[Standards] Council Minutes 2020-01-08

Jonas Schäfer jonas at wielicki.name
Tue Jan 21 16:01:40 UTC 2020


Hi list,

On Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2020 16:55:46 CET Tedd Sterr wrote:
> 3a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Special Interests Group End to End Encryption -
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sige2ee.html Jonas realises that SIG
> Proposal/Formation have their own XEP types, so that will have to be
> adjusted by the Editor. Jonas is unclear on the procedure around this and
> doesn't want to waste meeting time trying to figure it out.
> 
> Dave: +1 (generally in favour; had some comments on the second bullet point)
> Jonas: [on-list] (procedure is unclear to me)
> Georg: +1
> Daniel: [on-list] (haven't had time to read; assuming +1)
> Zash: [pending]

So I’ve been digging into the history and formation of SIGs. Process-wise, it 
is not clear to me what the correct path is. Historically, there has been not 
one, but two special XEP types related to the birth of SIGs ("SIG Formation" 
and "SIG Proposal"). Since my shovel wasn’t good enough to dig *that* deep 
into the history, I’m not sure what the difference between those is.

Reading XEP-0001, ISTM that "Procedural" type is the type to be used (as does 
the ProtoXEP at hand).

Reading XEP-0002 does not give much insight. Reading XEP-0019 warns about the 
concept of standing specialized SIGs in general, though it was written with 
the (probably comparatively?) small XMPP community of the olden times in mind.

Given the current activity around E2EE, I’d be +1 on a temporary SIG on this 
matter, however, the ProtoXEP proposes a standing SIG.

Reading XEP-0069 (the most recent not-retracted SIG creation XEP, also, TIL: 
we have had efforts to have a Compliance SIG) gives a nice baseline to hold 
the ProtoXEP at hand to.

Reading Article VIII of the bylaws tells me that SIGs essentially have no 
powers. In addition, SIGs are typically led by either XSF Work Teams or 
Council, which is in direct contradiction to what the ProtoXEP says.

I am working under the premise that accepting this ProtoXEP as Experimental 
does not constitute the creation of the SIG; instead, we can will try to 
advance it in the next weeks to Active while figuring out what’s needed to 
bring it up to standards for the Bylaws. I’d love if someone from the olden 
days could chime in.

I am +1 on the ProtoXEP as-is, and also on the modified version [xeps PR#881].

kind regards,
Jonas

   [xeps PR#881]: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/881
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200121/c1864b9d/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list