XMPP Council - 2022-02-09

it's time

1) Roll call

indeed it is.

✏

👋️

welcome back Ge0rG

welcome back 🙂

o/

do we have a moparisthebest?

hello!

2) Agenda Bashing

no changes to the agenda

3) Editors update

a) Published Update XEP-0060 that passed Council last week b) Proposed XMPP Extension: PubSub Type Filtering (https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-filter.html)

4) Items for voting

a) Proposed XMPP Extension: PubSub Type Filtering https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-filter.html

+1 lgtm

+1 , not sure discovery is even necessary, but good to go

+1 for me as well

+1

on-list

thank you

5) Pending votes

Everyone on partial form submission in XEP-0004 and subsequent XEP-0060 edit.

we had some list discussions on that

+1 and +1

and i for my part a ready to vote +1 on both of them

+1 both for me as well

larma, both i assume?

that's what I meant with both

+1 for both PRs

thank you larma just wanted to be explicit for the record

+0, to '4, noting that this is a normative change which just happens to align with the implementations we asked ✏

+0 to the '60 change, because it depends on the '4 one

the added content in #1153 sounds like a banality, but it's probably good to explicitly write it out

thank you

Ge0rG, is pending on #1152

do you want to vote on that now? if not you have another week

daniel: +1 on #1152 as well. it's also semi-normative

awesome. thank you

it was also part of #1154, so I implicitly approved it above ;)

6) Date of next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm also

+1W WFM

I might not be able to make next week, but I will try

ack

+1w wfm

7) AOB

yes

go ahead larma

I contacted the two authors of XEP-0272 about a month ago to get feedback regarding the changes to the XEP I proposed. They did not react and as far as I can tell seem to not be involved with XMPP anymore.

contacted in private i assume?

yes, I don't know any public contact from them, only the address stated in the XEP

never heard the names even

right. by public i was implying the standards list

given your current work in the conferencing section, I'd be happy to vote in favour to grant you ownership fwiw

domain redirects to https://www.collabora.com/ now

i generally agree with jonas’ but i'm wondering if The Correct Approach(tm) would be to leave feedback on the standards list before we declare it abandoned

did you try names@collabora.com ? ✏

moparisthebest, did not, good idea, although the emails did not bounce on the .co.uk addresses

(they might not even work there anymore given how fast people change jobs in IT)

but yes equally inclined to figure out "correct way" and then grant ownership to larma

There is also xmpp:sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#proposal > In case the XEP has been abandoned by its author(s), any other individual can propose advancement in their stead. The Approving Body will then require a Document Shepherd to take on responsibilities on behalf of the XEP author during the proposal and approval processes.

can you just post your feedback on list. it's probably interesting plus we can ensure that they aren’t subscribed to the list anymore with a different email address and/or stopped caring

so no guidance on what constitutes "has been abandoned" ?

moparisthebest: we don't have hard criteria on that, and I'd rather not try to define some

but yea maybe list + CC their emails and if no response I'm ok with calling it abandoned

Sounds good

I also agree that larma can take over ownership if there is no public response from the authors

right. i would expect the outcome to be that larma takes over. i just want a clean path towards that

any other AOB?

assuming none

8) Close

thank you all

Thanks, daniel

Thanks 🙂

thanks daniel !

not official AOB, but if you have a minute check xsf@ and give feedback, I'm inclined to declare _xmppconnect from '156 insecure and remove it

PR to come...

sorry, I had to run quickly, no AOB from me, thanks daniel :)