XMPP Council - 2022-11-16

Hey XEP experts, if anyone can support highlighting what of the xep listed above stands out as "highlights" in the recent years, that would be a great support. If anything is missing please add. I focused onoy on new, proposed, proto and stable 🙏

last week's lines in the spreadsheet of doom are all crossed through, what's the matter with that? Should I still vote?

maybe because of the upcoming council eleection?

does it mean all votes are postponed until next council, or does it mean we need to complete voting before the election is finished?

let me check. but that's likely just a weird glitch

doesn’t mean anything

for some reason google sheets defaults to strike through when adding a new line

I wanted to start voting last week (even though I couldn’t be there) to get the votes through before the council period ends

tmolitor, the scram upgrade tasks xep depends on the new version of sals2, no?

because of xml elements vs base64?

and/or task data simply not existing

.

It's time

1) Roll call

hello!

here

👋️

Ge0rG?

hi

2) Agenda bashing

I assume nothing to bash

3) Editors updates

no new updates this week

4) Items for voting

none

5) Pending votes

everyone but jonas’ on scram upgrade tasks

I'm still on list, but I have one question regarding Pubsub Signing

I'm on list. this depends on on unresolved sasl 2 situation. which we might resolve soon

on-list

also on-list

pubsub signing is pending from moparisthebest Ge0rG and me

on-list

on-list

you had a question (to whom?) Ge0rG ?

I've just had a brief skim, and it looks like the signed content is embedded into the <sign-data> element, which is good. but it also claims to be backward-compatible, so is another (unsigned) copy of the element put somewhere else?

The <sign-data> element is only for what is signed, it doesn't actually appear on wire

and the signature only shows in a pubsub attachment. clients fetching the node without the attachment don't see any difference (hence it's backwards compatible)

larma: ah, thanks. I'll do another in-depth read based on that!

ok I assume everyone who hasn’t voted already is on list for either of the two pubsub signing xeps?

moving on then

yes, on-list

everyone except jonas’ is pending on Fast

+1

+1 on fast

This also depends on sasl2, no?

> tmolitor, the scram upgrade tasks xep depends on the new version of sals2, no? > because of xml elements vs base64? Yes it does

Like bind2 and by extension fast, too

on-list

on-list

because of the change with <inline/>? yes that's unfortunate

mhh yes I'll retract my +1 for now

6) Date of next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

+1 wfm

We really need Dave to react :/

we have pretty good consensus to just do it, why don't we just do it ?

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

7) AOB

I have some

do we want to do something about the SASL 2 situation?

yes, let's change it and move forward

I poked MattJ as I promised last week. Except I did it only just now.

but given that dwd didn't reply to the email yet, we can also go ahead and add another author

can we vote to add MattJ as author ?

does he want to be an author?

don't we have to add tmolitor instead?

Honestly most of the new sasl2 stuff is from me

yeah that would be the other candidate

At least tmolitor, but the PR already suggests to add both

fine with me too :) I think both would have the same results

also fine with adding both...

So I guess both are fine with being an author, otherwise they'd have probably already complained about being added as an author as part of the PR

so we'd be voting on merging the PR as is which automatcally makes both authors?

can I get a link to "the PR"?

Yeah mattj did add/change some parts, too (especially those about client ID)

jonas' https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1214

yes

I'd like to vote to make both an author *independently* of merging the PR. As soon as they're author, they have all rights to accept the PR without involving council.

or if council doesn’t want to tie it to that specific PR we could just make them both authors

larma, fair

for simplicity, I'd appreciate if we could at least informally agree (with tmolitor) that authorship implies merging the PR

I'd rather not have that in two steps

Fine by me

I think the formality is a bit too much, we want them author, we want that merged, don't care how it's done let's just vote :)

ok. can I have your votes on: Adding MattJ and tmolitor co-authors of XEP-0388

+1 and +1

+1 and +1

+1

(let's get this thing moving)

+1

Ge0rG, ?

I'd like to point out that XEP-0428 Fallback Indication / https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1188 has the very same issue of being stuck

larma, OK if i add that as an agenda item for next week? (adding you as an author)

sure, if you feel we can't do it today

I'm +1 on adding larma as author on '428 now or next week

I feel like we lost half of council members; we are running up on the time limit; and doing it next week just gives people a moment to familiarize themselves with that situtation

ok it seems like Ge0rG is gone. If you could vote on the authorship thing some time during that week that would be great

asuming no other AOB?

I'm sorry

+1 to add MattJ and tmolitor as co-authors of XEP-0388

thanks. that means that votes has passed

8) Close

thank you all

Thanks

thanks daniel

thanks all!

thanks all!

thanks daniel and sorry for my lag