XMPP Council - 2021-12-15


  1. jonas’

    meetings have overrun and there's a team christmas event @work, I might be semi-absent during todays meeting

  2. Ge0rG

    team christmas. Mhm....

  3. Zash

    xmas @ Teams?!

  4. daniel

    It's time

  5. Ge0rG

    It is

  6. daniel

    1) Roll call

  7. Ge0rG

  8. moparisthebest

    hello!

  9. daniel

    a hopefully triple vaxed jonas’ is having a christmas party

  10. daniel

    but do we have a larma

  11. larma

    we do

  12. daniel

    2) Agenda Bashing

  13. daniel

    i'm assuming no changes?

  14. daniel

    3) Editors update

  15. daniel

    None. but keep in mind the last calls that are due on Jan 4th

  16. daniel

    4) Pending votes

  17. daniel

    Everyone but jonas pending on XEP-0060: Release version 1.23.0 (https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1126)

  18. daniel

    thank you moparisthebest for starting the list discussion

  19. moparisthebest

    sorry about being super late on starting that discussion...

  20. daniel

    does anyone want to vote on this during the meeting

  21. daniel

    i'm strongly leaning towards -1

  22. moparisthebest

    same (leaning towards -1 as-is), that seems to be list consensus too

  23. larma

    I'm also not very happy, but as list discussion is still ongoing, I'd rather delay voting further

  24. daniel

    i think this is to much of a change for a stable xep. it belongs into 0004

  25. larma

    I'm also not very happy with this, but as list discussion is still ongoing, I'd rather delay voting further

  26. Ge0rG

    but 0004 is Final.

  27. daniel

    as all xeps could (muc comes to mind) could potentially benefit from partial configuration submission

  28. moparisthebest

    unsure how this works from a process POV, if that one change was removed, I think everyone would be +1 or it'd just be editorial, the other 2 changes are fine

  29. daniel

    Ge0rG, yes. i'm thinking about an external flag or something. Or me might just not be able to do it

  30. daniel

    i mean the fact that 0004 is final doesn’t change the fact that this doesn't belong in 60

  31. daniel

    i think we can just instruct the edior to apply the editorial changes

  32. daniel

    or technically they can probably just do it

  33. daniel

    in any case let's just delay the voting until Jan 5th

  34. moparisthebest

    sounds good

  35. daniel

    with 2.5 people indicating that they are probably -1 (and only one veto being enough) i think i might know where this is going but doesn’t hurt to wait until next year with this

  36. daniel

    Date of next

  37. moparisthebest

    (I could certainly be convinced a +1 was fine, it's just not looking like that at the moment)

  38. Ge0rG

    Yeah, I think that with the ongoing list discussion and the 0004 suggestions, somebody™ should submit a proposed wording to 0004 anyway.

  39. daniel

    as indicated in the email i'm going to propose to take 2 weeks of and meet again on Jan 5th

  40. larma

    fine with me

  41. Ge0rG

    so that would be three weeks from now?

  42. daniel

    yes

  43. Ge0rG

    +1

  44. daniel

    moparisthebest, larma +3w?

  45. moparisthebest

    yep!

  46. larma

    yes

  47. daniel

    6) AOB

  48. moparisthebest

    no AOB from me

  49. daniel

    ok. i don’t see anyone typing

  50. daniel

    7) Close

  51. moparisthebest

    thanks daniel !

  52. daniel

    Thank you everyone. Have some nice hollidays. enjoy the time off

  53. Ge0rG

    thank you, you too.

  54. Ge0rG

    Stay safe and healthy!

  55. larma

    Don't party too much, we still need you next year 🙂

  56. Kev

    FWIW, I think the underlying change a) belongs in 4 and b) doesn't need to be phrased as a breaking change to 4. Really all we want to say is "People might submit partial forms. This has been unspecified in the past, but the expected meaning is 'I'm only trying to change what I submit'", and I don't think that needs be normative.

  57. stpeter

    What Kev says makes sense.

  58. jonas’

    daniel, remote christmas party actually

  59. moparisthebest

    in that case I hope your computer is properly vaxxed :P

  60. moparisthebest

    Kev, stpeter , but if it's not normative is it actually helpful? if I were trying to implement that I'd read that I always have to submit an entire form because I can't be sure what the service might do if not ?

  61. flow

    I see the arguments for both sides. Having it non-normative could be the loophole that some want to modify a final XEP. And I doubt that it will make a different in practice (assuming non-normative here simply means not using RFC uppercase keywords). That said, I would lean towards adding a normative SHOULD to xep4.

  62. moparisthebest

    my gut feeling is if we want a normative change because we'd like to submit partial forms, let's do it

  63. moparisthebest

    otherwise make an editorial change that just clarifies current behavior, ie "don't submit partial forms, it's unspecified what the server might do"

  64. moparisthebest

    what about a new feature the server can advertise to explicitly say "submitting partial forms is fine, we won't change other values" ?

  65. flow

    moparisthebest, I share the feeling that we should do it

  66. Zash

    What a feeeeeeling

  67. flow

    moparisthebest, we did that feature annoucement in the past, e.g. with xep45, but my gut feeling is that it's maybe overkill in this case