XSF Discussion - 2019-03-29

  1. jonas’

    Me too, actually

  2. Ge0rG

    jonas’: so you are in on the 04/01 cabal? 😁

  3. jonas’

    not necessarily

  4. jcbrand

    Seve You can count me as another person who doesn't find humorous XEPs particularly funny.

  5. Seve

    Good to know I'm not alone, jcbrand :)

  6. jonas’

    moparisthebest, another, less important, aspect is that April 1st is a monday, and I don’t have lots of resources for doing editor work on mondays

  7. Ge0rG

    How much more than pressing a button is it? Would it be hard to stimulate a Monday from a different time zone? That should give you half a day of wiggle room in each direction.

  8. jonas’

    Ge0rG, assigning a number, checking that it builds, checking that the metadata is ok for publication, tagging, archiving, pushing, waiting two hours to send the email (and not forgetting about that)

  9. jonas’

    much of this is automated, but to apply the appropriate amount of care, I need to allocate a bit of time for that

  10. Kev

    DoX: If it's meant to be implemented: Standards Track and not April 1st. If it's not meant to be implemented, Humorous and April 1st. Although whether it's actually amusing or not is an open question.

  11. MattJ

    If it's standards track who cares if April 1st?

  12. Guus

    I agree with Kev - Anything published on April 1st runs the risk of being treated as humorous. Many people won't notice the track that's published on.

  13. Ge0rG

    Guus: I don't see this being a problem with that specific proposal.

  14. Guus

    If a XEP is not intended to be dismissed off-hand as humorous, we shouldn't publish it on April first.

  15. Ge0rG

    I don't see a problem with publishing serious proposals on April 1st, and I don't think people will dismiss something they actually need based on the publication date.

  16. Guus

    It will introduce confusion with at least some people, which we can easily avoid.

  17. Ge0rG

    And especially with DoX, which is of the "ha-ha, only serious" kind <http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html>

  18. Guus

    that's utterly confusing to anyone that's not on top of things.

  19. jonas’

    I’d maybe not say "utterly", but yeah. Especially with this type of borderline proposal, I think we should commit to it being either the one (humorous) or the other (standards track).

  20. jcbrand

    There's nothing wrong with publishing a serious proposal on April 1st, but that's not a reason to actively push for it to be published on April 1st.

  21. Seve

    >If it's standards track who cares if April 1st? I agree, not all the world celebrates 1st of April, just saying.

  22. Seve

    I don't check when a XEP was published, honestly.

  23. Seve

    I care about the content.

  24. jonas’

    Seve, me neither, but some may, and especially on the day of publication.

  25. Seve

    I'm not pushing to any of the sides, just mentioning that

  26. Guus

    Many people won't be affected, but some will. We should err on the side of caution. Especially since it'd be effortless to do so.

  27. Ge0rG

    you folks are way too serious.

  28. Guus

    Ge0rG I like meta-jokes as much as the next guy, probably more. But let's not do that in a standards organisation.

  29. Kev

    If it was an obviously serious proposal, April 1st would make no difference.

  30. Kev

    But this is a XEP that at first glance I assumed was meant to be a joke.

  31. Ge0rG

    Guus: ..in a standards organization that has an explicit document class for "funny" things?

  32. Guus

    Ge0rG we can go back and forth over this all day, but I don't think we're going to agree. 🙂

  33. Ge0rG

    this is kind of those cheap 80ies tv shows where there are two huge neon signs above the stage with "Applause!" and "Laughter!"

  34. Ge0rG

    Kev: the XSF process doesn't allow for a proposal to be _both_ standards track and humorous.

  35. Ge0rG

    What about if we change our process to allow for that? It would probably take a year or so, and then we can publish this XEP on April 1st 2020.

  36. Seve

    Come on :)

  37. Ge0rG

    Kev: speaking of process, is there a chance to get a quick vote from you on XEP-0412?

  38. Guus

    Ge0rG Comedytrain has open podium on Tuesdays, in Toomler, Amsterday. 😉

  39. Kev

    Ge0rG: Probably not while I'm off ill.

  40. Kev

    If I've not done it Monday, do feel free to chase.

  41. Ge0rG

    Kev: alright, thanks. Get well soon :)

  42. Kev


  43. Ge0rG

    (this is not meant egoistically at all)

  44. Guus

    It didn't, until you mentioned that. 🙂

  45. Guus

    As someone with no skin in the game: get well soon, Kev.

  46. Kev

    Ta. It's only a cold, but it turns out they can be plenty annoying enough.

  47. Ge0rG

    It was well-intentioned, but then I had a feeling that it sounds like an empty phrase, and then I realized that it's even worse if taken in the context of my inquiry.

  48. Ge0rG

    I suppose that whatever I'm saying now is only going to make it worse.

