jonas’-1, until there's a good explanation for why pubsub#type isn't an option.
danieli don’t know enough about pubsub to make a good call on that
larmaFYI, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/986 has the explanation
jonas’should go into the document :)
danieldo you want to cast a vote larma?
danielor else I would like to move on
larmaon-list for now
daniellooking at the time
daniel5) Pending votes
danielEveryone but Jonas pending on XEP-0060: Release version 1.23.0
daniel-1 from me
danielshould go into 0004
danieland 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
danieljonas’, 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
Ge0rGWow, we managed to run over time
danielyes. but we are mostly done I think
daniel6) Date of Next
either we don’t have any or I need to ask people if they are ok with extending the meeting by 10mins
danielok. awesome. thank you everyone
KevBTW, as References Guy, I don't think References is a reason to block Replies, but agree that some explanation in Replies would be worthwhile.
ZashWe 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.)
KevI 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.
Ge0rGIsn't that what Summits were good for, before 2020?
Ge0rGsearching the wiki for references yields https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Georg%27s_Talk_on_Message_routing among other things.
KevSummits 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).
Ge0rGI 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?