XSF Discussion - 2020-06-17

edhelas: JSXC does the same thing with the parameter values that's why I dug up the issue

ok :)

re https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/715 (and https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/961): dwd summarized it nicely in the council meeting just a few minutes before. If we keep the xep30 requirement that there must be a disco#info feature in the response, then not adhering to it in examples appears to me not like omitting an optional feature, but omitting an required namespace declaration. Hence I feel like we have to choose one of either fixing the examples, or, removing the requirement

dwd's suggestion of "disco#info MAY be elided if other features are present" seems like a good compromise

I haven't read this part of the council meeting, but just reading this I'd say there are lots of non-compliants examples already and we're not taking steps to fix them. Disco examples will almost never be valid anyway due to omissions/ellipsis characters ("..."), making them invalid XMPP in the first place

Also, examples are non-normative

sure, but that doesn't mean we should not fix them if we can

I don't think modifying the spec in this case is necessary tbh

I agree with jonas here, "-1, unless the author can find real-world issues which are solved by this PR."

Not non-normative examples

flow, so if I understand correctly, the issue is that the disco#info feature is missing from all these examples?

Add it? :P

pep., that is what I tried first

see pr #715

Right, hence jonas’ suggestion to use <!-- ... --> seems fine

I think that is fine for optional features, but 'disco#info' is a required feature right now

but yeah, I see how this is probably just me being pedantic

So you're going to go through all examples of all XEPs and fix XEPs accordingly? :/

Instead of fixing examples

flow: as was said repeatedly, adding all mandatory features into all XEP examples won't help anybody.

but adding `<!-- ... -->` would actually improve readability (and also make sure that you can't just copy&paste everything from the example)

flow, tbh I'd also like if examples were correct. But I think that's a bit far fetched judging that it's already not valid XMPP anyway

IIRC, when #751 was rejected, "add ... comments to examples" was the recommended way forward.

Ge0rG, I don't think there are many mandatory features at all

right now, it's just one

flow: yes, but even a few mandatory features distract from the feature that the respective example is about

again, one, but I also would favor changing the xep30 requirement

flow: you are probably aware that this is not going to happen for a Final document.

Besides I wonder how helpful the disco#info examples in XEPs really are. Seems very repetitive, but maybe that's only me having read a ton of XEPs,

In my unchanged-for-the-last-two-years opinion, adding the disco#info feature to examples of other XEPs than 0030 is only going to distract the reader.

flow, tbh I also think they are mostly not necessary

Ge0rG, that's just like your opinion, man

:D

Just saying "this is a feature you should declare: XXX" should be more than enough

pep., I was thinking about adding a example section to xep 30 that xeps could refer to, ideally this section would also forward the reader to xep30 caching mechanisms like xep115 and caps2

yeah if you really want to, that may be good to have

uh, and that lebowski quote was meant as reply to modifying final xeps. I do agree, of course, that every unnecessary information is a distraction. ✏

so let's agree on this: there are many places in the XEPs that can be improved

16:30:04 flow> Ge0rG, that's just like your opinion, man

don’t use my moves to make me agree with you!!!

pep., it would indeed be nice if we had an overview, in each XEP, about the '30 features it defines with links to the text which explain them. that would also make stuff like the examples obsolete

a feature registry!

Too soon ✏

if only we had xml in the XEP schema to define registry elements that could be pushed automatically

You'd still need to document features, but yeah that'd be cool

that magic xml could also automatically generate a well-formed example in the XEP

...where I'd still insist on the example containing <!-- ... --> instead of the disco#info feature

I'd rather have an element in the XEP to define disco features rather than a more involved example that's probably harder to parse and that can be regenerated via xslt aftewards

pep., good idea actually

indeed

we could extend xep.dtd and xep.xsl to support that

I still think these disco examples are useless nonetheless

we could 🥁️ use namespaced elements!

put a <disco:describes feature="..."/> element in a section, boom.

XEP Extension XEP?

Yo Zawgsh

yeah, I was thinking about a sort of a new custom element to define that.

So I'm thinking about that minutes taking bot. What would we want it to do exactly? Would that really alleviate important work from the actual minute taker?

Seems easy to have the bot take motion results, start/end of a meeting, actions, but I don't really see it summarize everybody's opinions

I think to be useful it’d have to actually record motions and results

And the latter is to me the most important

there was that meetingbot...

IRC based, which seemed to be quite reasonable

Yeah I'm not looking for an implementation, just requirements

Trying to understand if it's just smoke and mirrors or if it's actually gonna be of use

I'm looking at some examples outside of the XSF: - GNOME: guidelines: https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/Guidelines, example: https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20200330, https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20200413 - SPI: https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/minutes/2020/2020-04-13/ https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/minutes/2020/2020-03-09/

GNOME minutes seem pretty complete, everybody seems to participate in the writing, during the meeting, even if there is somebody (secretary or deputes) responsible for them

SPI minutes seem a bit poor to me. I know they use an irssi plugin to get vote results, but otherwise there's no reported chats in there

So.. while I'm happy to have a bot help with keeping track of decisions and stuff, to me that's not solving the issue

But I guess I'll make this point again tomorrow..

Or when a bot comes up

One day, a bot will take over the XSF