I was pretty done when I wrote it yesterday. Did I miss anything?
Zash
I'm not aware of anything
jonas’
great
jonas’
3) Editor's Update
jonas’
- Last call for XEP-0459 ended
jonas’
4) Items for voting
jonas’
4a) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0459
Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2022
Abstract: This document defines XMPP application categories for different use cases (Core, Web, IM, and Mobile), and specifies the required XEPs that client and server software needs to implement for compliance with the use cases.
jonas’
I think there was some valuable feedback on-list (and not enough feedback in general. I'd prefer if that feedback was incorporated first and then re-call, I think.
Ge0rG
on-list. I really missed the LC and now need to provide some feedback first.
jonas’
that's… not how an LC works normally
jonas’
but I'm glad if we can get more feedback
Ge0rG
I'm sorry.
Zash
I'm okay with holding out for more feedback.
Zash
It's not so different from last years, which was passed, so the silence could also mean lack of controversy.
jonas’
any other voices on this one?
dwd
I need some time to properly review, sorry, so on list.
Ge0rG
I normally review all the new / significantly changed XEPs for a CS
daniel
i'd be ready to give my +1 vote. but i'm also fine holding it another week
jonas’
right
jonas’
then let's do that I guess
jonas’
4b) PR#1105: XEP-0280: feedback from Last Calls
Something about things Georg did.
jonas’
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1105
jonas’
I have no objections.
Ge0rG
I wish for a hand-wave re the text in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1105/commits/64f87e1d2ac8c60edd1355bc96ecfda25a603fc8
jonas’
enthusiastic +1 for that
Ge0rG
+1 obviously
Zash
+1
daniel
+1
dwd
Do we (technically) need to vote on this?
Ge0rG
I'm looking especially for feedback from dwd and Kev who are usually good at identifying breaking changes.
Ge0rG
dwd: no
dwd
I mean, +1 if we do, it looks fine.
jonas’
dwd, Ge0rG wants to avoid this bouncing at council on the next LC iteration
Ge0rG
jonas’: another LC?
dwd
jonas’, But I think it's my turn to reject '280, isn't it?
jonas’
we're not voting on advancement, are we?
jonas’
dwd, hmm, I think I might be next
dwd
jonas’, And no, we don't automatically need a new LC. This is LC feedback, and unless we think it needs another LC, then we vote to advance next.
jonas’
right
jonas’
well then
jonas’
speaking of advancement:
jonas’
4c) XEP-0313 advancement
Maybe not strictly for voting, but we should discuss what the author or editor can do in order to get '313 wrapped up, given the most recent feedback on-list.
dwd
So anyway - this PR looks OK to me. But I can't remember why we wanted to strip it originally, and besides it's procedurally an author's to handle.
Ge0rG
technically, I'd like to replace the CS link in 0280 to a link to https://xmpp.org/about/compliance-suites-current but that's not rolled out yet?
Ge0rG
oh sorry.
jonas’
sorry myself
Ge0rG
back to 4b?
Ge0rG
or AOB it?
jonas’
Ge0rG, let's finish it now
jonas’
though I have no idea what you're talking about
jonas’
and in any case that URL is more of an iteam matter. we can easily change the link post-advancement
Ge0rG
dwd: the stripping was part of the original 0280, and I have no idea why it was there either. But when the stripping was on the sending-server's behalf, the receiving server would still carbon-copy
Ge0rG
And then things got changed multiple times in inconsistent fashions
Ge0rG
and IIRC it was Kev who suggested that the _receiving_ client should know about attempted routing manipulation by the sender, so not stripping is actually better, security-wise
Ge0rG
But given that this whole strip show didn't receive any significant attention over the years, it probably won't bother anyone if I just change the wording
dwd
Honestly I think I'd accept pretty much anything to get '280 and '313 over the line.
Ge0rG
Great.
jonas’
that's a dangerous thing to say, dwd.
