XMPP Council - 2022-01-05

  1. pprrks has joined

  2. marc0s has left

  3. marc0s has joined

  4. pprrks has left

  5. debacle has left

  6. paul has joined

  7. paul has left

  8. paul has joined

  9. sonny has left

  10. sonny has joined

  11. SouL has left

  12. sonny has left

  13. marc0s has left

  14. marc0s has joined

  15. pprrks has joined

  16. pprrks has left

  17. pprrks has joined

  18. pprrks has left

  19. pprrks has joined

  20. pprrks has left

  21. pprrks has joined

  22. Sam has left

  23. Sam has joined

  24. SouL has joined

  25. ChronosX88 has left

  26. Tobias has joined

  27. pprrks has left

  28. pprrks has joined

  29. pprrks has left

  30. pprrks has joined

  31. marc0s has left

  32. marc0s has joined

  33. SouL has left

  34. msavoritias has joined

  35. pprrks has left

  36. SouL has joined

  37. pprrks has joined

  38. alex11 has left

  39. mdosch has joined

  40. sonny has joined

  41. moparisthebest has left

  42. sonny has left

  43. sonny has joined

  44. moparisthebest has joined

  45. pprrks has left

  46. pprrks has joined

  47. pprrks has left

  48. pprrks has joined

  49. pprrks has left

  50. pprrks has joined

  51. Kev has joined

  52. ChronosX88 has joined

  53. SouL has left

  54. SouL has joined

  55. debacle has joined

  56. debacle has left

  57. pprrks has left

  58. pprrks has joined

  59. marc0s has left

  60. marc0s has joined

  61. pprrks has left

  62. pprrks has joined

  63. marc0s has left

  64. marc0s has joined

  65. pprrks has left

  66. pprrks has joined

  67. marc0s has left

  68. marc0s has joined

  69. marc0s has left

  70. marc0s has joined

  71. debacle has joined

  72. marc0s has left

  73. marc0s has joined

  74. pprrks has left

  75. pprrks has joined

  76. Wojtek has joined

  77. pprrks has left

  78. pprrks has joined

  79. pprrks has left

  80. pprrks has joined

  81. marc0s has left

  82. marc0s has joined

  83. Wojtek has left

  84. Wojtek has joined

  85. me9 has joined

  86. marc0s has left

  87. marc0s has joined

  88. Wojtek has left

  89. Wojtek has joined

  90. Wojtek has left

  91. Wojtek has joined

  92. marc0s has left

  93. marc0s has joined

  94. ChronosX88 has left

  95. ChronosX88 has joined

  96. marc0s has left

  97. marc0s has joined

  98. Wojtek has left

  99. Wojtek has joined

  100. marc0s has left

  101. marc0s has joined

  102. Wojtek has left

  103. pprrks has left

  104. pprrks has joined

  105. Wojtek has joined

  106. marc0s has left

  107. marc0s has joined

  108. pprrks has left

  109. pprrks has joined

  110. jonas’

    'tis time, isn't it?

  111. daniel

    Hello everyone. It is time

  112. Ge0rG

    Happy new year, Council!

  113. daniel

    1) Roll coll

  114. larma


  115. jonas’

    Happy new year!

  116. daniel

    do we have a moparisthebest?

  117. daniel

    i guess not. anyway let's move on

  118. daniel

    2> Agenda bashing

  119. daniel

    there are some additional changes to the agenda

  120. daniel

    the editor has published a few new proposals after i sent out the agenda yesterday

  121. jonas’

    I'm not sure we need to start voting on those right away

  122. jonas’

    nobody has had time to read them anyway and at least one is spinning off into an interesting discussion on-list already

  123. jonas’

    (a discussion the outcome of which will decide +1/-1 for me)

  124. daniel

    i think we can start the voting. i don’t expect people to vote now though

  125. Ge0rG

    Yay for more discussion

  126. daniel

    3) Editors update.

  127. daniel

    see above

  128. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  129. daniel

    Move XEP-0424 (Message Retraction) to stable

  130. jonas’

    I think the points raised on list are sufficient for me to go -1: Depends on a bunch of experimental XEPs the future of which is unclear.

  131. daniel

    yes i agree with jonas’

  132. daniel

    and this seems to summarize the list discussion as well

  133. Ge0rG

    -1, I think we need to sort out the message referencing mechanism first

  134. larma

    same here (also applies to 425)

  135. Ge0rG

    0425 got even more gotchas

  136. daniel

    I'm -1 here as well

  137. Ge0rG

    Also I dislike the amount of boilerplate in both

  138. daniel

    larma, just to confirm that's a -1 for 424?

