-
daniel
Hi.
-
daniel
It's time
-
dan.caseley
Howdy π
-
daniel
1) Roll call
-
moparisthebest
Hello!
-
daniel
singpolyma, larma you around?
-
larma
π
-
singpolyma
hello
-
daniel
No agenda. No editors notes. No new items for voting.
-
daniel
We do have pending votes on the new happy eyeballs proto xep
-
daniel
those expire today. at the current state it would be rejected simply because there arenβt enough +1
-
daniel
personally I didnβt get around reading it
-
daniel
so i'd probably give us another week?
-
singpolyma
IIRC I did +1
-
daniel
singpolyma, that correct. and I recorded that. we have 2 +1. we'd need at least 3
-
moparisthebest
I really dropped the ball on list feedback, but tldr I think that whole XEP should be "when you have a domain+port to resolve and connect to, refer to happy eyeballs RFC" the rest seems excessive and not useful?
-
dan.caseley
I'd rather extend than reject a XEP because we failed.
-
daniel
certainly.
-
daniel
the alternative would be that we get one other +1 right now :-)
-
moparisthebest
I'd rather extend also if we can, if I had to vote today it'd be -1 because I see no reason for it to have all the detail it does
-
moparisthebest
I might be missing something though
-
daniel
ok. Iβm giving us another week.
-
daniel
maybe do send your feedback to the list moparisthebest
-
dan.caseley
There's some XMPP extension to the RFC, e.g. SRV weighting.
-
moparisthebest
I will send on list tonight for sure, just set an alarm π€
-
daniel
anyway. moving on for now
-
daniel
β¦) Date of Next
-
daniel
+1w wfm
-
larma
I'm +1 on happy eyeballs. I don't think it's strictly needed, but doesn't hurt either
-
moparisthebest
+1w wfm
-
daniel
larma, noted
-
larma
+1w wfm
-
dan.caseley
+1w wfm I'll likely miss +2w and +3w for family holiday.
-
daniel
β¦) AOB
-
daniel
i do actually have two of them myself
-
moparisthebest
You should reapply for council if you want
-
daniel
council election is less than a month away. if you consider applying for next year do it soon
-
moparisthebest
oops double (:
-
daniel
the other one I had: I was thinking about starting Last Calls on Message Displayed Sync and Message Reactions (the latter obviously only with approval from the authors)
-
daniel
that obviously not a vote but I was wondering what everyones feelings are on those
-
moparisthebest
Sure, a last call can't hurt
-
dan.caseley
Certainly on Message Retraction. A quick look at the history says it's been Experimental for a very long time.
-
daniel
ok.
-
singpolyma
I think daniel said reaction not retraction
-
daniel
no other AOB I guess?
-
daniel
β¦) Close
-
dan.caseley
> I think daniel said reaction not retraction right you are... Maybe we should do retraction first π
-
daniel
thank you all. see you next week
-
moparisthebest
Thanks all!
-
moparisthebest
Why not message retraction also π
-
dan.caseley
That was my reaction!
-
dan.caseley
I'll get my coat...
-
moparisthebest
Nice
-
singpolyma
If we do LC on retraction I'll surely vote -1 since it's not widely implemented and IMO not even needed
-
singpolyma
Reaction xep I don't love but it's well implemented and it's fine
-
dan.caseley
Message Retraction has 20 implementations according to the website
-
singpolyma
...how? Are there even 20 clients anyone uses?
-
Zash
clients, libraries, servers?
-
daniel
Note that we need fairly active authors to both request the LC and actively and timely incorporate feedback if there is any. That's why I picked MDS and reactions specifically because those happen to be council members
-
larma
Regarding reactions: IMO we don't have a lot of implementation experience of restriction and rejection of reactions.
-
daniel
I was meaning to ask nicoco about that. Because a bridge would probably be the likely (if not only) candidate to need that
-
Kev
FWIW, We're in the early stages of implementing Reactions at the moment.
-
Kev
> I was meaning to ask nicoco about that. Because a bridge would probably be the likely (if not only) candidate to need that I think you can legitimately need it outside bridges too. It's easy to imagine non-private MUC cases where having unrestricted reactions would not be good.
π€― 1 -
Kev
Or enterprise situations where a restricted reaction-set is seen to be desirable.