Ge0rG
jonas’ the Editor, please merge #1105 then
jonas’
will do at some point
jonas’
alright
jonas’
4c) XEP-0313 advancement
Maybe not strictly for voting, but we should discuss what the author or editor can do in order to get '313 wrapped up, given the most recent feedback on-list.
Zash
again?
jonas’
still
jonas’
again
jonas’
I don't know
Zash
What's the question?
jonas’
do we get any volunteer who PRs the current on-list favourite proposal (which would be Zashes I think)?
dwd
4c) XEP-0313 advancement
Maybe not strictly for voting, but we should discuss what the author or editor can do in order to get '313 wrapped up, given the most recent feedback on-list.
Ge0rG
I'm very grateful to Kev about doing the last minute editing work, and I agree with Zash that having a multi-list is less inelegant
Ge0rG
Also a vague reminder about the dozen or so of issues in 0313 that I promised not to block advancement on, but are still important to resolve.
dwd
You know that never ending staircase by MC Escher? I'm pretty sure the tower there has a small note saying "Discussion on advancing XEP-0280 and XEP-0313".
jonas’
Zash, would you be up for PR-ifying your suggestion?
Zash
With what deadline?
Ge0rG
Also I'm still looking forward to hear detailed responses on how to treat type=groupchat from MAM in a client
jonas’
Zash, next week?
jonas’
next tuesday noon ideally
jonas’
Ge0rG, suggest the user to pick another server? ;)
I can attempt but my confidence in my XEP writing ability is low.
daniel
unless you do muc/sub or something
Ge0rG
daniel: well, my question was about having groupchat-in-MAM as a useful thing.
daniel
but if you do muc/sub you probably know
Ge0rG
these questions: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2021-September/038560.html
daniel
haven’t we been over that a bunch of times?
takaeshihas joined
jonas’
my answers would be: intermixed, not at all, "in some way based on the stanza Id of the MUC", no idae
jonas’
Zash, thanks
jonas’
let's move on
jonas’
5) Date of Next
jonas’
+1w wfm
dwd
+1w wfm
dwd
Oh, I may have some AOB.
Zash
+604800s wfm
daniel
+1w wfm
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
jonas’
great
jonas’
6) AOB
jonas’
anything?
dwd
So, I think our term is ending relatively soon, isn't it?
jonas’
early November
dwd
Alex has asked me to get around to fixing the Memberbot, so I assume so.
dwd
In which case we should probably:
Ge0rG
2021-11-25 is the date
dwd
a) Plan the remainder of our workload to wrap things up.
dwd
b) Decide if we're standing once again.
dwd
And optionally, (c) go recruit interesting people to stand.
Kev
(I was on leave last week, BTW, I intend responding to Zash’s mail on 313 soon, although my response is, I think, that it looks elegant at first glance but that the discovery becomes horrid and I think we’re better off with my PR even if it’s not perfect.)
jonas’
(a) I think we're well on track there right now: We're trying to wrap up '280, '313 and push the CS far enough that they get advanced in our term or at least next council can easily advancet hem
jonas’
(b) Yes, though I'm not sure if I'm up for chairing next term. It's been a bit more draining this year and I might prefer a break.
takaeshihas left
jonas’
(c) Probably a good idea. I'll keep my eyes open.
dwd
(b) Oh dear.
dwd
[That was all from me anyway]
Zash
noted
jonas’
alright
Zash
Kev, looking forward to your elaboration email on that then 🙂
jonas’
I anticipated more discussion toward (a), but there seems to be none.
Zash
jonas’, I think you about covered it.
jonas’
Thanks for the pointer Kev, I'm looking forward to the list discussion, too :)
jonas’
7) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’
Thanks everyone.
Ge0rG
Thanks jonas’
Ge0rG
jonas’: you've been doing a great job as chair, BTW
dwd
jonas’, I think we would have discussed plans were we not all terrified at the thought of you not chairing anymore.