XMPP Council - 2022-12-27

daniel, it seems we're missing votes from 2022-11-16 in the spreadsheets

apparently, council unanimously voted for tmolitor and MattJ being co-authors of '388 at that date

did we ask dwd?

I note that on github, dwd was still interacting with them, so even though we voted in favour, I want to make sure we're not getting on the wrong side of him

> but given that dwd didn't reply to the email yet, we can also go ahead and add another author https://logs.xmpp.org/council/2022-11-16?p=h#2022-11-16-895b5485f12f8ad1

Also relevant and easily missed from that link (it's on the next day's page): https://logs.xmpp.org/council/2022-11-17?p=h#2022-11-17-384a8fa621c79702

Dave has provided further feedback since then, and we have made changes in response

but there has been no further feedback to tmolitors further questions, right?

also what is your magic way of pinging dave?

Which questions?

I ping him via email

dunno, sync with tmolitor

I don't want to play bridge

I think the only question I'm aware of at this point is "can we merge now, kthx"

which is a crucial one, I think

MattJ: yeah, I'm waiting for acks of changes I made in response to dwds feedback...but dwd never acked them as solving his concerns...

So to sum it up, yes, the only question is: can this be merged now

MattJ, the "obvious" email address? or is there a secret one?

Obvious one

ack

I shot him two mails in this context just now already

so that should do, hopefully

As far as I'm concerned we've addressed all feedback, I'd just like a positive ack (even if reluctant)

right, fair

I hope I put all that in good context in my email :/

so confusing

jonas’: great, thanks

How long do we plan to wait for dwd to react on these mails?

Honestly at this point even if dwd doesn't like the changes we'd just give current PR a new XEP number

The authors job is to incorporate the feedback based on rough consensus. And I strongly believe the current PR has that

I get not wanting to step on people's toes but imho the only way to do this would be with a new xep

I remember people screaming load when I was proposing a new xep instead of reanimating an unused, long-deferred XEP...

(although IMO, new XEPs with new XEP numbers are nothing bad, I'd even go as far as considering it better than namespace bumping within a XEP)

it doesn't make sense for 1 person with no implementation to trump consensus and running code

a new xep is not "trump" something. It's providing a new alternative. If it reaches consensus to be not only similarly good but signficiantly better than the previously used alternative, such that a migration is worth it, the consensus will migrate. If not, it will just vanish, like most other XEPs.

A/B test all the XEPs!

This is essentially why MIX is effectively not adopted.

I'm not suggesting to make a new xep. I was trying to illustrate how pointless implicit or explicit blocking by the author is in this case

Are authors too op in this thing? :)

I don't think they are

We are just trying to be nice. Council has already added two Co authors

Just for future reference if I don't respond in a week feel free to add more authors to my XEPs immediately

:D

If moparisthebest going to vacation would always cause Ge0rG to improve XEPs authored by him, I guess that would be a very much desired result 🙂

Touché

Wait Ge0rG will fix my XEPs if I go on vacation? 🎉

moparisthebest: for some exotic value of "to fix"