jonas’meetings have overrun and there's a team christmas event @work, I might be semi-absent during todays meeting
Ge0rGteam christmas. Mhm....
Zashxmas @ Teams?!
daniel1) Roll call
daniela hopefully triple vaxed jonas’ is having a christmas party
danielbut do we have a larma
daniel2) Agenda Bashing
danieli'm assuming no changes?
daniel3) Editors update
danielNone. but keep in mind the last calls that are due on Jan 4th
daniel4) Pending votes
danielEveryone but jonas pending on XEP-0060: Release version 1.23.0 (https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1126)
danielthank you moparisthebest for starting the list discussion
moparisthebestsorry about being super late on starting that discussion...
danieldoes anyone want to vote on this during the meeting
danieli'm strongly leaning towards -1
moparisthebestsame (leaning towards -1 as-is), that seems to be list consensus too
larmaI'm also not very happy, but as list discussion is still ongoing, I'd rather delay voting further✎
danieli think this is to much of a change for a stable xep. it belongs into 0004
larmaI'm also not very happy with this, but as list discussion is still ongoing, I'd rather delay voting further ✏
Ge0rGbut 0004 is Final.
danielas all xeps could (muc comes to mind) could potentially benefit from partial configuration submission
moparisthebestunsure 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
danielGe0rG, yes. i'm thinking about an external flag or something. Or me might just not be able to do it
danieli mean the fact that 0004 is final doesn’t change the fact that this doesn't belong in 60
danieli think we can just instruct the edior to apply the editorial changes
danielor technically they can probably just do it
danielin any case let's just delay the voting until Jan 5th
danielwith 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
danielDate of next
moparisthebest(I could certainly be convinced a +1 was fine, it's just not looking like that at the moment)
Ge0rGYeah, I think that with the ongoing list discussion and the 0004 suggestions, somebody™ should submit a proposed wording to 0004 anyway.
danielas indicated in the email i'm going to propose to take 2 weeks of and meet again on Jan 5th
larmafine with me
Ge0rGso that would be three weeks from now?
danielmoparisthebest, larma +3w?
moparisthebestno AOB from me
danielok. i don’t see anyone typing
moparisthebestthanks daniel !
danielThank you everyone. Have some nice hollidays. enjoy the time off
Ge0rGthank you, you too.
Ge0rGStay safe and healthy!
larmaDon't party too much, we still need you next year 🙂
KevFWIW, 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.
stpeterWhat Kev says makes sense.
jonas’daniel, remote christmas party actually
moparisthebestin that case I hope your computer is properly vaxxed :P
moparisthebestKev, 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 ?
flowI 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.
moparisthebestmy gut feeling is if we want a normative change because we'd like to submit partial forms, let's do it
moparisthebestotherwise make an editorial change that just clarifies current behavior, ie "don't submit partial forms, it's unspecified what the server might do"
moparisthebestwhat about a new feature the server can advertise to explicitly say "submitting partial forms is fine, we won't change other values" ?
flowmoparisthebest, I share the feeling that we should do it
ZashWhat a feeeeeeling
flowmoparisthebest, 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