XMPP Council - 2021-10-06

Minor reminder that I got a conflicting appointment today.

thanks

1) Roll Call

Here.

do we get a dwd and or a daniel?

I'm semi-here. Might be able to cast votes if there is not too much to discuss.

Hi

We have a dwd!

2) Agenda Bashing

it was a late agenda again

(turns out, IKEA assembly can be very captivating)

3) Editor's Update

- LCs started: XEP-0379, XEP-0401, XEP-0445

4) Items for Voting

We got a request to consider the deprecation of '411

4a) Deprecate XEP-0411 URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1111

I think that sends the wrong signal

but maybe that's just my strange PoV?

I think that ought to be discussed on the list a bit

I think deprecation of a compat mechanism should only happen once the main thing is obsoleted.

Zash, also valid

any other opinions on this one?

I agree with jonas’ on that.

Also compat mechanisms often survive very long.

> Bookmarks 2 defines its own conversion mechanism but the adoption of Bookmarks 2 - at the time of writing this XEP - is questionable. This hasn't really changed...

Ge0rG, well, that they *survive* for long is no reason not to deprecate them

I, too, agree with jonas’ - a compat mechanism isn't deprecated just because the thing it's enabling compatibility with is deprecated. It exists *because* the old bookmarks was deprecated, in a lot of ways.

I mean I also would like bookmarks 2 to be more of a thing. I'm not sure depreciating the conversion xep is a good way to achieve that

note that '411 converts between private XML and the single-node PEP storage, not between private XML and bookmarks 2.0 (a.k.a. '402) ✏

somebody should draw a conversion flowchart.

Observation: '0411 is mentioned in the compliance suite

okay, uh

with the realization that '411 is actually converting between two different formats of '48

I think that it actually makes sense to deprecate it

with just the rationale that '48 is deprecated

I looked at the bookmarks (2) situation a few weeks ago and uh, it _would_ be nice if something could be pushed forward there.

what point is there to have '411 when '48 is deprecated, given that '411 has no interaction with anything except '48?

'411 has absolutely nothing to do with '405 (bookmarks 2)

I am +1 on deprecation.

ITYM xep-0402

yes, sorry

typo

Hmmm. So yes, I had it in my head it converted to bookmarks2.

(although it indeed also has nothing to do with '405 ;))

XEP-0402 has undefined status "Draft"

huh?

oh :)

there's a bug there, thanks

(rendering bug)

So... I'm likely to vote +1 to deprecate I think, but it would be nice to run this past the list.

anyway, does anyone else want to cast votes on the '411 deprecation now?

thanks

okay, two voices for running it past the list

I'm on-list pending list discussion

let's do the list thing then

5) Pending Votes

Compliance Suite votes?

There has been more late LC feedback on '459

yes, only I'm missing

I think I'd like to see that incorporated before advancement

some of my feedback got strong counter-arguments

I think it's a bit weird to have all the changes go in an LC feedback updates

Zash, my point being that any future change would be gated by Council

and I don't think that's beneficial for anyone involved

do you folks thinks that advancing while there's still open discussions is good in the case of '459?

I'm not opposed to extending while waiting for discussions to settle down

okay, I'd be more comfortable with that

Altho, it's been quiet for almost a week aready

in that case stuff should be integrated in my opinon

before we advance

Did anybody hear from the author?

not yet

I'm gonna poke them

please do

let's extend the voting period by +1w on this one, and I'll poke the list and the author

+1

speaking on +1w

jonas’: great!

6) Date of Next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

+1W LGTM

same

dwd, still here?

I am.

And +1W WFM. :-)

excellent

7) AOB

anyone got anything?

too close to dinner time to have anything

heh

understandable

8) Ite Meeting Est

thanks everyone

Thanks jonas’, thanks everyone