XMPP Council - 2023-02-28

I like to put PR #1215 on the council agenda: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1215

IIRC council pretty much pre-approved this change (at least saying it is in the right general direction) but wanted to wait until the xeps that this depend on have been updated

okay, next week then, I hope...

There is a slight awkwardness with SM then depending on an experimental xep. Which personally I think I'd be fine with because it's a dependency that could be reversed. Alternatively it shouldn't be too difficult to last call sasl2 (and maybe bind 2)

Either way I think we first need an editor to do something as we can't last call a xep that hasn't been published

Last calling bind2 and sasl2 soonish might be a good thing to do anyway and sm depending on it could give us the extra incentive

keep in mind that the SASL2 framework consists of XEP-0388 AND this protoxep not yet moved to the inbox: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1248

Kev: I think 424 and 425 can be moved back to experimental given their unsuccessful last call

I don't know if there is a procedure...

REJECTED

Zash is technically correct.

Or one could argue that the author is currently applying last call feedback.

> If the Approving Body decides after Last Call that the XEP is not ready for advancement yet, but nevertheless useful, it can vote to move it back to Experimental state.

we have to vote 🙂

Yes, lets pause everything for a few months to implement a new XEP state, "ApplyingLastCallFeedback" ! :D

OK. We'll vote on it tomorrow

Would Council be ok with replying on GitHub post-vote, or would that not work as a scheme? I'm aware that with both Peter and Me acting as Editor at the moment a mail to just one of us doesn't really work. Come to think of it, I should have included Peter in that mail to council@ as well.

I can reply on Github

Thanks, Daniel.

So if I'm following what Link Mauve's saying on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1269/commits/f8351a86e28c28063bdbc29d2f3495f0d59f2c5b correctly, they submitted a protoXEP. Edhelas submitted changes to it while it was still in the inbox, adding themselves as an Author, and it was merged without Link Mauve being asked, and it was (consequently ?) rejected. Link Mauve now wants to revert it to its original state as they submitted it, make some changes, and have it reconsidered. This seems like something it would be expedient for Council to just say "Go ahead and merge that, Kev", because this feels messy and Council have more authority than me.

I’m just resubmitting the first version under a different track (Historical this time).

The cop-out would be to just give it a new short name

Then neither council nor editor needs to figure out what went wrong in the past

But 'just merge it Kev' is likely fine too

The outcome (documenting what we currently doing with muc avatars without saying anything about pubsub) is a good thing

Merged it anyway, edhelas replied.