  49. Guus


  50. dwd

    Ge0rG, Keep digging, it's fun watching.

  51. Ge0rG

    So let's get back to DoX.

  52. Ge0rG

    dwd: you owe me a vote as well :P

  53. Ge0rG started to read ATT three times already. But the bus rides are too short and too bumpy to get through a complex cryptographic protocol.

  54. dwd

    Ge0rG, I'm still debating whether to through this back to another Last Call. We've had so few comments, I'm not sure it'll fix anything, though.

  55. dwd

    Ge0rG, That is more or less my concern with ATT. It's a (relatively) novel cryptographic design that the XSF is probably not the best place for.

  56. Ge0rG

    dwd: there is always CS-2020 for comments.

  57. dwd

    Ge0rG, That's a fair point.

  58. Guus

    dwd, I'm missing context, but it feels wrong to have both a defined (although minimum) period for 'last call', but also throw things back to last call for not having enough feedback.

  59. Ge0rG

    indeed, what Guus said. 0412 has been in Last Call for over a month.

  60. dwd

    Guus, Yes, although Council has done exactly that. But in this instance, we have had a change in author, and that author has added their own changes.

  61. Ge0rG

    dwd: as I said before, I'd rather undo my changes than go through another month of Last Call Feedback Not Happening.

  62. Ge0rG

    dwd: so either Council is agreeing with my (rather minor) changes, or not. In the latter case, I'll just revert the commits and get that thing out ASAP, and push them into CS-2020

  63. dwd

    Ge0rG, Sure. And equally, I'm not sure I want to veto the spec from Draft anyway. I just need to think about it a bit before making a decision.

  64. Ge0rG

    dwd: and after all, Draft isn't Final. So it boils down to us (the Council) not closing any roads for us.

  65. Guus

    If the change is considerable, that might warrant a Last Call. If this is about the Compliance Suites, I 'd much prefer to finally either reject or publish things. Sam has a point - it's almost April - this is getting silly.

  66. Guus

    especially if we have another xep coming up next year.

  67. Ge0rG

    April 1st would be a good day to publish the Compliance Suite.

  68. Guus

    Thank you for not leaving that one unused, Ge0rG 😃

  69. dwd

    Guus, The reason why it's taking so long is not, in fairness, COuncil taking time over things, but the utter lack of discussion in the community.

  70. Ge0rG

    I might fat-finger it a bit and change the year to 1999, to commemorate the anniversary.

  71. Guus

    dwd I thkn that Council should decide to either use 'lack of discussion' as grounds to not advance the XEP, or to take it as a silent agreement.

  72. Guus

    Re-iterating what we've done a couple of times, expecting a different outcome, is not productive.

  73. Ge0rG

    Guus: if we take lack of discussion as grounds not to advance, then the XSF will stall altogether.

  74. dwd

    Guus, Or - and where I'm leaning, actually - just push this one through and accept it stinks a bit, and hope to get a decent discussion for CS-2020.

  75. Ge0rG

    dwd: may I remind you that we had the same argument about CS-2018?

  76. dwd

    Ge0rG, Yes. The community's input thus far for two years is that they just want a Compliance Suite, but don't care what's in it.

  77. Syndace

    Regarding ATT, I think the upcoming sprint in Berlin will yield a lot of offline discussion about it. So on Sunday/Monday a lot of OMEMO people will have talked about it. The author and various client-devs are involved.

  78. Guus

    I suspect that part of the reason for a lack of discussion is that there's a feeling that it's not going anywhere, anyways. Let's break that cycle, but getting something out the door.

  79. Ge0rG

    Syndace: how many security people will be there?

  80. Guus

    I suspect that part of the reason for a lack of discussion is that there's a feeling that it's not going anywhere, anyways. Let's break that cycle, by getting something out the door.

  81. Ge0rG

    dwd: maybe the community just trusts into the elected Council to do the right thing?

  82. dwd

    Ge0rG, The elected Council's Thing is not writing XEPs, though.

  83. Kev

    > The community's input thus far for two years is that they just want a Compliance Suite, but don't care what's in it. I'm not sure that's true.

  84. Kev

    There are a small number of loud voices saying that.

  85. Syndace

    Ge0rG: Not sure if any ^^

  86. Kev

    I'm not sure that's the same as being the Will of the People.

  87. dwd

    Kev, Oh, indeed - the majority of the community has been entirely silent on the issue.

  88. Ge0rG

    dwd: in case of Compliance Suites, it might actually be a good idea to have those maintained by a Council member.

  89. Kev

    (Possibly because it's the opposite of what I think, which is that the date is unimportant (and shouldn't be there at all) and that if we can't do a decent job of a CS, we should delay until we can)

  90. Ge0rG

    Kev: if the people remain silent, we have no way to determine their will

  91. Ge0rG

    Kev: we are delaying the decesnt job of a CS at least since 2016 now.

