XMPP Council - 2021-09-22

1) Roll Call

hi

hello

good morning

do we get a dwd

Hiya.

\o/

is that full house?

full house!

2) Agenda Bashing

I was pretty done when I wrote it yesterday. Did I miss anything?

I'm not aware of anything

great

3) Editor's Update

- Last call for XEP-0459 ended

4) Items for voting

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.

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.

on-list. I really missed the LC and now need to provide some feedback first.

that's… not how an LC works normally

but I'm glad if we can get more feedback

I'm sorry.

I'm okay with holding out for more feedback.

It's not so different from last years, which was passed, so the silence could also mean lack of controversy.

any other voices on this one?

I need some time to properly review, sorry, so on list.

I normally review all the new / significantly changed XEPs for a CS

i'd be ready to give my +1 vote. but i'm also fine holding it another week

right

then let's do that I guess

4b) PR#1105: XEP-0280: feedback from Last Calls Something about things Georg did.

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1105

I have no objections.

I wish for a hand-wave re the text in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1105/commits/64f87e1d2ac8c60edd1355bc96ecfda25a603fc8

enthusiastic +1 for that

+1 obviously

+1

+1

Do we (technically) need to vote on this?

I'm looking especially for feedback from dwd and Kev who are usually good at identifying breaking changes.

dwd: no

I mean, +1 if we do, it looks fine.

dwd, Ge0rG wants to avoid this bouncing at council on the next LC iteration

jonas’: another LC?

jonas’, But I think it's my turn to reject '280, isn't it?

we're not voting on advancement, are we?

dwd, hmm, I think I might be next

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.

right

well then

speaking of advancement:

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.

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.

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?

oh sorry.

sorry myself

back to 4b?

or AOB it?

Ge0rG, let's finish it now

though I have no idea what you're talking about

and in any case that URL is more of an iteam matter. we can easily change the link post-advancement

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

And then things got changed multiple times in inconsistent fashions

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

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

Honestly I think I'd accept pretty much anything to get '280 and '313 over the line.

Great.

that's a dangerous thing to say, dwd.

jonas’ the Editor, please merge #1105 then

will do at some point

alright

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.

again?

still

again

I don't know

What's the question?

do we get any volunteer who PRs the current on-list favourite proposal (which would be Zashes I think)?

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.

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

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.

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".

Zash, would you be up for PR-ifying your suggestion?

With what deadline?

Also I'm still looking forward to hear detailed responses on how to treat type=groupchat from MAM in a client

Zash, next week?

next tuesday noon ideally

Ge0rG, suggest the user to pick another server? ;)

Ge0rG, https://github.com/iNPUTmice/Conversations/blob/master/src/main/java/eu/siacs/conversations/parser/MessageParser.java#L431-L433

or that, yes

I can attempt but my confidence in my XEP writing ability is low.

unless you do muc/sub or something

daniel: well, my question was about having groupchat-in-MAM as a useful thing.

but if you do muc/sub you probably know

these questions: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2021-September/038560.html

haven’t we been over that a bunch of times?

my answers would be: intermixed, not at all, "in some way based on the stanza Id of the MUC", no idae

Zash, thanks

let's move on

5) Date of Next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

Oh, I may have some AOB.

+604800s wfm

+1w wfm

+1W WFM

great

6) AOB

anything?

So, I think our term is ending relatively soon, isn't it?

early November

Alex has asked me to get around to fixing the Memberbot, so I assume so.

In which case we should probably:

2021-11-25 is the date

a) Plan the remainder of our workload to wrap things up.

b) Decide if we're standing once again.

And optionally, (c) go recruit interesting people to stand.

(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.)

(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

(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.

(c) Probably a good idea. I'll keep my eyes open.

(b) Oh dear.

[That was all from me anyway]

noted

alright

Kev, looking forward to your elaboration email on that then 🙂

I anticipated more discussion toward (a), but there seems to be none.

jonas’, I think you about covered it.

Thanks for the pointer Kev, I'm looking forward to the list discussion, too :)

7) Ite Meeting Est

Thanks everyone.

Thanks jonas’

jonas’: you've been doing a great job as chair, BTW

jonas’, I think we would have discussed plans were we not all terrified at the thought of you not chairing anymore.

:D

Ge0rG, thanks