XMPP Council - 2023-07-26

BTW, I don't know what wants doing about it, but it seems like 313 got moved to Draft without a schema.

good morning!

Hi

1) Roll call

Hello!

are larma and jonas’ around?

2) Agenda bashing nothing to bash but I'll bring up what Kev just said as an AOB

o/

3) Editors update

none

4) Items for voting

none

5) Pending votes

none

6) Date of next

+1w wfm

i'm not available next week

+1w wfm

I may not be available next week

(not clear yet, will only know on the day itself)

maybe moparisthebest can chair again? or do we skip if jonas’ isn’t around either?

We could just skip next week

I'm happy to chair again if others are available though

ok let's skip

so +2w then

7) AOB

Kev just brought this to our attention: > BTW, I don't know what wants doing about it, but it seems like 313 got moved to Draft without a schema.

any suggestions on how to handle that?

I'll just put it out there that I really don't have time to think about a schema myself at the moment.

don't have strong opinions

we strongly encourage the authors to add one within the next 3? weeks and if they fail to do this we consider other options

as long as we declare schemas non-normative, I'm not sure how much value they even bring

that's a fair point

certainly not enough value to burn out authors over

Yea I don't think I really care personally, schemas are a mistake /shrug

I wouldn't go as far as saying that they are a mistake fwiw

they could be very useful, if cared for properly and deemed normative, to auto-generate bindings

(or rather, parsers)

I genuinely can't see much value in schemas unless you can trust that they're adequate to validate traffic with. If they were trustable, they would be very useful for some use cases.

so we need an initiative for trustable schemas?

I guess I agree in a different world they could have been useful but I'm not sure how that helps

so my takeaway would be to remove the schema requirement from Draft status

Sounds good to me

> so my takeaway would be to remove the schema requirement from Draft status that sounds like a larger change than I just want to do as an AOB in a random council session. maybe spark a discussion on the list?

and until that we just ignore the fact 313 doesn’t have one?

sounds like a good plan

I think the four options are * Require schema for 313 * Hold noses about lack of schema for 313 * Remove schema requirement * Tighten the schema requirements so they're actually useful (plus 1)

those two things: > * Remove schema requirement > * Tighten the schema requirements so they're actually useful (plus 1) should be discussed on list

I agree that #4 is the most useful, but I don't see anybody having the resources to write good schemas for new XEPs, or even to proofread and correct existing schemas

Indeed.

(Indeed @ Daniel) ✏

personally I kinde like option b. but I can get on board with (a) too

yes, should go on-list

Ge0rG, I think a lot of the schemas are fairly correct (surprisingly maybe); afaik some projects actually do generate their parsers from existing schemas and therefor notice when something is wrong

ok. moving on. any other AOB?

none from me

8) Close

thank you all. see you in 2 weeks

Thanks all