XSF Discussion - 2019-04-16

  1. jonas’

    someone should teach ccc.de to honour the browsers font size

  2. Ge0rG

    jonas’: you just volunteered.

  3. rion

    How can I edit https://wiki.xmpp.org ?

  4. rion

    I'd like to add some xep-0260 remarks

  5. jonas’

    Ge0rG, Guus, can someone help rion to an account? ^

  6. Guus

    Sure

  7. Guus

    rion: I need an email address and your preferred wiki user name.

  8. Ge0rG

    Please also provide: your desired wiki user name in CamelCase the email to send your initial password to optionally your real name to make public in the wiki

  9. Guus

    To late

  10. Guus

    Check your mail rion

  11. Ge0rG

    jonas’: please point potential contributors to https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Sysops so they can immediately make a useful request

  12. jonas’

    Ge0rG, I see

  13. jonas’

    I’ll try to remember that :)

  14. rion

    thanks

  15. Ge0rG

    It helps to reduce the number of RTTs when a sysop is not immediately available. (but there is nothing wrong with asking here instead of jdev@)

  16. dwd

    Hey jonas’ - with your Editor hat on, is there anything to vote on tomorrow?

  17. Ge0rG

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/781 maybe?

  18. Ge0rG

    also two PRs that some @ge0rg pushed into github last week are still pending votes

  19. dwd

    Voted on and passed, I think.

  20. dwd

    Yes, there's (one?) pending item.

  21. Ge0rG

    dwd: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/781 and https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/779 are still missing your votes AFAICS

  22. Ge0rG

    Tedd is doing a great job.

  23. Ge0rG

    Was https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/736 brought up yet?

  24. Ge0rG

    No.

  25. Ge0rG

    dwd: you could add that to the agenda

  26. dwd

    Ge0rG, Not missing my votes anymore. :-)

  27. Ge0rG

    I have a streak of successful Council votes. I should start adding more controversy.

  28. Ge0rG

    dwd: actually I'd like the Council to vote on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/778 despite it being a needs-author, formally.

  29. Ge0rG

    It didn't have any non-editorial changes in 2017 and a bunch of Last Calls since.

  30. Ge0rG

    And I don't see (my) LC feedback incorporated :>

  31. Ge0rG

    It = XEP-0280

  32. pep.

    After the discussions last week on 0050, I was wondering if we could bring the subject back on the table. From what I understand, previous council wanted to deprecated 'execute', which makes sense to me, but I don't think there's a way that goes in as a non-breaking change

  33. pep.

    Unless it's just a useless "MAY NOT use the 'execute' action"

  34. dwd

    pep., "MAY NOT"?

  35. dwd

    pep., That's the same as "MAY" in RFC 2119-esque.

  36. pep.

    yes

  37. pep.

    You'd prefer SHOULD NOT?

  38. pep.

    I'd prefer MUST NOT

  39. dwd

    MUST NOT, client SHOULD accept, or something.

  40. pep.

    Ok so that'd be breaking, right?

  41. pep.

    Which is fine by me, I just usually see people never being happy about that

  42. dwd

    I think "MUST NOT" use a previously optional feature, plus "SHOULD accept" for the receiver, isn't actually breaking. But honestly, i can't remember the discussion now in sufficient detail to remember if it's a problem.

  43. pep.

    https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-September/035359.html

  44. dwd

    So, just #778 and #781, then, tomorrow?

  45. dwd

    Wait, no. #736 and #778

  46. rion

    some my notes https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XEP-Remarks/XEP-0260:_Jingle_SOCKS5_Bytestreams_Transport_Method