[Standards] Council Minutes 2021-08-11
jonas at wielicki.name
Wed Aug 11 15:43:34 UTC 2021
1) Roll Call
Emerging from a horrifying reading, Jonas opens the meeting a tad late.
Present: Jonas, Zash, Daniel, Georg
2) Agenda Bashing
3) Editor’s Update
- Pubsub Caching Hints have been accepted as New as per council vote
- The Moved 2.0 protoxep has been merged into '283 and authorship has been
transferred to MattJ as discussed.
4) Items for Voting
5) Pending Votes
- Everyone except Dave on ProtoXEP
A lot of discussion following up on the mailing list thread and the discussion
in xsf at . An opinionated summary by Jonas is available in the thread .
Referring to the discussion in xsf@ , Jonas changes his vote to -1, with
the following rationale, quoted verbatimly:
> - Any disco#info feature needs to be backed by some kind of implementation
> - Even though for some combination of features the implementation may be
obvious, it should still be written down somewhere, because obvious doesn't
> - If there is text backing the implementation of a combination of two
features, that is the obvious place to declare a disco#info feature string
> - If there is a place where a disco#info string is written down which needs
to be read by implementors anyway, there is no benefit from having a way to
construct such a string; an opaque string match is required in the
> and to bring this to the point which IMO makes this -1-worthy: it misleads
implementations and specification authors to think that they can just slap
together two feature strings and it will be immediately clear what is supposed
to happen there.
Daniel notes that while Jonas' concerns may be valid and he even shares them,
they may not completely warrant a -1 from his perspective (while respecting
Georg adds that introducing a semantic separator in an opaque string is
Jonas explicitly acknowledges that there is a problem to be solved regarding
the discoverability of optional RSM for various protocols. He changes his vote
Dave, however, is convinced of the arguments and changes his vote to -1, with
the suggestion to resolve this by explicitly writing down the missing
interactions and feature combinations for RSM + * in separate documents to
solve the problem "for now".
With that, the ProtoXEP is vetoed (but see ).
6) Date of Next
Everyone in for +1w.
8) Ite Meeting Est
: https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2021-08-09#2021-08-09-4407b454a06caebc ff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Standards