XMPP Council - 2022-11-16

  1. emus

    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 🙏

  2. Ge0rG

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

  3. flow

    maybe because of the upcoming council eleection?

  4. Ge0rG

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

  5. daniel

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

  6. daniel

    doesn’t mean anything

  7. daniel

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

  8. daniel

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

  9. daniel

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

  10. daniel

    because of xml elements vs base64?

  11. daniel

    and/or task data simply not existing

  12. jonas’


  13. daniel

    It's time

  14. daniel

    1) Roll call

  15. moparisthebest


  16. jonas’


  17. larma


  18. daniel


  19. Ge0rG


  20. daniel

    2) Agenda bashing

  21. daniel

    I assume nothing to bash

  22. daniel

    3) Editors updates

  23. daniel

    no new updates this week

  24. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  25. daniel


  26. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  27. daniel

    everyone but jonas’ on scram upgrade tasks

  28. Ge0rG

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

  29. daniel

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

  30. moparisthebest


  31. larma

    also on-list

  32. daniel

    pubsub signing is pending from moparisthebest Ge0rG and me

  33. daniel


  34. moparisthebest


  35. daniel

    you had a question (to whom?) Ge0rG ?

  36. 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?

  37. larma

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

  38. larma

    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)

  39. Ge0rG

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

  40. daniel

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

  41. daniel

    moving on then

  42. Ge0rG

    yes, on-list

  43. daniel

    everyone except jonas’ is pending on Fast

  44. daniel


  45. moparisthebest

    +1 on fast

  46. larma

    This also depends on sasl2, no?

  47. tmolitor

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

  48. tmolitor

    Like bind2 and by extension fast, too

  49. Ge0rG


  50. larma


  51. daniel

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

  52. daniel

    mhh yes I'll retract my +1 for now

  53. daniel

    6) Date of next

  54. daniel

    +1w wfm

  55. larma

    +1w wfm

  56. moparisthebest

    +1 wfm

  57. tmolitor

    We really need Dave to react :/

  58. moparisthebest

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

  59. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  60. Ge0rG

    +1w wfm

  61. daniel

    7) AOB

  62. daniel

    I have some

  63. daniel

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

  64. moparisthebest

    yes, let's change it and move forward

  65. jonas’

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

  66. jonas’

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

  67. moparisthebest

    can we vote to add MattJ as author ?

  68. daniel

    does he want to be an author?

  69. jonas’

    don't we have to add tmolitor instead?

  70. tmolitor

    Honestly most of the new sasl2 stuff is from me

  71. daniel

    yeah that would be the other candidate

  72. larma

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

  73. moparisthebest

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

  74. moparisthebest

    also fine with adding both...

  75. larma

    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

  76. daniel

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

  77. jonas’

    can I get a link to "the PR"?

  78. tmolitor

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

  79. larma

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

  80. daniel


  81. larma

    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.

  82. daniel

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

  83. daniel

    larma, fair

  84. jonas’

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

  85. jonas’

    I'd rather not have that in two steps

  86. tmolitor

    Fine by me

  87. moparisthebest

    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 :)

  88. daniel

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

  89. moparisthebest

    +1 and +1

  90. jonas’

    +1 and +1

  91. daniel


  92. jonas’

    (let's get this thing moving)

  93. larma


  94. daniel

    Ge0rG, ?

  95. larma

    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

  96. daniel

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

  97. larma

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

  98. moparisthebest

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

  99. daniel

    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

  100. daniel

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

  101. daniel

    asuming no other AOB?

  102. Ge0rG

    I'm sorry

  103. Ge0rG

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

  104. daniel

    thanks. that means that votes has passed

  105. daniel

    8) Close

  106. daniel

    thank you all

  107. tmolitor


  108. jonas’

    thanks daniel

  109. moparisthebest

    thanks all!

  110. larma

    thanks all!

  111. Ge0rG

    thanks daniel and sorry for my lag