  139. larma

    daniel, yes

  140. daniel

    Ok. Thank you everyone

  141. daniel

    Move XEP-0425: Message Moderation to stable

  142. daniel


  143. Ge0rG


  144. jonas’

    also -1, same reasoning

  145. larma

    also -1

  146. daniel

    alright. thank you

  147. daniel

    Ok. As I said earlier i'm now gonna start votes on the 4 proposed xeps.

  148. Wojtek has left

  149. daniel

    personally i'm ready to vote but feel free to say 'on list'

  150. daniel

    and/or vote next meeting

  151. daniel

    Proposed XMPP Extension: Compatibility Fallbacks (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compatibility-fallback.html)

  152. Wojtek has joined

  153. Ge0rG


  154. larma


  155. daniel


  156. larma

    (well, I submitted it, so would be weird to be against)

  157. jonas’

    good enough to play with. +1

  158. jonas’

    though I note it misses a Requirements section

  159. daniel

    Proposed XMPP Extension: Call Invites https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/call-invites.html

  160. daniel


  161. larma


  162. jonas’

    looks sensible +1

  163. larma

    FYI, this will become useful with https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1139/files

  164. jonas’

    though one thing which would be useful for readability in that XEP is wording on where to send <left/> to

  165. Ge0rG


  166. larma

    jonas’, can you mention that on list, so I have a record and don't forget it?

  167. jonas’

    will do

  168. larma


  169. daniel

    Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Replies (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/replies.html)

  170. daniel


  171. larma


  172. Ge0rG


  173. daniel

    is this the 3rd or 4th xep dealing with replies? :-)

  174. larma

    hopefully it's the first to stick

  175. daniel

    jonas’, ?

  176. jonas’

    I was thinking

  177. jonas’


  178. jonas’

    I'm not sure we should accept this without a Design Considerations section detailing why the other mechanisms are not workable

  179. jonas’

    we already have <thread/>, References and Fastening, at the very least.

  180. jonas’

    so to me this smells like duplication, about the only reason to reject a protoxep.

  181. jonas’

    so to me this smells like duplication, about the only hard reason to reject a protoxep.

  182. jonas’

    am I misguided here?

  183. larma

    None of the ones you mention specifically go for replies

  184. jonas’

    well <thread/> kind of does

  185. daniel

    jonas’, sounds sensible

  186. Ge0rG

    Yeah, we could resussrect threads indeed.

  187. Ge0rG

    Yeah, we could resurrect threads indeed.

  188. daniel

    wouldn’t neceassarily have been a reason for me to reject but i get where you are coming from

  189. larma

    jonas’, thread allows multiple messages in a thread, business rules in that protoxep specifically says "Answers MUST NOT be be assumed to relate to any other messages than the referenced one."

  190. jonas’

    larma, some rationale in the document would be appreciated before acceptance I think.

  191. larma

    I surely can write it down

  192. jonas’

    to me it's not immediately obvious why <thread/> doesn't work here, since a reply could always fork off a fresh thread kind of

  193. larma

    only if the initial message already had a thread id

  194. daniel

    it requires the og message to have a thread-id

  195. jonas’


  196. jonas’


  197. Ge0rG

    luckily, replies doesn't depend on the original to have an origin-id

  198. daniel

    i find the thread example not very fitting personally but i do see overlap with references and fastening

  199. larma

    Overlap in a sense of "points to a previous message in chat"

  200. daniel

    overlap as in the authors intented this to be used for this

  201. daniel

    i think

  202. jonas’

    oh, message attaching would be another one with overlap

  203. jonas’

    so we're at five specs (if we count <thread/>) doing very similar things

  204. larma

    I don't agree they are "very similar", but I see what you mean. We probably need a section in the protoxep to tell them all apart

  205. jonas’

    ok, I'm -0 on this, but this document desperately needs a Design Considerations section to explain why the other four standards are not an option to achieve the goal

  206. daniel

    ok. thank you

  207. daniel

    Proposed XMPP Extension: PubSub Namespaces - https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-ns.html

  208. jonas’

    -1, until there's a good explanation for why pubsub#type isn't an option.

