XSF Editor Team - 2015-10-27

hola

hey

how goes it?

trucking along

preparing for Yokohama next week

so, we have PRs to cover!

I know there were items added to the council agenda, but I couldn't be present, and I haven't noticed minutes yet

hmm

yeah

anyway, to the PRs?

PR 40 is waiting on authors

PR 41 is waiting on council, AFAIK

I have some Yokohama prep to do too - not sure why, but I volunteered to help finish off the trickle-ICE spec (cf. XEP-0176) so I need to create a presentation for that

and I have a few specs in AUTH48 ;-)

remote presentation? (-:

I think PR 82 is waiting on the submitter, but I'll ping the authors to be sure

wait, no, it's waiting on authors

PR 83 is waiting on … somebody (-:

I think Sam and Matt Wild have the ideas in their head, and haven't yet put them to digital pen

nod

I still haven't gotten to the XEP-0198 stuff as you can see :(

yeah

it happens

PR 95 — I'm not sure what the action here is

is it to council?

I'm trying to finish this AUTH48 stuff and also update 2 Internet-Drafts for Monday....

I think the action there is to ask sco0ter to remove the status 174 stuff and then we can merge the PR

because all the other fixes were fine

and then a point release IMHO

ok

I can reply in that issue

done

thanks

PR 97 is another XEP-0198 item

yep

PR 99 — I might just accept this as-is … it would be nicer if I could see it run cross-platform, but that's more effort than I'm willing to put into it

there are conflicts that need to be resolved, though

nod

PR 100 went to council, no?

PR 100 - see http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2015-10-21/#15:07:32

so basically it needs more list discussion

yep, see that

it = XEP-0138 and the impact of attacks on application-layer compression in XMPP

right

(not just this PR)

ok, so we'll need to get that going at some point

we == (XEP Editor, Kev)

someone in that set (-:

we had a thread earlier this month about deprecating stream compression but it fizzled out

I will reply to the last message from Thijs

yeah, I vaguely remember

PR 104 is still rippling through the list

Not sure if we should "call it" and let the council formally weigh in

I have a sense meaningful discussion is no longer happening

nod

I do think some guidance from the Council would be good there

better to wait for next council though

true

well, maybe

doesn't necessarily matter, I guess :-)

I'd rather not be in the middle of a vote when a new council is elected … even if it's really ends up as the same council (-:

good point

PR 106 - I have not looked at that yet

I think we're waiting for someone to take it to the list

says "Needs Author" too ;-)

very true (-:

that's kind of my default labels on Draft and Final docs

if something isn't clearly just editorial

yeah

good plan

ProtoXEP!

PR 111 I can get processed today

Same with PR 112

ok super

And PR 113 is a simple editorial

I'll get those last three processed, and publish XEP-0320 as 1.9

re #112 I've had some chats with Lance / @legastero about encrypted file transfer and I know someone else who's put a fair amount of thought into it, so I look forward to list discussion

er 1.0

(-:

;-)

RE 83: I'm going to just close it since it was deemed not the correct behavior. I really do need to sit down and do a new update.

ah, ok

thanks Sam

hey Sam, OK

I think that's it

anything needing attention in the issues? https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues

I'm on the hook for some PRs there

at this point, all the actions there are for someone to update or write a doc

yes

non-trivial updates at that

some of 'em, yeah

I'll deal with active PRs first, methinks

right

so we're done in half an hour!

good job, team!

amazing (-:

Rebased 99 on master

gold star for the day!

I have yet to grok rebasing in fulness - I must dedicate some time to learning git more fully

thanks Sam

Git is actually an incredibly simple system, which makes it nice to learn, but also means that it's way easier to learn on a whiteboard than at a computer.

What happened to the attachto XEP I submitted? Looks like the council voted to accept as Experimental last wednesday. Did that fall through the cracks?

http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2015-10-21/#15:05:49

in so much as Kev hasn't pushed out minutes, and I could not attend the last Council meeting

Ah, no minutes. That'll do it.

well, there's minutes *now" *(-:

we'll get that published as 0.1 presently

Same with entity versioning actually, that was a while back. I think one or two people were to vote "on list" but it's probably been longer than the two weeks or whatever it is. I should go check on that.

oh, wait … can't yet … waiting on Dave

Sorry, just saw a highlight. What's up?

I have to poke Council again about entityversioning

I was just waiting on minutes

so issue resolved

Ah. Perfect timing, then.

Oh yah, there they are... good timing.

we do have some protoXEPs that might have fallen through the cracks … will gather up the list and let you know, Kev

Maybe council should file an issue after they have a vote so we can track the actual task of doing whatever the thing is alongside PR's and what not.

Vote in the MUC or on-list or in some non-third-party place, but track all work on GitHub.

that's a good idea, but something for the Editor team to do

technically the Editor is responsible for tracking votes

makes sense

I'll start just doing that if I'm watching a council meeting and a vote happens. See if the workflow feels good.

I suggest that Editors think about what they'd like, and talk to the new Council Chair about it when the guard changes.

rightio

I have, in the past for another board I was running, used GitHub for creating meeting agendas but not yet for tracking votes - I somewhat like the idea of having everything in one place (although the XEPs repo might not be that place, at least for Council business - setting up a separate Council repo could work, though) ... but, as Kev says, that's something for the next Council to ponder

If it was me, I'd be more inclined to use Trello for this, but whatever, it won't be me :)

I was thinking more tracking of the actual work. So council would vote in the normal way, but then file an issue to tell the editors "merge and mark this XEP as experimental" or whatever the task is.

I think that's traditionally been the Editor's job.

Yah, less benefit if the editors are doing it (because then if minutes are late or something there's a delay), but it doesn't really matter. Mainly just having a tracking issue which, if the editor who was going to do something goes on vacation, can be looked at by others so things don't fall through the cracks.