XMPP Council - 2023-01-04

  1. Tobias has joined

  2. emus has left

  3. vaulor has left

  4. neox has left

  5. gooya has left

  6. marc0s has left

  7. marc0s has joined

  8. sonny has left

  9. sonny has joined

  10. sonny has left

  11. sonny has joined

  12. sonny has left

  13. sonny has joined

  14. marc0s has left

  15. marc0s has joined

  16. marc0s has left

  17. marc0s has joined

  18. vaulor has joined

  19. marc0s has left

  20. marc0s has joined

  21. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has joined

  22. marc0s has left

  23. marc0s has joined

  24. emus has joined

  25. marc0s has left

  26. marc0s has joined

  27. sonny has left

  28. neox has joined

  29. sonny has joined

  30. emus has left

  31. emus has joined

  32. vaulor has left

  33. Kev has joined

  34. vaulor has joined

  35. vaulor has left

  36. vaulor has joined

  37. gooya has joined

  38. gooya has left

  39. gooya has joined

  40. SouL has left

  41. SouL has joined

  42. sonny has left

  43. sonny has joined

  44. daniel

    It's Wednesday

  45. jonas’

    it is indeed!

  46. larma

    Wednesdays are great!

  47. jonas’

    also last day of my vacation, so a bit bittersweet here ;)

  48. daniel

    and now it's 1600Z

  49. jonas’

    *ding dong*

  50. daniel

    1) roll call

  51. jonas’ is present

  52. moparisthebest


  53. larma too 🙂

  54. daniel scrolls Ge0rG to check what he said two weeks ago about his availability

  55. daniel

    that's missing at least one 'up' and a few other words...

  56. Ge0rG is on sick leave and semi absent

  57. Ge0rG

    Don't scroll me too fast!

  58. moparisthebest

    Feel better soon Ge0rG !

  59. daniel

    2) Agenda bashing; nothing to bash

  60. daniel

    3) Editors update

  61. daniel

    I don’t think they were any

  62. daniel

    damn it i'm not really prepared

  63. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  64. daniel

    nothing new

  65. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  66. daniel


  67. Ge0rG


  68. daniel

    6) Date of next

  69. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  70. daniel

    +1w wfm

  71. Ge0rG

    There is a pending vote

  72. moparisthebest

    +1w wfm

  73. jonas’

    Ge0rG, votes all expired in the past 2w I guess

  74. Ge0rG

    You are scrolling too fast

  75. daniel

    oh there is one

  76. Zash


  77. jonas’

    oh, that one has not

  78. daniel

    last chance to vote on stream limits Ge0rG

  79. daniel

    do you want to cast a vote now?

  80. Ge0rG


  81. daniel

    this means stream limits passed

  82. Zash


  83. daniel

    7) AOB

  84. jonas’


  85. moparisthebest

    No aob from me

  86. jonas’

    we should probably talk about the SASL2 situation,

  87. daniel


  88. jonas’

    but I haven't gotten a clear permission to share feedback from dave directly

  89. jonas’

    I know that MattJ talked to him, too, but I don't know what the outcome of that was

  90. daniel

    feedback on the spec or feedback on his availability?

  91. jonas’

    mostly on how council handled the situation

  92. jonas’

    I think feedback on the spec has been shared on the list

  93. moparisthebest

    This is a silly problem to have :(

  94. daniel

    > I think feedback on the spec has been shared on the list has it?

  95. jonas’

    moparisthebest, no, this is a communication problem, of council even, and we should figure that out

  96. daniel

    i mean after it was updated once more?

  97. jonas’

    daniel, not sure

  98. jonas’

    ok, MattJ doesn't seem to be around presently

  99. jonas’

    so I guess we can postpone this one

  100. daniel

    ok let's talk about how we handled the situation

  101. jonas’

    or that

  102. moparisthebest

    what's the communication problem?

  103. daniel

    i'm not super happy that we had to do it

  104. daniel

    but I also don’t see many alternatives

  105. jonas’

    moparisthebest, dwd was never, my be, explicitly asked about feedback for SASL2

  106. jonas’

    I asked about feedback for '428, because I got those confused in my head

  107. moparisthebest

    Emailing individual council members instead of the list seems to be one

  108. moparisthebest

    Ah well, mistakes happen

  109. jonas’

    moparisthebest, it was in direct response to my question

  110. jonas’

    so what we kind of did was taking away authorship from an author who still has opinions on things and might've been available if we had poked directly (and may have been unavailable for good reasons™)

  111. daniel

    yes the fact that a lot of the "ping $author directly" happens out of band is not good indeed

  112. jonas’

    and bulldozing over people like that is kind of meh

  113. jonas’

    and that's not quite a silly problem IMO, but a rather serious one

  114. larma

    jonas’, wait, we removed authorship?

  115. jonas’

    larma, no

  116. jonas’

    sorry, that phrasing was incorrect

  117. daniel

    I understand being unavailable for good reasons(tm) and I don’t feel good about adding more authors in those situations; but the spec also has to move on

  118. daniel

    he was/is unavailable for good reasons for a while now

  119. moparisthebest

    We granted extra authorship because we thought he'd been asked for feedback and hadn't responded in... What a month? That's literally council's job

  120. jonas’

    moparisthebest, it was exactly a month since last feedback when we voted on it, indeed, but not a month since last change, and we never asked

  121. jonas’

    so this needs fixing

  122. jonas’

    the problem is that author pings have formally been executed by the editor

  123. jonas’

    because it's the editor's responsibility to gate changes to Experimental XEPs based on author approval

  124. jonas’

    so doing this via council@ would've been weird (also that list is members-only I think)

  125. jonas’

    but there's room for improvement here

  126. daniel

    i mean in this particular case I think both authors might be willing to step down from the role council has casted upon them and give it back to dwd alone

  127. moparisthebest

    Maybe they should be sent CC'd to the standards list?

