XMPP Council - 2021-09-01

1) Roll Call

But, pancakes?

sorry, no pancakes

I just have waffles

and the waffles are for breakfast

so I'm also here without either pancakes or waffles

do we get a dwd maybe?

and/or a Ge0rG?

At least I have coffee, unlike yesterday and this morning.

that's a start I suppose

I had tea, which was also nice

Is it this time of the week again?

Ge0rG, it is :) ✏

I had more than sufficient amount of coffee today.

Well, still not enough to compensate for the lack of sleep.

Ge0rG, your typing is surprisingly coherent for that

ah

(3 or 4)/5

well, let's get started

2) Agenda Bashing

it was a surprisingly on-time agenda

I like this kind of agendas.

3) Editor's Update

Not only on time, but also without additional workloads.

Draft is the new Stable

4) Items for voting None.

5) Pending Votes - Dave on PR#1096 (XEP-0060: remove exception for last item when purging a node)

Stable is the new Draft?

Hiya, sorry I'm late.

Ge0rG, right

dwd, you're right on time to cast your vote :)

+1

And there was sufficiently little discussion of which color the stable should have.

dwd, thanks!

6) Date of Next

+1W WFM

I might not make +1w

+7d wfm

as it is the anniversary of my nickname change, and that needs to be celebrated accordingly

so it'd be good if someone could chair in my stead

I'll prepare an agenda though

any volunteers?

perfect, you got the job

dwd, +1w wfy?

Yes.

perfect

7) AOB

anyone got any?

Yeah.

Ge0rG, go ahead :)

Two, actually.

you can have two, even

probably

7a) Membership Reapplication: it's affecting two Council members. We should ensure that nobody is losing membership and puts Council into limbo

good point

Ge0rG: council people don't need to be members, iirc

the two affected being you and Zash if I see it correctly

Sam, you're confusing that with Board

Council needs membership

7b) Board and Council elections. Autumn has started. That means that some time soon there will be an election of the next Council.

We should conclude all LCs prior to that.

Time to review our yearly goals?

I'm _especially_ looking into the direction of CS-2022 ✏

Sam, bylaws: > All the individuals elected to participate on the XMPP Council must be Members of the Corporation.

oh wait, or is that board? yah, that still makes no sense and I mix it up every time. nevermind then.

Ge0rG, do you have any contact with the CS-2022 author?

But I'm also looking into the general direction of XEP-0280, which got some LC feedback that still needs to be incorporated by its new owner, who is very much ashamed of the delay.

You could probably read it as needing to be a member at the time of election...

jonas’: no

there are two options: either we have no open LCs or find-lcs.sh is broken.

ag also doesn't find anything

I think we actually don't have any open LCs.

Zash, next sentence goes on with "If a Council member resigns his or her membership in the Corporation, is removed from membership in the Corporation, or is terminated from membership in the Corporation, he or she shall thereby relinquish all rights and responsibilities as a member of the Council."

Ge0rG, mmmkay

jonas’: I was looking into the direction of: - LCs that we performed that need an update of the document - LCs that we should perform before the New Council is elected

That makes sense I guess

Ge0rG, understood

soo... do you have any specific LCs in mind which we should start in this term, except CS-2022?

maybe we can find a volunteer to look into what Council has achieved in this year and what should still be followed upon

those which are pending on incorporation of feedback seem outside our control, right?

jonas’: 0280

that's one of those, isn't it?

jonas’: well, it might be a good idea to ping the responsible persons

like... you?

I'm trying to generalize here.

MAM (313) is another one

but I think it suffers from the same issue as 280

For 0280 I'm very sure that some public pressure can resolve the situation.

so the only things we LC'd and did not advance this term are '280 and '313

And I think that we provided some useful feedback for both, making it possible to advance them with just minor updates?

Ge0rG, WheRE Is ThE F*CkInG UpDAtE, LeBowSKi?!

So it would make sense to complete the process in this term?

Ge0rG, I don't think "factor out all the rules in a separate document" is a minor update?

jonas’: using a text editor that's capable of copy&paste, why not?

I think your '313 feedback was more than two pages long

it doesn't feel like minor update

Damn,

if you think there is a minor update possibe, it would be best if *you* did that

or at least proposed wording

as you seem to have the tightest grasp of the *problems*, at least

jonas’: I didn't manage to complete the minor update of my own XEP yet.

I wonder if it's possible to tackle both at the same time?

It's been long enough that I need to read up my own comments on-list anyway.

alternatively, we could agree that the rules as is work well enough and additional improvements should focus on fleshing out IM-NG. ✏

It seems to me that our inability to get '280 and '313 over the line is just silly, at this point.

dwd, agreed

I mean, virtually everyone uses them just fine, whether or not the rules are perfect.

I mean at the same time it points at the fundamental issue that message routing is hard

especially in a system which has grown historically over 20 years

Sure.

So, declare the rules to be out of scope, move on with life?

which is why I think that we should keep the things as is as Stable and head toward IM-NG

And figure out routing (including copying and archiving) rules elsewhere

I think IM-NG will be a useful sponge to soak up this energy, but yes.

as Editor, I'm reluctant to issue another LC for either '280 or '313 because it means a lot of process for little gain. ✏

so I'd like to hear *at least* from council that another LC iteration would likely pass the vote, barring any substantial new blocking list feedback

YOLO just make them Draf^W Stable already!!11 /half-serious

They definitely have enough deployment to warrant it

for sure

I think I split my feedback on '313 into what would make vote -1 and what would not

Zash, I am entirely serious. If there's no energy to change them and plenty of deployment, that suggests Stable to me.

and even if we were to change them, we would do so so carefully as if they were Stable, even though they have the Experimental label on them

Well, quite. They're de-facto Stable.

Ge0rG, soo... actually

I mean, I argued this something like 3 years ago.

Ge0rG, either your -1 feedback can be fixed in Stable, or it can not be fixed in Stable because it is too breaking, in which case it is unlikely to see any deployment anyway.

Ge0rG, please meditate over this until next week, I might put "advance '313" on the agenda.

(as it hasn't seen any changes since the last LC, I think we can just do that)

🎉

jonas’, On related "we should advance this", '368 to Final?

dwd, could

jonas’, Though that's a purely Editor concern to begin with.

yeah, but the editor needs ideas :)

I'll send it to the editor team to consider

Anything referenced by the CS should probably be Stable

jonas’, Well, when you see him...

Zash, +1

alright, your AOB cleared to your satisfaction, Ge0rG?

Zash: anything *required* by the CS. But I think not even that is true.

jonas’: to a point where no further discussion is useful, at least

well, fair enough

any other AOB?

CS dependency requirements would be a different topic... for another time perhaps.

yes, I suppose

alright then

8) Ite Meeting Est

thanks everyone

Thanks, jonas’

thanks jonas’

pancakes now?

Go now, and rest^W make pancakes. You've earned it!

Thanks jonas’

dinner's going to be paste with a cheese sauce, so that's good enough

Cheese Pasta?

yes

I hope this doesn't lead into #pastagate

why should it?