XMPP Council - 2023-01-04

It's Wednesday

it is indeed!

Wednesdays are great!

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

and now it's 1600Z

*ding dong*

1) roll call

Hello!

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

Don't scroll me too fast!

Feel better soon Ge0rG !

2) Agenda bashing; nothing to bash

3) Editors update

I don’t think they were any

damn it i'm not really prepared

4) Items for voting

nothing new

5) Pending votes

none

+1

6) Date of next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

There is a pending vote

+1w wfm

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

You are scrolling too fast

oh there is one

Limits!

oh, that one has not

last chance to vote on stream limits Ge0rG

do you want to cast a vote now?

+1

this means stream limits passed

Yay!

7) AOB

\o/

No aob from me

we should probably talk about the SASL2 situation,

ok?

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

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

feedback on the spec or feedback on his availability?

mostly on how council handled the situation

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

This is a silly problem to have :(

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

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

i mean after it was updated once more?

daniel, not sure

ok, MattJ doesn't seem to be around presently

so I guess we can postpone this one

ok let's talk about how we handled the situation

or that

what's the communication problem?

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

but I also don’t see many alternatives

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

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

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

Ah well, mistakes happen

moparisthebest, it was in direct response to my question

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™)

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

and bulldozing over people like that is kind of meh

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

jonas’, wait, we removed authorship?

larma, no

sorry, that phrasing was incorrect

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

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

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

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

so this needs fixing

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

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

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

but there's room for improvement here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but can dwd also please look at / review sasl finally

end of AOB from my perspective.

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

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

so we can ensure that the ping is executed correctly

Some mailing list we can look at yes

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

ack to both

+1

+1

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

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

anyway... any other aob?

none from me

Same re: what daniel said

8) Close

o/

thanks

thank you all and see you next week

thanks

Thanks all!

Sorry, missed the discussion (again)

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?

I'm just updating the Editor workflow doc.

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.

Kev: +1

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Just FTR:

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.

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

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.

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.

> 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

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