XMPP Council - 2023-01-11


  1. moparisthebest

    Good appropriate-time-of-day!

  2. jonas’

    o/

  3. jonas’

    (afternoon here)

  4. daniel

    1) Roll call

  5. moparisthebest

    Here

  6. larma

    👋️

  7. daniel

    is Ge0rG here too?

  8. daniel

    2) Agenda bashing

  9. daniel

    nothing to bash…

  10. daniel

    3) Editors update no updates this week

  11. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  12. daniel

    nothing to vote on

  13. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  14. daniel

    none

  15. daniel

    6) Date of Next

  16. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  17. moparisthebest

    +1w wfm

  18. larma

    +1w wfm

  19. daniel

    +1w wfm (I will be on a train earlier that day; but hopefully home by 1600)

  20. daniel

    7) AOB

  21. moparisthebest

    Here's hoping all the trains in your whole country aren't cancelled due to a computer bug -.-

  22. moparisthebest

    No aob here

  23. larma

    Do we want to issue a last call for XEP-0390 (Entity Capabilities 2.0)?

  24. jonas’

    moparisthebest, here, trains don't get cancelled because of computer bugs. if such a thing were to happen, it would obviously have been russian hackers™

  25. jonas’

    re '390: I have no objections and am willing to work on the document during LC

    ❤️ 1
  26. daniel

    the author can also just ask the editor, no?

  27. daniel

    but I can put it on the agenda for next week

  28. daniel

    i'd be in favor

  29. jonas’

    let me check

  30. jonas’

    > An Experimental (or Deferred) XEP may be proposed to the Approving Body for advancement to Stable (Standards Track XEPs) or Active (Historical, Informational, and Procedural XEPs). This can be requested from the Approving Body on the Standards list by, or in collaboration with, the XEP author.

  31. larma

    > Once the Approving Body so agrees, it shall instruct the XMPP Extensions Editor to (1) change the status of the XEP from Experimental (or Deferred) to Proposed and (2) issue a Last Call for open discussion on the Standards list.

  32. jonas’

    ^

  33. jonas’

    so yes we need to vote on it

  34. daniel

    should we vote now?

  35. moparisthebest

    Fine with me

  36. larma

    +1

  37. daniel

    ok. your votes please

  38. daniel

    +1

  39. larma

    +1

  40. moparisthebest

    +1

  41. jonas’

    +1

  42. jonas’

    I'd like to raise another AOB

  43. daniel

    go ahead jonas’

  44. jonas’

    I think we should avoid voting on things (an LC may not matter much, but other things might) which haven't been announced on the agenda

  45. jonas’

    simply because of transparency

  46. jonas’

    if anyone were to object, they may only learn about it when the vote has passed

  47. jonas’

    which is kind of meh

  48. larma

    Agreed. Blame me for not pushing Daniel to put it on the Agenda after discussing that on xsf@

  49. daniel

    I agree

  50. Ge0rG

    +1 on the 390 LC

  51. moparisthebest

    Things like an LC they still have plenty of time to object, but otherwise I agree

  52. jonas’

    moparisthebest, ack

  53. daniel

    anything else?

  54. jonas’

    none from me

  55. Ge0rG

    jonas’: given that the agenda usually happens a day in advance, I don't see much of a practical difference

  56. daniel

    a day is a day

  57. jonas’

    I'll notify editors about this request.

  58. jonas’

    Ge0rG, a day is indeed a day, and given that we don't even have minutes...

  59. larma

    I was wondering if we do want to work on a CS 2023 or if we intend to skip this year

  60. jonas’

    things which aren't in the agenda might not make it to the community at all

  61. daniel

    (and if we actually have stuff on the agenda I try to actually send it out 24h prior)

  62. daniel

    larma, personally I don’t think enough has changed to make for a new CS

  63. jonas’

    still having a CS with a current date on it would be good

  64. larma

    I do agree, hence skipping is a viable option. Maybe we can also just rename 2022?

  65. jonas’

    I guess we could do that

  66. Ge0rG

    Should we rename 2022 to 2022+2023

  67. Zash

    CS 2025

  68. moparisthebest

    ^

  69. jonas’

    The Eternal Compliance Suite

  70. daniel

    202[23]

  71. Ge0rG

    Or better 2022-2023, that way we can further prolong it

    😄️ 1
  72. jonas’

    in favour of having a document for 2023, by whatever means

  73. jonas’

    any volunteers?

  74. MattJ

    🤦

  75. Ge0rG

    I don't mind making a full copy of 2022 and bring it up on the list

  76. jonas’

    FACE PALM

  77. jonas’

    MattJ, care to explain? :)

  78. MattJ

    I'd prefer a new document, but would prefer not to volunteer :)

  79. daniel

    yes Ge0rG thank you

  80. jonas’

    Ge0rG, thanks!

  81. MattJ

    I think there is value in an annual review, and an annual resulting document. I bet there are changes to make (not accusing anyone, but if we make no changes we're probably being collectively lazy)

  82. larma

    Thanks Ge0rG

  83. daniel

    any more aob?

  84. larma

    not from me

  85. jonas’

    none from me

  86. moparisthebest

    Nope

  87. Ge0rG

    None here, sorry for being late

  88. jonas’

    (FTR, I think that "just copy the previous year and throw it into standards@ for discussion" is a viable approach for what MattJ said)

  89. daniel

    8) Close

  90. moparisthebest

    I agree

  91. jonas’

    thanks daniel

  92. daniel

    thank you all

  93. MattJ

    Yes, I agree. Copy/paste into a new document, update the year, and we'll take it from there

  94. moparisthebest

    Thanks all and especially Ge0rG for volunteering

  95. MattJ

    +1

  96. larma

    thanks all

  97. Ge0rG

    I'll also go through the new XEPs of last year and see if I should add them to the suite or to the list of notable things

  98. Kev

    Evening folks. It looks like in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/7eaa3962a83ebde2607c0a778cda6281981f8444 19 and 148 were accidentally given minor bumps that should have been editorial bumps. Pep's submitted a PR to undo that, but as that means essentially 'unpublishing' a published revision I'd like Council's opinion on the right way to proceed.

  99. Kev

    (Pep's pointed out, and I agree, that given it's 19 and 148, this is not likely to have any practical issue either way)

  100. Ge0rG

    Is there any problem with keeping the bumped versions?

  101. Kev

    No practical issue.

  102. jonas’

    keep it I'd say

  103. jonas’

    better have minor instead of editorial than the other way around

  104. Ge0rG

    +1 to that, I don't see any issues with keeping it, but reverting it will probably cause issues