[Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-07

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Mar 7 18:25:38 UTC 2018


As an experiment, the actions from this meeting are at
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601

On 7 March 2018 at 17:47, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> A short reminder on Council voting:
>
> Council can vote on anything - while a Call For Experience is not a
> "Status Change" and thus does not require a vote, Council can still
> vote to ask the Editor to do one. Council members vote either +1 or 0
> (the latter is often written signed, and may indicate a leaning), or
> may veto with -1. A single veto causes the motion to fail; otherwise a
> majority of the Council must vote +1 for the motion to pass.
>
> 1) Roll Call
>
> All present, but as Georg arrived Dave had to leave unexpectedly, thus
> Kev actually chaired. [Speaking personally, many thanks to Kev for
> taking on this monster meeting at no notice]
>
> [ 2) Elided since the lack of a minute-taker was already noted ]
>
> 3) CFE for XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html
>
> Kev noted the ground rules: Each of these votes has two parts - first
> whether to Call For Experience before moving to Final, the second to
> instead deprecate it. This one is for CFE with the intention to later
> move to Final. Georg queried if this were in use anywhere and noted a
> number of XEPs which reference it; Kev didn't think it was in use
> anywhere in practise.
>
> Daniel, Georg, Kev all -1 for CFE, Sam +0
>
> 4) Deprecate XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html
>
> Daniel, Georg, Kev all +1 for Deprecate, Sam +0
>
> 5) CFE for XEP-0048: Bookmarks
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html
>
> Kev felt this was premature while the ongoing 49/223 mismatch quesiton
> isn't answered - Georg agreed this was the elephant in the room. Sam
> felt that a CFE might draw out more feedback. Georg agreed that a CFE,
> with an additional note about '49, might do the trick.
>
> Georg, Daniel, Sam +1 for CFE, Kev 0.
>
> 6) Deprecate XEP-0048: Bookmarks
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html
>
> All present -1.
>
> Kev noted at this point that he would assume anyone +1 for a CFE would
> be -1 on the Deprecate, to which Georg agreed and nobody dissented.
>
> 7) CFE for XEP-0059: Result Set Management
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html
>
> Georg and Kev both raised the current MAM discussion, and felt that we
> should resolve that prior to a CFE.
>
> Georg, Kev -1, Sam Daniel +1
>
> 8) Deprecate XEP-0059: Result Set Management
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html
>
> All present -1
>
> ** Stalemate **
>
> 9) CFE for XEP-0066: Out of Band Data
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html
>
> Daniel asked what this was actually used for, and Georg replied it was
> used for inline images in conversations, and suggested it might be
> harvested for good parts. Kev opined that the CFE might be interesting
> on this one.
>
> All present +1
>
> 10) Deprecate XEP-0066: Out of Band Data
>
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html
>
> All present -1
>
> 11) CFE for XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
>
> Kev suggested that a CFE might make it obvious whether deprecation was
> the right option.
>
> Sam -1, Georg, Kev, Daniel +1
>
> 12) Deprecate XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html
>
> Georg, Daniel, Kev -1, Sam +1
>
> ** Stalemate **
>
> 13) CFE for XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html
>
> Kev +1, Daniel, Georg, +0, Sam -0
>
> (Some question, here, over voting practises regarding CFE - note above
> that the Council may vote on anything).
>
> 14) Deprecate XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html
>
> Kev felt that '79 needed some discussion in the community first, even
> if this were not a formal CFE.
>
> Daniel, Georg, and Kev -1, Sam +1.
>
> 15) CFE for XEP-0092: Software Version
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html
>
> All present +1
>
> 16) Deprecate XEP-0092: Software Version
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html
>
> All present -1
>
> 17) CFE for XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html
>
> Georg, Daniel, Kev +1, Sam +0
>
> 18) Deprecate XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html
>
> Kev, Daniel, Georg -1, Sam +1
>
> 19) CFE for XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html
>
> Georg, Daniel, Kev +1, Sam +0
>
> 20) Deprecate XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html
>
> Kev, Daniel, Georg -1, Sam +0
>
> 21) CFE for XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html
>
> Georg said he was in favour of deprecation, but only after some discussion.
>
> Daniel, Georg, Kev +1, Sam -0
>
> 22) Deprecate XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html
>
> Daniel, Georg, Kev -1, Sam +0
>
> 23) CFE for XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html
>
> Sam noted he thought he had written an implementation of this for
> HipChat (but it may have been gzip). Georg noted the insecurities
> around compression if it is not applied very cautiously.
>
> Daniel, Kev, Sam +1
> Georg -0
>
> 24) Deprecate XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html
>
> Daniel, Kev -1, Sam +0, Georg +1
>
> (Dave rejoined here)
>
> 25) XEP-0045: Implement stable IDs on Reflection #600
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/600
>
> Kev queried the feature string used, Georg suggested it was
> "muc_stable_id" to match legacy cases in the XEP, but Kev thought
> existing cases used the old URL form. Kev and Georg agreed to resolve
> properly after the meeting.
>
> All present +1
>
> 26) XEP-0153: Clarify encoding of update hash #593
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/593
>
> All present +1
>
> 27) Date of next meeting
>
> Same time next week: Wednesday 14th March, 1600 UTC
>
> 28) AOB?
>
> Sam asked that anything we voted on today and ended up with no
> consensus to advance or deprecate be added to the agenda for next
> meeting. Kev suggested these could be discussed on the list, and Dave
> said he would highlight these in the minutes (in these minutes, marked
> "Stalemate")
>
> 29) Kev hung the navel.


More information about the Standards mailing list