XMPP Council - 2024-10-15


  1. daniel

    I’m not the one to make that decision but this is something the authors have to decide but I strongly believe we should start a last call on Message Reactions

  2. daniel

    yes certain parts of the XEP aren’t implemented yet but other parts are starting to become widely implemented and deployed and I don’t think thats a strong indicator that we should put effort into advancing it

  3. Kev

    Is there a typo in there Daniel?

  4. Kev

    You have both that you strongly believe it should LC, and that you don't think it should be tried to advance.

  5. daniel

    The fact that parts of the xep (the reaction restrictions) aren't implemented shouldn't stop us from advancing it

  6. Kev

    Ahhh, I understand what you meant, ta :)

  7. singpolyma

    I would be quite fine with a reactions LC the xep is pretty simple and we'll implemented in the main as you say

  8. singpolyma

    I would be quite fine with a reactions LC the xep is pretty simple and well implemented in the main as you say

  9. moparisthebest

    Maybe the unimplemented bits should be removed?

  10. moparisthebest

    Split to another xep if deemed still helpful

  11. singpolyma

    What unimplemented is error handling afaik

  12. daniel

    singpolyma: does cheogram do the emoji restriction thing?

  13. daniel

    I guess that's the main non implemented part Marvin talked about

  14. singpolyma

    Our release should show the errors. But not anymore after we merged the new UI from you in pre release

  15. daniel

    But does it limited the available emoji selection for example?

  16. singpolyma

    No

  17. daniel

    Either way I think the xep can still be advanced if we don't deem this to be complicated

  18. daniel

    And I don't. I'm sort of planning to implement it and I don't see how an implementation could run into unforeseen issues

  19. daniel

    Until now it simply didn't have a super high priority to me

  20. daniel

    At the same time I can see how it can be useful and I wouldn't want to remove it from the xep

  21. daniel

    It's only "final" when the 'needs to have implementations' requirement actually comes in

  22. moparisthebest

    > I don't see how an implementation could run into unforeseen issues Famous last words 🤣

  23. moparisthebest

    But all that's fair, I think removing/splitting would only be appropriate if implementers all thought that part wasn't helpful and they'd never bother implementing it, imho

  24. daniel

    Yes and I guess if anything that is something that can come up during the LC. After all one of the LC questions is "do you plan to implement this"

  25. moparisthebest

    > 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 realized I forgot to respond to this, many of my past XEPs have been rejected or delayed by council with roughly "check if that could be merged into an existing XEP first" which was my gut reaction here too. That's all. :)

  26. moparisthebest

    It seems the few that responded on list somewhat agree with my concerns so I'm at least not alone, and I trust you'll respond to feedback and such so I have no reason to block it now, so +1 on happy eyeballs here daniel

  27. daniel

    It's time.

  28. daniel

    1) roll call

  29. dan.caseley

    Howdy!

  30. daniel

    moparisthebest, singpolyma larma ?

  31. moparisthebest

    Hello!

  32. singpolyma

    👋

  33. daniel

    2) Agenda Bashing

  34. daniel

    nothing to bash I assume

  35. daniel

    3) Editors update

  36. daniel

    * UPDATED: XEP-0198 (Stream Management) * Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Node Relationships

  37. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  38. daniel

    a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Node Relationships https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-node-relationships.html

  39. daniel

    on list

  40. daniel

    didn’ have time to read it yet

  41. moparisthebest

    on-list, same

  42. singpolyma

    I have concerns about the overlap with https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0248.html since that one is deferred it could maybe be fixed if deficient? Or the new XEP could be specified in a complementary way to extend it to have the new things wants (tying permissions to the hierarchy)

  43. singpolyma

    but maybe better to discuss once people have read it, heh

  44. moparisthebest

    Does anyone implement 248

  45. moparisthebest

    (probably an on list discussion item we can move on lol)

  46. Kev

    From the peanut gallery, I'm not sure that leaving 248 to die on the vine would be a terrible thing. It got split out of 60 for Reasons, and I'm pretty sure we removed the implementation from M-Link because of Issues.

  47. moparisthebest

    That's helpful

  48. daniel

    ok. moving on

  49. daniel

    b) Issue Last Call on 'XEP-0490: Message Displayed Synchronization' https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0490.html

  50. daniel

    +1

  51. moparisthebest

    +1

  52. dan.caseley

    +1

  53. daniel

    singpolyma, ?

  54. singpolyma

    +1

  55. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  56. daniel

    none

  57. daniel

    6) Date of Next

  58. daniel

    +1w wfm

  59. singpolyma

    +1w wfm

  60. moparisthebest

    +1w wfm

  61. daniel

    7) AOB

  62. moparisthebest

    Not here

  63. moparisthebest

    Wait

  64. moparisthebest

    Council mailing list, keep or delete?

  65. daniel

    I’m unsure

  66. moparisthebest

    I vote delete, we should do everything on standards@

  67. singpolyma

    do we use it for anything?

  68. singpolyma

    we have this channel

  69. moparisthebest

    I've never seen it used except to CC agendas to

  70. daniel

    standards is actually the CC and council To

  71. moparisthebest

    If we or some future council want it later I assume it can be set back up, until then 🔥

  72. daniel

    but yeah I guess we don’t really use it

  73. dan.caseley

    I might not make the next couple, as I'm in Cyprus with the family. If I do, I'll be on mobile, so potentially a lot less useful.

  74. Kev

    Well, it'll be deleted completed, the hosting facility is going away. But a new one being set up is not inconceivable.

  75. daniel

    if we ever wanted to discuss something behind closed doors for what ever reason that would be the place

  76. daniel

    board has one too

  77. Kev

    Council isn't behind closed doors, it's a public list.

  78. daniel

    but I guess in practice most of what we do is public

  79. Kev

    Council isn't behind closed doors, it's a public (archive) list.

  80. daniel

    damn? so i've been leaking all those secret agenda?

  81. Kev

    (Unless I misremember)

  82. Kev

    https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/council@xmpp.org/thread/YS273W52IRFRTTDEK2FBE35BQJRTCJEN/ I do not misremember.

  83. moparisthebest

    Doors aren't closed https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/council@xmpp.org/latest

  84. moparisthebest

    I had to go looking though lol

  85. daniel

    ok. delete it is

  86. Kev

    Board has a list, but that one's in camera.

  87. daniel

    any other aob?

  88. moparisthebest

    Board could conceivably need closed but imho council never should, if we do one of us could create a room, meh

  89. moparisthebest

    None here for real this time

  90. daniel

    8) Close

  91. daniel

    thank you all. see you next week

  92. moparisthebest

    Thanks daniel & all

  93. larma

    Sorry for missing this time. I'm +1 on last call for 490