  128. jonas’

    moparisthebest, might be a bit noisy, but could be a solution indeed

  129. daniel

    plus both new authors have not acted upon their privelges to have the spec merged

  130. jonas’

    daniel, also because the editor hasn't executed the change

  131. jonas’

    because the editor realized in the very last second what went wrong in the process

  132. jonas’

    so I think the council vote happened under wrong assumptions and we should redo that. and we should give dwd a fair chance for another round of feedback, though that might've happened already, today, with MattJ

  133. daniel

    ok. I think we can be more careful next time (it's not like we are doing these things often or lightly)

  134. jonas’

    hence I suggest we think about how we can improve the process and discuss this again next week

  135. daniel

    but can dwd also please look at / review sasl finally

  136. jonas’

    end of AOB from my perspective.

  137. jonas’

    (I'll bring this up next week again for finalization, but if you could alraedy add it to the agenda that'd be great)

  138. daniel

    I think the one thing that we should ensure in the future is that the ping happens with cc of council or standards

  139. daniel

    so we can ensure that the ping is executed correctly

  140. moparisthebest

    Some mailing list we can look at yes

  141. daniel

    but the general procedure that we will eventually assign more authors is correct IMHO

  142. jonas’

    ack to both

  143. moparisthebest


  144. larma


  145. daniel

    I mean if dwd felt like he was treated badly (I don’t know what went on in the messages between jonas’ and him) I apologize

  146. daniel

    I think he has contributed a lot to XMPP and I don’t think we did this to 'punish' him or what ever

  147. daniel

    anyway... any other aob?

  148. jonas’

    none from me

  149. moparisthebest

    Same re: what daniel said

  150. daniel

    8) Close

  151. jonas’


  152. jonas’


  153. daniel

    thank you all and see you next week

  154. larma


  155. moparisthebest

    Thanks all!

  156. MattJ

    Sorry, missed the discussion (again)

  157. Kev

    Do we agree that 3. Try to make the XEP Author aware of the change. Do this with an email to the author (use the contact info availablefor each author in either the XEP or in xep.ent) and cc: standards@. matches the intent for Editors here?

  158. Kev

    I'm just updating the Editor workflow doc.

  159. MattJ

    I agree tha the general procedure is fine, I think in this case it was just a bit hasty. Had I been paying attention during the meeting with the vote, I would have suggested postponing it, as I had been communicating with Dave the previous day (about a different topic) so I knew he was reachable in principle.

  160. Ge0rG

    Kev: +1

  161. MattJ

    It would still be up to Council whether to hold the vote, of course. But I'd like to think it would have indeed been postponed. The inactivity clause is there to rescue abandoned documented from absent authors, but in this case it wasn't clear that had happened, and the author had prior experience in this area and I valued their input on the new revisions.

  162. MattJ

    Obviously the latency hasn't been ideal, but that happens to us all

  163. moparisthebest

    Hindsight being 20/20 in this case I suspect we all agree

  164. daniel

    > Hindsight being 20/20 in this case I suspect we all agree Yes

  165. daniel

    I admit that the actual vote was a bit rushed but it was preceeded by weeks of perceived inactivity

  166. daniel

    Plus a general 'how should we handle those situations' discussion the week before that was very clearly aimed at dwd

  167. MattJ

    Anyway, Dave and I did chat earlier, and we agreed to move ahead with the latest revision of SASL2. I asked him to ack on the PR or mailing list so we have a proper record for the editors, and I expect he'll get to that soon.

  168. moparisthebest

    Right, with the info we had at the time I still would have voted the same way, next time we'll have a mailing list to look at which *should* prevent a similar thing from happening again

  169. Kev

    That change has been merged to the Editor workflow doc now.

  170. Tobias has left

  171. Tobias has joined

  172. Tobias has left

  173. Tobias has joined

  174. Tobias has left

  175. Tobias has joined

  176. Tobias has left

  177. Tobias has joined

  178. Tobias has left

  179. Tobias has joined

  180. Tobias has left

  181. Tobias has joined

  182. SouL has left

  183. SouL has joined

  184. SouL has left

  185. SouL has joined

  186. dwd

    Just FTR:

  187. dwd

    There was a *huge* amount of discussion happening on SASL2 that I was included in, but none of it was on the list, so "perceived inactivity" could certainly be a problem.

  188. dwd

    But I had absolutely no idea that there'd been a vote about changing the authors, which was... interesting.

  189. dwd

    In fact, in general, the mailing list is really quiet, so I'd basically no clue at all that this work was happening; I saw the SASL2 stuff only because of private emails and (later) the Git PR.

  190. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has left

  191. dwd

    But that all said... I'm totally happy if Matt and or Thilo wants to have authorship. I assume that my opinion will remain useful to them, in as much as I implemented a lot of this work half a decade ago and still vaguely recall the good bits.

  192. marc0s has left

  193. marc0s has joined

  194. marc0s has left

  195. marc0s has joined

  196. daniel

    > There was a *huge* amount of discussion happening on SASL2 that I was included in, but none of it was on the list I think the part about discussions happening out of band is something we could all work on improving. I get why it's done. I've done this plenty of times myself

  197. dwd

    Oh, for sure. I should have pushed back on that, for sure.

  198. Tobias has left

  199. Tobias has joined

  200. Tobias has left

  201. Tobias has joined

  202. Tobias has left

  203. Tobias has joined

  204. Kev has left