ZashThe one mentioned in multiple places in the XEP?
MattJlovetox, funny thing is, we added this for you :) https://issues.prosody.im/1155
lovetoxhaha yes, and i copied it from the example 😃
j.rhas left
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
j.rhas joined
lovetoxZash actually its only mentioned in one place in the XEP, exactly in this wrong example
lovetoxi think the confusion comes from muc#roomconfig_changesubject (config not info)
lovetoxwhich is valid in room config forms
kokonoehas left
dwdhas joined
kokonoehas joined
Yagizahas left
frainzhas left
frainzhas joined
frainzhas left
frainzhas joined
Yagizahas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
alacerhas joined
sezuanhas joined
dwdhas left
alacerhas left
lovetoxhas left
dwdhas joined
Douglas Terabytehas left
frainzhas left
frainzhas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
Douglas Terabytehas joined
APachhas left
dwdhas left
Douglas Terabytehas left
davidhas left
davidhas joined
eevvoorhas joined
j.rhas left
dwdhas joined
flow> Zash> Mistakes in examples are easy to fix at least
I tried once to fix non compliant examples but council decided to go with broken examples
ZashOr fix the registry. `muc#roominfo_changesubject` seems to have become the de-facto standard 🙂
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
jonas’flow, are you confusing "broken" with "noise-reduced examples"?
jonas’or which instance are you talking about?
flowjonas’, broken as in "if an entity would send such an stanza that it would violate the spec"
flowif noise is really an issue here, which I doubt, then at least mark the examples as incomplete
jonas’flow, IIRC somebody stood up to do exactly that
jonas’it might’ve been me
sezuanhas left
jonas’(with <!-- ... --> markresr
jonas’(with <!-- ... --> markers)
flowdunno, xml comments are also invalid in xmpp, and what's the difference between adding a single line of "here is something missing" markers and a single line of what is actually missing
jonas’flow, it’s more than a single line because a MUC service also has to implement disco#items
jonas’so you need at least two lines
jonas’XML comments being illegal in XMPP makes it very obvious that this is a meta-marker, which is great
dwdhas left
Dele Olajidehas left
flowFair point, so two lines, I still don't see a noise problem. I guess what bothers me most is that many solutions for issues are rejected by council, because council has a, in their opinion, better solution, but that never materializes…
delehas joined
dwdhas joined
lumihas joined
jonas’that’s a fair criticism
flowEspecially in this case the first solution could have just been merged and then changed later on
jonas’that’s probably also fair
neshtaxmpphas joined
pdurbinhas joined
flowI always wonder what we can do about that. For things which are considered a defect by consensus, requiring the vetoing council members to provide a counter proposal within a reasonable timefrime could be one approach
davidhas left
davidhas joined
flowBut you can easily get gridlock'ed if those counter propsals are also vetoed
flowOTOH that is the state we currently have
jonas’"requiring" anyone to do anything in a volunteer organization is hard
APachhas joined
jonas’although one could say that the veto is reverted if no counter proposal is made within that timeframe.
flowjonas’, that is exaclty the incentive I had in mind
jonas’and there’s also different kinds of defects
jonas’or situatinos
delehas left
jonas’flow, would you mind proposing that mode of operation in the next council meeting?
jonas’I think that might be a good thing to have
jonas’I have in mind to make it optional on the veto-ing side, i.e. the veto-er who wants to make a better version essentially says "-1 if I can make a counter proposal within 2w, otherwise +0" or something
jonas’we’d have to figure out if that works with the bylaws and such
flowjonas’, I'll put in on my TODO list
KevCurrently the requirement for a veto is that the vetoing member explains what's required to remove the veto.
Dele Olajidehas joined
KevWhich seems like the best option available at the moment.
Kacperhas left
KevBut there's nothing stopping someone who vetos doing as jonas’ says and saying "Veto unless I don't get a patch out".
jonas’don’t the bylaws give us a voting timefrmae?
KevIs the voting period relevant to this?
jonas’maybe
jonas’you may be effectively changing your vote after the voting period
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
pdurbinhas left
KevI don't think anyone cares, if done sensibly.
KevBecause all it's doing is being functionally equivalent to everyone voting early on a future-scheduled item.
Lancehas joined
goffihas left
dwdhas left
lovetoxhas joined
dwdhas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
Kacperhas joined
lovetoxSo whats the way to go for the MUC XEP problem?
lovetoxshould we fix the example
lovetoxor the registry?
dwdhas left
lovetoxregistry obviously nicer, but is it possible?
rtq3has left
peterhas joined
alacerhas joined
Kacperhas left
Lancehas left
flowlovetox, could you give a brief summary of the MUC XEP problem?
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
rtq3has joined
lovetoxits in the muc log starting at 16:05
lovetoxbascially every server impl took muc#roominfo_changesubject from a wrong example
lovetoxthis value is not in the registry
lovetoxin the registry there is muc#roominfo_subjectmod
flowand both carry the same semantics? And the XEP has no normative text about this?
lovetoxis the registry not normativ?
Kacperhas joined
flowI'd say so
lovetoxmuc#roominfo_changesubject is only present in one example
flowSo choose one and add a text to the XEP that it is recommended that services also support the other value?
flowProbably including a sentence or two about the situation
lovetoxyeah we were at that point, just not sure which
lovetoxadd the one everyone uses to the registry
lovetoxor remove the one everyone uses from the example
lovetoxquestion is can the registry just be extended easily?
flowthe one everyone uses is not the one in the registry I assume?
lovetoxyes
Steve Killehas left
lovetoxwe could just extend the registry and be fine
flowI don't see an issue why we shouldn't go with it then, and change the registry entry