XMPP Council - 2021-03-03

  1. David has left
  2. David has joined
  3. paul has left
  4. stpeter has left
  5. Lance has left
  6. B has left
  7. SouL has left
  8. B has joined
  9. larma has left
  10. larma has joined
  11. SouL has joined
  12. Tobias has joined
  13. paul has joined
  14. kusoneko has left
  15. B has left
  16. Guus has joined
  17. B has joined
  18. Guus has left
  19. debacle has joined
  20. debacle has left
  21. debacle has joined
  22. marc0s has left
  23. marc0s has joined
  24. debacle has left
  25. sonny has left
  26. sonny has joined
  27. neox has joined
  28. sonny has left
  29. sonny has joined
  30. sonny has left
  31. sonny has joined
  32. sonny has left
  33. sonny has joined
  34. sonny has left
  35. sonny has joined
  36. Wojtek has joined
  37. pprrks has left
  38. pprrks has joined
  39. mdosch has left
  40. mdosch has joined
  41. Zash has left
  42. Zash has joined
  43. Zash has left
  44. Zash has joined
  45. debacle has joined
  46. adiaholic has left
  47. adiaholic has joined
  48. sonny has left
  49. sonny has joined
  50. sonny has left
  51. sonny has joined
  52. sonny has left
  53. sonny has joined
  54. Guus has joined
  55. Wojtek has left
  56. Wojtek has joined
  57. debacle has left
  58. Wojtek has left
  59. debacle has joined
  60. Wojtek has joined
  61. stpeter has joined
  62. stpeter has left
  63. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  64. daniel Hi
  65. Zash Here
  66. Ge0rG
  67. jonas’ dwd?
  68. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  69. dwd Here too!
  70. jonas’ awesome
  71. Ge0rG let's see if we can manage to fit everything into half an hour.
  72. dwd Sorry I'm late, it totally wasn't because I was in a secret room having a secret conversation with a cabal.
  73. jonas’ 3) Editor’s Update
  74. jonas’ Nothing
  75. jonas’ 4) Items for Voting
  76. jonas’ 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.
  77. jonas’ do we want to or have to form an opinion on that?
  78. jonas’ ISTM that it changes the elements allowed/expected in the affected PubSub nodes and I wonder if that needs a bump.
  79. dwd I don't think it does, this looks like an errata correction to me.
  80. 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?
  81. Ge0rG jonas’: it would need a bump where exactly?
  82. jonas’ Ge0rG, the @node would need a change I suppose?
  83. Zash How's this been handled with eg Jingle?
  84. jonas’ ohh no wait
  85. Ge0rG jonas’: so it would be urn:xmpp:mix:nodes:config:1 then?
  86. daniel i think the particular PR is fine
  87. Ge0rG Matrix room versions PITA style?
  88. jonas’ this is very confusion
  89. daniel i'm not sure if this can be said about all general cases
  90. jonas’ daniel, I think both is true
  91. jonas’ (i.e. this one is ok, others may not)
  92. Ge0rG There is also urn:xmpp:mix:admin:0 which is already namespaced.
  93. 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
  94. daniel plus it's experimental stil so we can do what ever, no?
  95. jonas’ daniel, yep
  96. daniel or authors can do what ever
  97. daniel not we
  98. jonas’ The editor was just wondering
  99. Ge0rG Does it make sense to bump all MIX elements in lockstep, or will each element evolutionize on its own?
  100. jonas’ Ge0rG, that’s the question in the end
  101. jonas’ I think we’ll have to make judgement calls about that in the future
  102. Ge0rG I think I'll just continue pretending that MIX doesn't exist.
  103. daniel realistically we won’t be able to bump mix once it's implemented/used/draft
  104. jonas’ just like MUC
  105. jonas’ :)
  106. daniel yes
  107. Ge0rG MUC doesn't even have a number to bump
  108. jonas’ what even are version numbers
  109. Ge0rG daniel: does that mean we should remove the fig-leaf number from MIX?
  110. jonas’ Ge0rG, during "Experimental" (whatever that means aside from XEP status) it’s ok
  111. jonas’ Ge0rG, during "Experimental" (whatever that means aside from XEP status) it’s good to have
  112. daniel Ge0rG, i'm not the author. but i think i agree with jonas’
  113. Ge0rG Alright
  114. jonas’ thanks
  115. jonas’ 5) Pending Votes
  116. jonas’ There are none.
  117. jonas’ 6) Date of Next
  118. jonas’ +1w wfm
  119. Zash +1w wfm2
  120. Ge0rG +1w wfm
  121. daniel +1
  122. dwd +1 wfm
  123. jonas’ great!
  124. jonas’ 7) AOB
  125. jonas’ does anyone have anything?
  126. dwd None from me
  127. Zash None here
  128. jonas’ taking the absence of chat state notifications as a no
  129. jonas’ thanks
  130. jonas’ 8) Ite Meeting Est
  131. jonas’ Thanks everyone, thanks Tedd.
  132. Zash Thanks Tedd, thanks jonas’, thanks all.
  133. pprrks has left
  134. pprrks has joined
  135. mathieui 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
  136. jonas’ mathieui, yep, understood it as that
  137. jonas’ I was just wondering how it should happen in non-experimental there :)
  138. mathieui yes, makes sense
  139. stpeter has joined
  140. stpeter has left
  141. vanitasvitae_ has left
  142. vanitasvitae_ has joined
  143. kusoneko has joined
  144. B has left
  145. B has joined
  146. B has left
  147. neox has left
  148. neox has joined
  149. B has joined
  150. B has left
  151. B has joined
  152. neox has left
  153. Wojtek has left
  154. neox has joined
  155. B has left
  156. B has joined
  157. kusoneko has left
  158. kusoneko has joined
  159. daniel has left
  160. daniel has joined
  161. Tobias has left
  162. neox has left
  163. B has left
  164. B has joined
  165. neox has joined
  166. neox has left