XMPP Council - 2023-01-25

  1. emus has left

  2. emus has joined

  3. sonny has left

  4. sonny has joined

  5. Wojtek has left

  6. neox has joined

  7. neox has left

  8. Tobias has joined

  9. gooya has left

  10. Tobias has left

  11. Tobias has joined

  12. Tobias has left

  13. Zash has left

  14. Zash has joined

  15. Tobias has joined

  16. moparisthebest has left

  17. moparisthebest has joined

  18. Tobias has left

  19. SouL has joined

  20. SouL has left

  21. Tobias has joined

  22. Tobias has left

  23. Tobias has joined

  24. SouL has joined

  25. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has joined

  26. mdosch has left

  27. mdosch has joined

  28. SouL has left

  29. SouL has joined

  30. neox has joined

  31. sonny has left

  32. sonny has joined

  33. Kev has joined

  34. Kev has left

  35. moparisthebest has left

  36. moparisthebest has joined

  37. SouL has left

  38. Kev has joined

  39. SouL has joined

  40. SouL has left

  41. SouL has joined

  42. vaulor has left

  43. vaulor has joined

  44. daniel has left

  45. daniel has joined

  46. daniel has left

  47. daniel has joined

  48. daniel has left

  49. daniel has joined

  50. daniel has left

  51. daniel has joined

  52. daniel has left

  53. daniel has joined

  54. daniel has left

  55. daniel has joined

  56. gooya has joined

  57. sonny has left

  58. sonny has joined

  59. sonny has left

  60. sonny has joined

  61. Wojtek has joined

  62. Wojtek has left

  63. gooya has left

  64. gooya has joined

  65. Ingolf has left

  66. Ingolf has joined

  67. vaulor has left

  68. vaulor has joined

  69. Wojtek has joined

  70. Ge0rG

    maybe a bit of short notice for an AOB / voting item, but I've copied CS'22 into CS'23 in the inbox, and the only addition is "changes since 2022: none".

  71. Ge0rG

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1267 ^

  72. jonas’

    it's not published as a protoxep yet, so we cannot vote on it.

  73. Ge0rG

    don't we need to vote about _accepting_ it as a protoxep?

  74. jonas’


  75. jonas’

    the editor decides that

  76. jonas’

    protoxeps are quite informal

  77. jonas’

    we vote on accepting it as experimental

  78. MattJ


  79. MattJ

    Something that came up in a recent discussion: can/should the compliance suite reference specific XEP version requirements

  80. MattJ

    Something that came up in a recent discussion: can/should the compliance suite reference specific XEP version requirements?

  81. jonas’


  82. MattJ

    or is "latest version" implicitly required?

  83. jonas’


  84. jonas’

    it may be, but it's better to state things clearly

  85. MattJ

    For example, implementing the latest version of JMI would be a Bad Thing

  86. MattJ

    But I'd like to require XEP-0313 1.0+ for "Advanced Server"

  87. jonas’

    very sensible

  88. larma

    I'd say it makes sense to have verson requirements for experimental xeps, but not for stable

  89. larma

    I'd say it makes sense to have version requirements for experimental xeps, but not for stable

  90. jonas’

    larma, not fully sure, even stable may gain features

  91. jonas’

    (MUC, for instance)

  92. larma

    But once it's stable it should at least be fully backwards compatible

  93. jonas’


  94. larma

    meaning others don't have any issue by you implementing an older version

  95. jonas’


  96. jonas’

    but the point of the compliance suites isn't just interop, but also experience

  97. jonas’

    you can use a mobile client without a CSI-enabled server

  98. Ge0rG

    given that feature tags are better than versions, maybe we should require certain feature-tags actually?

  99. larma

    My point is rather that IF we allow experimental XEPs in CS (which I'd like to put a big question mark on), this should always be explicit. Alternatively we can also decide to not put experimental XEPs in CS which implicitly should then mean that CS is always pointing to at least 1.0

  100. Ge0rG

    We had Carbons in there for a loooong time before it was promoted

  101. larma

    I know what we did in the past, but that doesn't stop us from doing it better in the future

  102. pep.

    I think I agree with Ge0rG. I'd rather see NSs than versions? But that doesn't remove the question of whether experimental XEPs should be allowed or not

  103. MattJ

    Regardless of what we *should* do, my motivation right now is that '313 has been listed in the compliance suites since it was experimental. It's now Stable, but I'd like it to be explicit that people must implement the Stable version.

  104. MattJ

    Even if that's just a note in "Changes" (which should probably have been in the last edition?)

  105. MattJ

    But we also recently discussed making version numbers explicit in general, hence my question

  106. MattJ

    Maybe the tooling we have that judges compliance should just check that implementations claim compliance with the current x.y.*

  107. Ge0rG

    based on DOAP and implemented XEP versions?

  108. MattJ

    and combine that with a policy of not putting experimental stuff in here in the future

  109. MattJ


  110. Ge0rG

    that sounds like I need to review all XEP refs in CS'23 for experimental status

  111. MattJ


  112. Ge0rG

    /a bot

  113. MattJ


  114. Zash

    Make the CI do it

  115. pep.

    I still think NSs/features would be better listed than "1.0+" or than "latest" even.Not sure how to compare that with DOAP though :/

  116. pep.

    Maybe we need to start listing supported features in DOAP.

  117. MattJ

    That would be significantly more effort

  118. pep.

