XMPP Council - 2023-12-11


  1. Kev

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1299 One for Council.

  2. Kev

    Changing SHOULD NOT to MAY seems pretty significant for a Final XEP to me, but not my call :)

  3. Kev

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1293 also for Council please.

  4. Kev

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1292 too

  5. Kev

    And https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1278

  6. singpolyma

    The meat of https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1299 seems good, modulo any rules about xep status, but the explanatory paragraph is a mess, referencing the previous requirement of the XEP inside the XEP itself.

  7. Kev

    From my (non-Editor) point of view on it, this is a breaking change to a Final XEP, so there needs to be a very good reason to do it.

  8. daniel

    Semi related. I'm seeing this trend that people create PRs out of the blue that then appear in front of council. I think a better approach is that we have some sort of standards list discussion before that in which the problem is outline and possible solutions are being discussed

  9. moparisthebest

    Or at least a discussion here or xsf@

  10. Kev

    If you're suggesting a change to Editor process, I'm not opposed. Noting that anything that adds work for me while I'm Editor just means stuff happens even more slowly.

  11. moparisthebest

    (hard to say this without sounding like complaining, I'm not, I appreciate the work being done currently on it) mailing list is still utterly broken for me, I get a small percentage of messages, and all I send aren't received by anyone else with a proper email setup

  12. daniel

    No I'm not suggesting a change in editor process. I'm suggesting that people stick to implicit rules and process

  13. daniel

    moparisthebest: wait how do I know I only get a small percentage of messages?

  14. moparisthebest

    Comparing to archives when they worked, thankfully that's an option again :)

  15. Kev

    I *think* it's only HTTP Meetings that was pending moving from inbox, which I've done, so I'm about to close the current Editor pass. I'll give it a couple of moments for people to shout if they think I missed something.

  16. MattJ

    Did you catch FAST?

  17. Kev

    Hmmm. /me goes hunting

  18. moparisthebest

    What happened to MattJ 's proposed change where council takes over from editor for these changes?

  19. MattJ

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1232

  20. Kev

    I see the Fast mail, ta.

  21. MattJ

    That was for Kev

  22. MattJ

    moparisthebest, I think everyone was in favour. But it's not just a switch we can flip, there are a few things that need to happen (some done, some in progress, some to do)

  23. moparisthebest

    What's left to do and/or where is it tracked

  24. MattJ

    Finishing the automated CI is one of those things, because that's one of the manual tasks that Editor runs manually that we don't want to push onto Council

  25. MattJ

    I promised to write up a plan of action, but I haven't done that yet

  26. moparisthebest

    I did just get act running locally and promised to do that, I'll bump it up

  27. MattJ

    I'm trying to make sure we end 2024 with a Snikket release, and that's been my primary focus recently. I'm expecting I won't have much time for this stuff until after the summit.

  28. moparisthebest

    Ah you merged https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1265 thanks Kev ! I was about to say that was a blocker for automation in CI

  29. moparisthebest

    MattJ: no problem, I wanted to know if I could help with something and got it :)

  30. Kev

    Well, the good news is that flow's PR seems to stop the build.

  31. Kev

    So, you know, that's nice :)

  32. flow

    what did I break?

  33. Kev

    The docker build failed for me. I'm afraid I don't have cycles to look at it, so I just reverted so I could publish the other changes.

  34. flow

    Kev, could you share the commands that you ran? "docker build" worked fine here locally

  35. Kev

    docker build --build-arg NCORES=64 -t $XEPIMAGE .

  36. Kev

    IIRC it was missing the file that you made the build depend upon.

  37. Kev

    Forgot to `git add` a file, or somesuch?

  38. flow

    indeed, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/f87a03a97caa8b95e2940c26830a23069c2267bf doesn't have that file

  39. flow

    Kev, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1307 should do the trick

  40. Kev

    Ta. I'll take a look next Editor pass.

  41. flow

    Kev, I send you two more PRs ;)

  42. flow

    make that three

  43. singpolyma

    moparisthebest: why is your protoxep not just a proposed update to 0156?

  44. moparisthebest

    singpolyma: it *could* be, but that is Stable, would need buy-in from authors, but doesn't really matter to me either way

  45. singpolyma

    I think it's worth contacting authors to find out

  46. singpolyma

    Obviously i have other Thoughts but that's my main procedural thought