonas’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?
Ge0rGjonas’: it would need a bump where exactly?
jonas’Ge0rG, the @node would need a change I suppose?
ZashHow's this been handled with eg Jingle?
jonas’ohh no wait
Ge0rGjonas’: so it would be urn:xmpp:mix:nodes:config:1 then?
danieli think the particular PR is fine
Ge0rGMatrix room versions PITA style?
jonas’this is very confusion
danieli'm not sure if this can be said about all general cases
jonas’daniel, I think both is true
jonas’(i.e. this one is ok, others may not)
Ge0rGThere is also urn:xmpp:mix:admin:0 which is already namespaced.
jonas’I’d also note that I don’t think we’re doing ourselves a favour with that namespace versioning on a spec level anyway
danielplus it's experimental stil so we can do what ever, no?
danielor authors can do what ever
jonas’The editor was just wondering
Ge0rGDoes it make sense to bump all MIX elements in lockstep, or will each element evolutionize on its own?
jonas’Ge0rG, that’s the question in the end
jonas’I think we’ll have to make judgement calls about that in the future
Ge0rGI think I'll just continue pretending that MIX doesn't exist.
danielrealistically we won’t be able to bump mix once it's implemented/used/draft
jonas’just like MUC
Ge0rGMUC doesn't even have a number to bump
jonas’what even are version numbers
Ge0rGdaniel: does that mean we should remove the fig-leaf number from MIX?
jonas’Ge0rG, during "Experimental" (whatever that means aside from XEP status) it’s ok✎
jonas’Ge0rG, during "Experimental" (whatever that means aside from XEP status) it’s good to have ✏
danielGe0rG, i'm not the author. but i think i agree with jonas’
jonas’5) Pending Votes
jonas’There are none.
jonas’6) Date of Next
jonas’does anyone have anything?
dwdNone from me
jonas’taking the absence of chat state notifications as a no
jonas’8) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’Thanks everyone, thanks Tedd.
ZashThanks Tedd, thanks jonas’, thanks all.
mathieuifrom 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
jonas’mathieui, yep, understood it as that
jonas’I was just wondering how it should happen in non-experimental there :)