XMPP Council - 2023-01-11

Good appropriate-time-of-day!

o/

(afternoon here)

1) Roll call

Here

👋️

is Ge0rG here too?

2) Agenda bashing

nothing to bash…

3) Editors update no updates this week

4) Items for voting

nothing to vote on

5) Pending votes

none

6) Date of Next

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

+1w wfm

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

7) AOB

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

No aob here

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

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™

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

the author can also just ask the editor, no?

but I can put it on the agenda for next week

i'd be in favor

let me check

> 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.

> 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.

^

so yes we need to vote on it

should we vote now?

Fine with me

+1

ok. your votes please

+1

+1

+1

+1

I'd like to raise another AOB

go ahead 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

simply because of transparency

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

which is kind of meh

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

I agree

+1 on the 390 LC

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

moparisthebest, ack

anything else?

none from me

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

a day is a day

I'll notify editors about this request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess we could do that

Should we rename 2022 to 2022+2023

CS 2025

^

The Eternal Compliance Suite

202[23]

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

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

any volunteers?

🤦

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

FACE PALM

MattJ, care to explain? :)

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

yes Ge0rG thank you

Ge0rG, thanks!

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)

Thanks Ge0rG

any more aob?

not from me

none from me

Nope

None here, sorry for being late

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

8) Close

I agree

thanks daniel

thank you all

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

Thanks all and especially Ge0rG for volunteering

+1

thanks all

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

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.

(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)

Is there any problem with keeping the bumped versions?

No practical issue.

keep it I'd say

better have minor instead of editorial than the other way around

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