wouldn’t neceassarily have been a reason for me to reject but i get where you are coming from
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."
jonas’
larma, some rationale in the document would be appreciated before acceptance I think.
larma
I surely can write it down
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
larma
only if the initial message already had a thread id
daniel
it requires the og message to have a thread-id
jonas’
ohh
jonas’
meh
Ge0rG
luckily, replies doesn't depend on the original to have an origin-id
daniel
i find the thread example not very fitting personally but i do see overlap with references and fastening
larma
Overlap in a sense of "points to a previous message in chat"
daniel
overlap as in the authors intented this to be used for this
daniel
i think
jonas’
oh, message attaching would be another one with overlap
jonas’
so we're at five specs (if we count <thread/>) doing very similar things
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
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
-1, until there's a good explanation for why pubsub#type isn't an option.
Wojtekhas left
daniel
i don’t know enough about pubsub to make a good call on that
Ge0rG
on-list
daniel
+/- 0
larma
FYI, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/986 has the explanation
Wojtekhas joined
jonas’
should go into the document :)
daniel
do you want to cast a vote larma?
daniel
or else I would like to move on
larma
on-list for now
daniel
looking at the time
daniel
5) Pending votes
daniel
Everyone but Jonas pending on XEP-0060: Release version 1.23.0
(https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1126)
daniel
-1 from me
daniel
should go into 0004
daniel
and we should ask editor to cherry pick the editorial / non controversial bits from that PR
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.
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
Ge0rG
-1 with the PR as-is, maybe a better non-normative wording can be proposed if we fail to update 0004
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
jonas’
right
Ge0rG
Wow, we managed to run over time
daniel
yes. but we are mostly done I think
daniel
6) Date of Next
jonas’
+1w wfm
daniel
+1w wfm
larma
+1w
Ge0rG
+1W
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
daniel
any aob?
jonas’
none
Wojtekhas left
larma
no
Ge0rG
none
daniel
ok. awesome. thank you everyone
daniel
8) close
Ge0rG
thanks daniel
jonas’
Thanks daniel!
larma
Thanks 🙂
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.
Zash
We need a Venn diagram!
Kev
(I do think references would work fine for the use case, but references being stuck (currently?) on URIs makes it a bit unfortunate.)
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.
Ge0rG
Isn't that what Summits were good for, before 2020?
Ge0rG
searching the wiki for references yields https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Georg%27s_Talk_on_Message_routing among other things.
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).
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?