    It doesn't have to be achieved right away, just like removing experimental stuff from CSs :P

  119. Ge0rG

    `grep -o '&xep[0-9]\{4\}' inbox/cs-2023.xml|sort|uniq|grep -o '[0-9]\{4\}'| while read num ; do echo -n "XEP-$num: " ; xml2 < xep-$num.xml 2>/dev/null |awk -F = '/xep.header.status=/ { print $2;}'; done`

  120. larma

    Exerimental/Deferred XEPs in CS'22: - XEP-0234: Jingle File Transfer - XEP-0353: Jingle Message Initiation - XEP-0357: Push Notifications - XEP-0398: User Avatar to vCard-Based Avatars Conversion

  121. Ge0rG

    XEP-0225: Deferred XEP-0234: Deferred XEP-0333: Deferred XEP-0353: Experimental XEP-0357: Deferred XEP-0369: Experimental XEP-0374: Deferred XEP-0380: Deferred XEP-0384: Experimental XEP-0385: Deferred XEP-0386: Deferred XEP-0390: Deferred XEP-0392: Experimental XEP-0396: Deferred XEP-0397: Deferred XEP-0398: DeferredXEP-0409: Deferred XEP-0411: Deprecated XEP-0412: Obsolete XEP-0420: Experimental XEP-0423: Obsolete XEP-0433: Deferred XEP-0443: Obsolete XEP-0455: Experimental

  122. Ge0rG

    quite a list.

  123. Zash

    Queue vote for Stable for all of them!

  124. larma

    Ge0rG, you probably include the specifications of note not required for compliance and future development xeps?

  125. Ge0rG

    larma: yes

  126. larma

    The Obsolete ones in your list are previous years compliance suites 😀

  127. Ge0rG

    oops ;)

  128. larma

    referencing them should be fine

  129. larma

    I think the ones actually part of the suites (the 4 I named) are the most imporant ones to review (decide if they should be in CS'23 and/or if they can advance)

  130. larma

    I think the ones actually part of the suites (the 4 I named) are the most imporant ones to review (decide if they should be in CS'23 and/or if they should advance to stable)

  131. Zash

    larma, those four are all in wide usage afaik, so Stable away IMO

  132. larma

    I don't think anyone implements all features of Jingle File Transfer

  133. jonas’

    JMI has known issues tho?

  134. Zash

    Shouldn't widely used stuff be Final-ised even?

  135. MattJ

    JFT: can't comment JMI: being fixed, stable before next edition should be possible Push: the current spec is awkward and I hope we can make a move on Push 2.0 this year, but probably as a new XEP. So we should probably advance what is deployed. Avatar conversion: can't comment

  136. Zash

    Sometimes I wonder if there should be a vcard-temp → vcard4 conversion ... XEP, feature, sentence, footnote ... something?

  137. larma

    If we wanted to move current JFT to stable, I would remove §6.2, §6.3 and §6.4 before as we lack implementation of that. Alternatively I'd also like to note that JFT has recently become rather uninteresting in practice due to its device-to-device restrictions. When JFT is combined with SFS though, the unimplemented parts of JFT become relevant and will make JFT a reasonable transfer method again.

  138. daniel


  139. daniel

    It's time

  140. larma


  141. daniel

    1) Roll call

  142. moparisthebest


  143. jonas’


  144. daniel

    is Ge0rG around?

  145. daniel

    2) Agenda Bashing

  146. Ge0rG


  147. daniel

    we had some proposals for the agenda but they came too late for this week. I'm going to add them to the next one

  148. daniel

    3) Editors update

  149. daniel


  150. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  151. daniel


  152. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  153. daniel


  154. daniel

    6) Date of Next

  155. daniel

    I’m going to propose +2w

  156. moparisthebest

    +1w wfm, also +2w

  157. larma

    +2w wfm

  158. daniel

    since at least two of us are going to be traveling to brussels next week

  159. jonas’

    +1w wfm, but I guess not for others :)

  160. jonas’

    +2w wfm, too

  161. daniel

    7) AOB

  162. moparisthebest

    Thanks Ge0rG for getting the compliance suite sorted

    💯️ 1
  163. daniel

    assuming no AOB then

  164. daniel

    8) Close

  165. daniel

    thank you all

  166. moparisthebest

    Thanks all

  167. stpeter has joined

  168. Tobias has left

  169. Tobias has joined

  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. stpeter has left

  179. daniel has left

  180. Wojtek has left

  181. daniel has joined

  182. Wojtek has joined

  183. Wojtek has left

  184. stpeter has joined

  185. Wojtek has joined

  186. vaulor has left

  187. stpeter has left

  188. vaulor has joined

  189. sonny has left

  190. Wojtek has left

  191. sonny has joined

  192. daniel has left

  193. daniel has joined

  194. stpeter has joined

  195. Wojtek has joined

  196. Wojtek has left

  197. me9 has joined

  198. Tobias has left

  199. Tobias has joined

  200. Tobias has left

  201. Tobias has joined

  202. stpeter has left

  203. Tobias has left

  204. Tobias has joined

  205. Tobias has left

  206. Tobias has joined

  207. stpeter has joined

  208. stpeter has left

  209. Tobias has left

  210. Tobias has joined

  211. Tobias has left

  212. Tobias has joined

  213. Tobias has left

  214. Tobias has joined

  215. me9 has left

  216. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has left

  217. Tobias has left

  218. Tobias has joined

  219. Tobias has left

  220. Kev has left