XMPP Council - 2023-11-15

  1. daniel


  2. larma


  3. daniel

    It's time.

  4. daniel

    1) Roll call

  5. larma


  6. jonas’


  7. daniel

    I know that moparisthebest is unavailable but do we have Ge0rG?

  8. Ge0rG ,o/

  9. daniel

    2) Agenda bashing

  10. daniel

    nothing to bash

  11. daniel

    3) Editors update

  12. daniel


  13. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  14. daniel


  15. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  16. daniel

    we have a few

  17. daniel

    best to look at the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zp5FWJI0aubAL29LhrXkhc-MrZauJ1mtkVnm5TrtwLo/edit#gid=0 but everyone is pending on the new inbox xeps

  18. daniel

    Ge0rG, jonas’ and me are pending on PR 1293

  19. daniel

    and jonas’ is pending on everything from last week

  20. daniel

    anyone ready to vote now? otherwise just ping me over the week in here

  21. daniel

    (or send an email in reply to last weeks agenda)

  22. jonas’

    I am confused about pr#1293

  23. Ge0rG

    oh, I missed #1293

  24. Kev

    Did I do a stupid?

  25. jonas’

    the remark says it removes something, but i cannot see that it actually removes that; in addition, what the remark claims to remove makes no sense to me.

  26. jonas’

    I think the overall change makes sense, but the remark confuses the heck out of me

  27. jonas’

    could the editor maybe reword that to more accurately reflect the change or tell me how I am misreading it? :)

  28. Ge0rG

    I'm confused by it in similar ways

  29. Kev

    If the change isn't good, I'll kick it back to the author.

  30. jonas’

    Kev, the change is good IMO, just the remark is not.

  31. jonas’

    daniel, regarding the online meetings protoxep, I see some overlap with '215, but that's no blocker for me today. +1 on XEP-XXXX: HTTP Online Meetings

  32. Ge0rG

    +1 from me as well

  33. jonas’

    +1 on PR#1292 (the roominfo_changesubject thing)

  34. daniel

    Ge0rG, on the online meetings?

  35. jonas’

    +1 on PR#1278, noting that this seems worthy of a minor, not a patch-level, version bump

  36. Ge0rG

    daniel: yes

  37. jonas’

    +1 on PR#1265

  38. Ge0rG

    I'm very confused by the AI XEP submission though. Is it supposed to be the exclusive way to talk to AI bots? If not, does it warrant a dedicated syntax that is a MUST?

  39. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I was pondering the same. Different models would probably be better represented by different accounts.

  40. jonas’

    in particular because there is no discovery of models included

  41. jonas’

    and one probably cannot assume that any given service supports arbitrary modles

  42. jonas’

    and one probably cannot assume that any given service supports arbitrary models

  43. Ge0rG

    Yeah, and nothing prevents you from sending data forms

  44. daniel

    a good changelog for the pubsub one would just be "<li>Add examples for publishing item without ID</li>", no?

  45. jonas’

    this seems incomplete, but that isn't a blocker for experimental IMO

  46. daniel is also pretty confused by this PR

  47. jonas’

    daniel, s/li/p/g, but otherwise it sounds good.

  48. jonas’

    daniel, s/li>/p>/g, but otherwise it sounds good.

  49. jonas’

    actually, this should probably include a disco identity for AI

  50. jonas’

    do away with the <ai/> element

  51. jonas’

    but leave the form stuff in

  52. Ge0rG

    daniel: +1 for the changelog text

  53. Ge0rG

    jonas’: yeah, and how is an AI different from a bot?

  54. jonas’

    but these are just suggestions, I'm not going to ruin the party on my way out, even though I have strong opinions about "AI" in general.

  55. larma

    +1 from me for the HTTP Online meetings (I will send some feedback to the author on the list later)

  56. Ge0rG

    I'm +0 on the AI submission due to that. Mostly because I don't get the rationale from the XEP

  57. Kev

    This, to me, feels like a person not familiar with XMPP, and who could do with some guidance (probably from Council) on how to write an XMPP-ish proposal. Whether that's before or after acceptance.

  58. larma

    I'm also +0 on AI

  59. Ge0rG

    Kev: that's an excellent summary of the situation

  60. jonas’

    +0 on AI, I'll send some notes to the list

  61. Ge0rG

    But we don't have an author relations department

  62. daniel

    this means we don’t accept it if 3 people are not +1

  63. Ge0rG

    daniel: is that a bad thing?

  64. daniel

    that we don’t accept this? no I just wanted to point this out

  65. jonas’


  66. jonas’

    I think not accepting it kind of sucks

  67. daniel

    because a single 0 doesn’t influence stuff

  68. daniel

    but 3 do

  69. jonas’

    so I'm going to flip to +1 here, begrudgingly

  70. jonas’

    so I'm going to flip to +1 here, begrudgingly (as an "AI"-hater)

  71. jonas’

    to not discourage the contributor from developing this further in our awesome ecosystem.

  72. daniel

    any more votes?

  73. larma

    I kind of get that we all agree that this is not really good for publication but we also don't want to reject a new contributor

  74. Ge0rG

    In an ideal world, somebody would reach out and interactively help the author iterate

  75. Zash

    Get the author onto the mailing list or in the xsf@ chat?

  76. daniel

    I’ll read the xep and try to reach out to the author

  77. daniel

    I guess this means additional votes for now?

  78. jonas’

    I already have a mail drafted

  79. jonas’

    which I'm going to send to standards@ with the author in CC

  80. daniel

    jonas’, sounds good

  81. daniel


  82. jonas’

    basically containing the points: use disco identities, use a 128 extension for further info, get rid of <ai/>, keep using the embedded form, use multiple accounts unless a good use case for multi-modle accounts emerges, then use forms to select the model.

  83. jonas’

    what is our status, are we accepting?

  84. Kev

    IMO, the best way to deal with a new person you want to encourage is to engage with them about how to do good work, rather than accepting something you believe to be unsuitable.

  85. jonas’

    Kev, are you volunteering? :-)

  86. jonas’

    also, Experimental is just for that phase, isn't it?

  87. daniel

    jonas’, we are still missing 2 votes

  88. daniel

    so we don’t know yet

  89. jonas’

    I mean this work isn't bad, it just needs more tender love & care, so I'm fine with accepting on a formal level.

  90. Kev

    And if you believe that it's not subpar and just needs some TLC, Experimental seems like the right place for it to be.

  91. daniel

    ok. I would like to move on for now

  92. daniel

    6) Date of Next

  93. daniel

    +1w wfm

  94. jonas’

    +1w wfm, but I'll be in vacation mode and may miss it.

  95. Ge0rG

    +1w wfm

  96. Ge0rG

    will there be a next time? when are the elections?

  97. larma

    +1w wfm

  98. daniel

    next meeting is on the 22nd. elections are on the 23rd

  99. Ge0rG


  100. daniel

    7) AOB

  101. Kev

    From the peanut gallery, I'll probably not be at the next meeting to say it, so thanks to Council for their efforts this term.

  102. Ge0rG

    thanks for the community's trust :)

  103. jonas’

    thanks Kev

  104. jonas’

    also thank you for doing the editor stuff

  105. daniel

    8) Close

  106. daniel

    Thank you all. see you next week