  92. Guus

    Kev: do you propose to replace the CS XEPS with one, that we periodically update?

  93. Ge0rG

    I think that with the presence of XMPP clients that stopped implementing new XEPs a decade ago, it is useful to be able to assign a year to a given implementation.

  94. Andrew Nenakhov

    I might be late to a party, but it's absolutely necessary for serious things to be published on April 1st. If anything it makes plausible jokes better.

  95. Ge0rG

    And we have discussed before that CS does not quite fit into our XEP process, but that for lack of a better process we are sticking to doing it as we are now.

  96. Ge0rG

    If you want to change the process, please do so for CS-2020

  97. Ge0rG

    (see, sometimes, you can't tell truth from sarcasm)

  98. Guus

    Nothing is going to change by pushing this one back to LC, I think. So I'd suggest to either reject or accept the advancement.

  99. Guus

    I think Council's mandate covers that neatly - the amount of community feedback can be used as an argument to reject, but I don't think Council _requires_ community feedback to vote on a XEP.

  100. dwd

    Guus, It doesn't mandate this, but neither do the rules preclude this as a reason to veto.

  101. Guus

    you got me confused.

  102. Ge0rG

    Guus: I think Dave wants to say that the council may refuse a proposed XEP based on lack of community feedback

  103. dwd

    Guus, Oh. Yes, unsurprising, I've rephrased what you were saying, more or less.

  104. Guus

    Yeah, that's what I ment. 🙂

  105. Ge0rG

    So everybody is in agreement now? Great!

  106. Guus

    Don't know about you, but I'm frantically refreshing my mailbox.

  107. Ge0rG

    I'm also frantically refreshing my mailbox, but on my current 64kbit/s connection a login+fetch cycle is counted in minutes.

  108. Ge0rG

    > Reading new messages (402342 bytes)...

  109. jonas’

    why do you have to re-login to refresh?

  110. Guus

    that takes away from the franticallity 😞

  111. Ge0rG

    jonas’: for $reasons. One of them being that IMAP support in mutt plainly sucks

  112. jonas’

    ah, mutt

  113. Ge0rG

    another one being that I fetch my mail from the ISP via POP3, just to sync my inbox via IMAP to my own server

  114. Ge0rG

    did I mention yet that mswatch is an ugly hack?

  115. Guus

    And you've not yet deviced a method to be notified of new mail via XMPP? tsss.

  116. Ge0rG

    Guus: being notified? Just deliver them over XMPP!

  117. Guus

    Ge0rG yes, get on with it!

  118. Ge0rG

    Then we can have COIOX!

  119. Ge0rG

    jonas’: do you have any plans for this weekend?

  120. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yes.

  121. jonas’


  122. Guus

    IT'S A TRAP!

  123. Ge0rG

    jonas’: you are my no. 1 go-to bot expert. And this looks like we need a bot to synchronize maildir over XMPP

  124. Guus

    told ya

  125. Seve

    I'm glad you are not my boss, Ge0rG

  126. Seve


  127. Ge0rG

    Seve: my current developer team has a size of 0.

  128. Guus


  129. jonas’ jails Guus with Article 13

  130. moparisthebest

    jonas’, don't forget the owners of quickmeme.com for allowing an upload to bypass the infallible filters

  131. jonas’

    ah, yes

  132. jonas’

    FWIW, I decided that April 1st is not the right date to publish DoX, and since I was nagged about eax-cir in the other room, I’ll just go ahead and process both now

  133. jonas’

    on a different matter, folks interested in future xep archeology might like that I’m starting to tag XEPs

  134. jonas’

    on a different matter, folks interested in future xep archeology might like that I’m starting to tag XEP commits

  135. jonas’


  136. Zash


  137. Zash

    jonas’: That is awesome!

  138. edhelas

    one question for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0367.html if you are doing the "slack-like reaction" implementation, how can you count emojis for MUC, regarding that uniqueness cannot really be based on the from jid

  139. Ge0rG

    edhelas: based on the full JID in a MUC?

  140. Ge0rG

    edhelas: or are you speaking of nickname changes?

  141. dwd looks about. Still in the EU!

  142. pep.

    jonas’, was that message about JET (0396) prompted by a discussion somewhere?

  143. pep.

    Because some of us at the berlin sprint were actually talking about that earlier.

  144. pep.

    I guess people will grump about offline / MUC. Even if there is no actual limitation for jingle regarding this

  145. Zash


  146. dwd

    I think, vaguely, that Jingle FT has a better security model than HTTP upload, though it somewhat depends on the details of the threat model you're working to. I'd love to get some of the crypto-enthusiasts to document their threat model, mind.

  147. pep.

    Ok I just sent a follow-up on the ATT thread, I'd love to get feedback on that

  148. pep.