jonas’ok, I’ll go through the standard stuff first anyway :)
jonas’2) Agenda Bashing
Ge0rGI'm not quite here.
jonas’if you have any addenda to the agenda, let me know inline
jonas’3) Editor’s Update
* Deferrals have been executed and will be dissiminated to the list in a few days to not drown out other updates. Thanks Sam for the reminder.
* LCs for XEP-0429 and XEP-0381 have expired last year and Council never voted on it apparently.
* Moved 2.0 vs 1.0 will be taken care of by the Editor and MattJ.
jonas’4) Items for voting
jonas’Notice: the PR#1064 has been updated again during the voting period to incorporate list feedback. I take this as our fault as we did not adhere to the "only vote on it after list discussion has settled down" policy we put into place a while back :)
jonas’We'll wait for list feedback this time to not vote on this over and over again.
jonas’4a) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0381
Title: XEP-0381: Internet of Things Special Interest Group (IoT SIG)
Abstract: This document proposes the formation of a Special Interest Group SIG) within the XSF devoted to the application of XMPP technologies to the Internet of Things (IoT).
jonas’this one had an LC in december 2020 and we probably missed the LC expiration over the holidays
ZashWas anything said about it on the list?
Ge0rGIs the IoT WG still functional?
jonas’debacle said he'd like to participate
jonas’(he also reiterated that privately to me in response to the agenda)
jonas’a bunch of people hang out in email@example.com, too
jonas’do we have any measures in place which actually keep track of SIG members?
ZashIs that our job?
jonas’who will we talk to when it comes to "have the deliverables actually been delivered"?✎
jonas’who will we talk to when it comes to "have the deliverables actually been delivered?"? ✏
jonas’'cause the XEP talks about deliverables.
ZashThere were a bunch of XEPs in the past
MattJAs a person who hangs out in iot@, I'm not sure why this SIG is coming up now, or what it's intended to achieve
jonas’are we going to treat the SIG as "a reason to get XSF resources like a MUC and a list allocated and otherwise we don't care much unless it becomes a problem"?
MattJMaybe but note: we already have a MUC :)
MattJand I think there used to be a list?
jonas’MattJ, someone triggered an LC of the XEP in dec 2020 or so, and it expired and we forgot to vote on it over half a year back
jonas’no other reason :)
jonas’I'm aware that resources have been allocated already, just wondering what a SIG should mean to us, as council.
MattJSubject: [Standards] Meeting Minutes of the XMPP IoT SIG from 2017-03-29
jonas’it seems to exist somewhat :D
jonas’or have existed
jonas’either way, I take this as a formality now
jonas’Ge0rG, with all that has been said, do you stay with +1?
jonas’assuming that dwd will vote once he catches up, moving on
jonas’4b) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0429
Title: XEP-0429: Special Interests Group End to End Encryption
Abstract: This document proposes the formation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) within the XSF devoted to the development of end-to-end encryption within the context of XMPP.
jonas’I think this is a similar situation
jonas’except that they didn’t get any resources yet I think
jonas’same assumption about dwd still holds, moving on
jonas’5) Pending Votes
jonas’pending vote has been cancelled, so we’re good there
jonas’6) Date of Next
jonas’well, hoping for the best
jonas’assuming none as nothing was mentioned
jonas’8) Ite Meeting Est
dwdSorry about that; I've had one of those days where everything overran. +1 to both, but I can say that on list if that's easier.
jonas’posting on the list is a good measure I guess