-
Zash
I'm sorry Kev, that reaction is above your pay grade
-
larma
Yes, MUCs are also explicitly mentioned as a usecase for restrictions. Also potentially might be useful to completely ban reactions in a room
-
Kev
Now that is an interesting approach I hadn't thought of. Tying particular reactions to clearances :)
-
Kev
"You're cleared for COSMIC TOP SECRET, therefore you can use the π© reaction"
-
Zash
/PRIVATE//NOBUS/ποΈ
-
Guus
moparisthebest: I'm somewhat surprised that your concerns regarding Happy Eyeballs may be reason to prevent the text to be accepted as an Experimental XEP. If my reading of the process is right, a -1 vote at this stage would prevent the text even from being published / made available for public discussion through XSF's channels. Does that properly reflect your concerns with that text? (I am under the impression that to qualify for acceptance, the bar basically isn't much higher than "the text is formatted correctly").
-
Guus
(sorry for butting in, I had this typed and was waiting for the other discussion to die down - but I need to leave to pick up kids from practice)
-
singpolyma
Guus: it is already published in the inbox for discussion
-
Kev
While that's true, my understanding was that the XSF was always wary of discussion (and especially further development) of specs pre-IP assignment.
-
singpolyma
That seems backwards. Surely you'd want a XEP to be properly developed before accepting it
-
Kev
That would certainly be a new, interesting direction :)
-
Kev
The usual barrier is just "doesn't unnecessarily duplicate existing XEPs" and "isn't harmfully specified" isn't it?
-
Kev
We haven't even always required a XEP to be fully-specced enough to be implementable, if we wanted to start discussion on something.
-
daniel
This council has indeed put a fairly high bar on accepting a proto xep
-
daniel
There has always been room for interpretation and this council has had a rather strict one
-
Kev
Well, I suppose it was inevitable. First Draft became the new Final, now Experimental became the new Final.
-
daniel
Apparently
-
Zash
Wasn't Experimental originally meant to be like the IETF draft stage?
-
Kev
In all seriousness, though, why? I know orgs do tend to get more conservative and bureaucratic as they get older, but it sounds like in this case it was a deliberate decision to make the change?
-
daniel
For a while we did fairly poorly on advancing things to draft / stable. Thus people started to implement experimental xep. Instead of fixing that and do better on advancing things to draft we raised the bar for experimental
-
daniel
Personally I disagree with that and would much rather prefer that we do better on LC+advancing to stable. And I hope that my actions and my voting history reflect that
-
singpolyma
> Well, I suppose it was inevitable. First Draft became the new Final, now Experimental became the new Final. I hope not, since final means we can't change it and we definitely need to change lots of the experimental ones :) ↺
-
Zash
Final doesn't mean we can't change it, just that it needs council approval to change, no?
-
singpolyma
Hmm, no as far as I have heard?
-
singpolyma
even Stable we mostly can't change. has to be backwards-compatible
-
singpolyma
final is like editorial changes only
-
Zash
I find it sensible for the process to make it progressively harder to break backwards compatibility, which also happens when there are more implementations.
-
Zash
> Note: Once an XMPP Extension Protocol has been advanced to a status of Final, every effort shall be made to limit the scope of modifications; in particular, backwards-incompatible changes shall not be made. However, limited modifications may be made as long as they are optional, backwards-compatible extensions rather than modifications to the core protocol itself. Therefore, a Final protocol is safe for deployment in mission-critical applications.
-
Zash
And if breaking changes are really needed at that point, make a new Experimental XEP that superseeds it
-
singpolyma
Yes, I agree at least that with a process like ours that's the right choice
-
singpolyma
I was just expressing that "experimental is the new final" is definitely not my PoV
-
singpolyma
But I don't think experimental is a scratch pad either
-
singpolyma
We're publishing these as XEPs with a number for people to implement
-
Guus
> The granting of Experimental status must not be construed as indicating any level of approval by the XSF, the XMPP Council, or the XMPP developer community. Implementation of Experimental XEPs is encouraged in an exploratory fashion (e.g., in a proof of concept) in order to gain experience with and iteratively improve the protocol defined therein, but such implementations might not be appropriate for deployment in production systems.
-
Guus
I'm not saying it is a scratch pad, but we're also not actively promoting experimental XEPs as being production-ready.
-
Zash
Don't they put IETF drafts into production too?
-
Zash
Yes, they!