  209. Wojtek has left

  210. daniel

    i don’t know enough about pubsub to make a good call on that

  211. Ge0rG


  212. daniel

    +/- 0

  213. larma

    FYI, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/986 has the explanation

  214. Wojtek has joined

  215. jonas’

    should go into the document :)

  216. daniel

    do you want to cast a vote larma?

  217. daniel

    or else I would like to move on

  218. larma

    on-list for now

  219. daniel

    looking at the time

  220. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  221. daniel

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

  222. daniel

    -1 from me

  223. daniel

    should go into 0004

  224. daniel

    and we should ask editor to cherry pick the editorial / non controversial bits from that PR

  225. jonas’

    out of curiousity (I don't have any horses in that race), how would a '4 integration look like? sounds tricky to me, considering that '4 is Final.

  226. larma

    -1 from me as well, although I'm not sure if 0004 is the right place either, but the proposal definitely shouldn't go as is

  227. Ge0rG

    -1 with the PR as-is, maybe a better non-normative wording can be proposed if we fail to update 0004

  228. daniel

    jonas’, i think there has been some discussion on how that can still be done in 0004 in a compat way. but i also think a new xep (that modifies 0004) can be done

  229. jonas’


  230. Ge0rG

    Wow, we managed to run over time

  231. daniel

    yes. but we are mostly done I think

  232. daniel

    6) Date of Next

  233. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  234. daniel

    +1w wfm

  235. larma


  236. Ge0rG


  237. daniel

    7) AOB either we don’t have any or I need to ask people if they are ok with extending the meeting by 10mins

  238. daniel

    any aob?

  239. jonas’


  240. Wojtek has left

  241. larma


  242. Ge0rG


  243. daniel

    ok. awesome. thank you everyone

  244. daniel

    8) close

  245. Ge0rG

    thanks daniel

  246. jonas’

    Thanks daniel!

  247. larma

    Thanks 🙂

  248. Kev

    BTW, as References Guy, I don't think References is a reason to block Replies, but agree that some explanation in Replies would be worthwhile.

  249. Zash

    We need a Venn diagram!

  250. Kev

    (I do think references would work fine for the use case, but references being stuck (currently?) on URIs makes it a bit unfortunate.)

  251. Kev

    I think the whole space would greatly benefit from someone with time and understanding trying to map out how all the things work together (and that's the kind of leadership Council's good for), and I think that having a bunch of different ways to reference stanzas is undesirable, but ... yeah.

  252. Ge0rG

    Isn't that what Summits were good for, before 2020?

  253. Ge0rG

    searching the wiki for references yields https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Georg%27s_Talk_on_Message_routing among other things.

  254. Kev

    Summits used to be good for sorting out the high level view, and moderately ok for motivating people to write things, yes. There is a bit of an issue with XEPs written in a hurry to support stuff that was happening/just happened at Summits and then wither on the vine (e.g. References).

  255. Ge0rG

    I could try to allocate a few hours to write down the principal means we have to reference messages with their pros/cons and to collect an overview of which XEP does what. That's the sort of thing I like delving in, after all. Would wiki format be appropriate, or should I make it another "what's wrong in ..." presentation?

  256. pprrks has left

  257. pprrks has joined

  258. pprrks has left

  259. pprrks has joined

  260. pprrks has left

  261. pprrks has joined

  262. pprrks has left

  263. pprrks has joined

  264. pprrks has left

  265. pprrks has joined

  266. pprrks has left

  267. pprrks has joined

  268. pprrks has left

  269. sonny has left

  270. pprrks has joined

  271. sonny has joined

  272. me9 has left

  273. me9 has joined

  274. pprrks has left

  275. pprrks has joined

  276. debacle has left

  277. pprrks has left

  278. pprrks has joined

  279. pprrks has left

  280. Kev has left

  281. Kev has joined

  282. Kev has left

  283. Kev has joined

  284. Kev has left

  285. Kev has joined

  286. Kev has left

  287. Kev has joined

  288. Tobias has left

  289. sonny has left

  290. sonny has joined

  291. Kev has left

  292. Kev has joined

  293. marc0s has left

  294. marc0s has joined

  295. marc0s has left

  296. marc0s has joined

  297. Kev has left

  298. Kev has joined

  299. debacle has joined

  300. vaulor has left

  301. vaulor has joined

  302. marc0s has left

  303. marc0s has joined

  304. me9 has left

  305. msavoritias has left

  306. sonny has left

  307. sonny has joined

  308. neox has left

  309. neox has joined