XMPP Council - 2021-09-22

  1. moparisthebest has left

  2. moparisthebest has joined

  3. SouL has joined

  4. alex11 has left

  5. marc0s has left

  6. marc0s has joined

  7. ChronosX88 has left

  8. me9 has joined

  9. Tobias has joined

  10. me9 has left

  11. takaeshi has joined

  12. takaeshi has left

  13. Kev has left

  14. Kev has joined

  15. Kev has left

  16. Kev has joined

  17. Kev has left

  18. Kev has joined

  19. Kev has left

  20. Kev has joined

  21. Kev has left

  22. Kev has joined

  23. Kev has left

  24. Kev has joined

  25. takaeshi has joined

  26. takaeshi has left

  27. takaeshi has joined

  28. takaeshi has left

  29. debacle has joined

  30. ChronosX88 has joined

  31. takaeshi has joined

  32. Kev has left

  33. Kev has joined

  34. takaeshi has left

  35. alex11 has joined

  36. takaeshi has joined

  37. takaeshi has left

  38. sonny has left

  39. sonny has joined

  40. takaeshi has joined

  41. me9 has joined

  42. alex11 has left

  43. alex11 has joined

  44. Wojtek has joined

  45. Wojtek has left

  46. Wojtek has joined

  47. chronosx88 has left

  48. chronosx88 has joined

  49. alex11 has left

  50. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  51. takaeshi has left

  52. daniel


  53. Zash


  54. Ge0rG

    good morning

  55. ChronosX88 has left

  56. ChronosX88 has joined

  57. jonas’

    do we get a dwd

  58. dwd


  59. jonas’


  60. Zash

    is that full house?

  61. jonas’

    full house!

  62. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  63. jonas’

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

  64. Zash

    I'm not aware of anything

  65. jonas’


  66. jonas’

    3) Editor's Update

  67. jonas’

    - Last call for XEP-0459 ended

  68. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. Ge0rG

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

  72. jonas’

    that's… not how an LC works normally

  73. jonas’

    but I'm glad if we can get more feedback

  74. Ge0rG

    I'm sorry.

  75. Zash

    I'm okay with holding out for more feedback.

  76. Zash

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

  77. jonas’

    any other voices on this one?

  78. dwd

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

  79. Ge0rG

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

  80. daniel

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

  81. jonas’


  82. jonas’

    then let's do that I guess

  83. jonas’

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

  84. jonas’


  85. jonas’

    I have no objections.

  86. Ge0rG

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

  87. jonas’

    enthusiastic +1 for that

  88. Ge0rG

    +1 obviously

  89. Zash


  90. daniel


  91. dwd

    Do we (technically) need to vote on this?

  92. Ge0rG

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

  93. Ge0rG

    dwd: no

  94. dwd

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

  95. jonas’

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

  96. Ge0rG

    jonas’: another LC?

  97. dwd

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

  98. jonas’

    we're not voting on advancement, are we?

  99. jonas’

    dwd, hmm, I think I might be next

  100. 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.

  101. jonas’


  102. jonas’

    well then

  103. jonas’

    speaking of advancement:

  104. 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.

  105. 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.

  106. 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?

  107. Ge0rG

    oh sorry.

  108. jonas’

    sorry myself

  109. Ge0rG

    back to 4b?

  110. Ge0rG

    or AOB it?

  111. jonas’

    Ge0rG, let's finish it now

  112. jonas’

    though I have no idea what you're talking about

  113. jonas’

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

  114. 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

  115. Ge0rG

    And then things got changed multiple times in inconsistent fashions

  116. 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

  117. 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

  118. dwd

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

  119. Ge0rG


  120. jonas’

    that's a dangerous thing to say, dwd.

  121. Ge0rG

    jonas’ the Editor, please merge #1105 then

  122. jonas’

    will do at some point

  123. jonas’


  124. 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.

  125. Zash


  126. jonas’


  127. jonas’


  128. jonas’

    I don't know

  129. Zash

    What's the question?

  130. jonas’

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

  131. 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.

  132. 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

  133. 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.

  134. 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".

  135. jonas’

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

  136. Zash

    With what deadline?

  137. Ge0rG

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

  138. jonas’

    Zash, next week?

  139. jonas’

    next tuesday noon ideally

  140. jonas’

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

  141. daniel

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

  142. jonas’

    or that, yes

  143. Zash

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

  144. daniel

    unless you do muc/sub or something

  145. Ge0rG

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

  146. daniel

    but if you do muc/sub you probably know

  147. Ge0rG

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

  148. daniel

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

  149. takaeshi has joined

  150. jonas’

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

  151. jonas’

    Zash, thanks

  152. jonas’

    let's move on

  153. jonas’

    5) Date of Next

  154. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  155. dwd

    +1w wfm

  156. dwd

    Oh, I may have some AOB.

  157. Zash

    +604800s wfm

  158. daniel

    +1w wfm

  159. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  160. jonas’


  161. jonas’

    6) AOB

  162. jonas’


  163. dwd

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

  164. jonas’

    early November

  165. dwd

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

  166. dwd

    In which case we should probably:

  167. Ge0rG

    2021-11-25 is the date

  168. dwd

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

  169. dwd

    b) Decide if we're standing once again.

  170. dwd

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

  171. 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.)

  172. 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

  173. 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.

  174. takaeshi has left

  175. jonas’

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

  176. dwd

    (b) Oh dear.

  177. dwd

    [That was all from me anyway]

  178. Zash


  179. jonas’


  180. Zash

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

  181. jonas’

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

  182. Zash

    jonas’, I think you about covered it.

  183. jonas’

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

  184. jonas’

    7) Ite Meeting Est

  185. jonas’

    Thanks everyone.

  186. Ge0rG

    Thanks jonas’

  187. Ge0rG

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

  188. dwd

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

  189. jonas’


  190. jonas’

    Ge0rG, thanks

  191. pprrks has left

  192. pprrks has joined

  193. pprrks has left

  194. pprrks has joined

  195. takaeshi has joined

  196. debacle has left

  197. takaeshi has left

  198. takaeshi has joined

  199. takaeshi has left

  200. takaeshi has joined

  201. me9 has left

  202. me9 has joined

  203. me9 has left

  204. me9 has joined

  205. takaeshi has left

  206. takaeshi has joined

  207. chronosx88 has left

  208. ChronosX88 has left

  209. takaeshi has left

  210. ChronosX88 has joined

  211. takaeshi has joined

  212. sonny has left

  213. sonny has joined

  214. Wojtek has left

  215. me9 has left

  216. takaeshi has left

  217. takaeshi has joined

  218. Tobias has left

  219. Kev has left

  220. Kev has joined

  221. takaeshi has left

  222. debacle has joined

  223. marc0s has left

  224. marc0s has joined

  225. pprrks has left

  226. SouL has left

  227. debacle has left

  228. alex11 has joined

  229. sonny has left

  230. sonny has joined

  231. pprrks has joined

  232. marc0s has left

  233. marc0s has joined