XSF Discussion - 2019-04-16

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

jonas’: you just volunteered.

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

I'd like to add some xep-0260 remarks

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

Sure

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

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

To late

Check your mail rion

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

Ge0rG, I see

I’ll try to remember that :)

thanks

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@)

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

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

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

Voted on and passed, I think.

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

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

Tedd is doing a great job.

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

No.

dwd: you could add that to the agenda

Ge0rG, Not missing my votes anymore. :-)

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

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

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

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

It = XEP-0280

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

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

pep., "MAY NOT"?

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

yes

You'd prefer SHOULD NOT?

I'd prefer MUST NOT

MUST NOT, client SHOULD accept, or something.

Ok so that'd be breaking, right?

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

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.

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

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

Wait, no. #736 and #778

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