Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Mickaël Rémond]

Hello,

We needed to have a working solution to support easily MUC on mobile today,
so we made the simple possible change on MUC to support that. It basically
allow users to become MUC subscribers. No need to send presence to room to
receive messages.

We described it there:
https://blog.process-one.net/xmpp-mobile-groupchat-introducing-muc-subscription/

ejabberd master already supports it.
I hope this will help us gather from the field feedback to help improve MIX.

Anyway, we are also ready to implement and propose feedback on the next MIX
iteration.

Cheers,

-- 
Mickaël Rémond


On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:22 PM Steve Kille  wrote:

>
>
> > > it's just that Steve wants to double-check that the text reflects the
> > > Summit agreements before he submits.
> >
> > Ensuring that the text reflects whatever was agreed on the summit sounds
> more like a reason to make the text public as soon as
> > possible, instead of a reason to hold it back.
>
> [Steve Kille]
>
> There is real benefit to staged review.   If you share early text with a
> wide audience, lots of people ending up making comments
> that would have been better handled with review by a smaller group.
>
> The plan here is that Kev reviews my changes before they are generally
> shared.I believe that the summit comments are addressed.
>
>
> Steve
>
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Steve Kille]

> > it's just that Steve wants to double-check that the text reflects the
> > Summit agreements before he submits.
> 
> Ensuring that the text reflects whatever was agreed on the summit sounds more 
> like a reason to make the text public as soon as
> possible, instead of a reason to hold it back.

[Steve Kille] 

There is real benefit to staged review.   If you share early text with a wide 
audience, lots of people ending up making comments
that would have been better handled with review by a smaller group.

The plan here is that Kev reviews my changes before they are generally shared.  
  I believe that the summit comments are addressed.


Steve

___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 11:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
> 
> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, 

It was not my intention to suggest that this was the case in MIX. It was
more meant as generic statement. But I think it became obvious that
there are many parties interested in MIX development, which are unable
to follow the development process and, as consequence, are unable to
contribute to it.

> it’s just that Steve wants to double-check that the text reflects
> the Summit agreements before he submits.

Ensuring that the text reflects whatever was agreed on the summit sounds
more like a reason to make the text public as soon as possible, instead
of a reason to hold it back.

Ideally we have
- the latest development version of MIX available (rendered and raw)
- a page which tons of information (rationale, design ideas, discarded
approaches, ...) about MIX
- a meeting to discuss MIX development once in a while (e.g., every month)

But that's my wishful thinking.

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Ralph Meijer]

On 2016-07-05 12:23, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2016, at 11:21, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>
>> On 05.07.2016 12:07, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 11:06, Florian Schmaus  wrote:

 On 05.07.2016 11:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>
> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants 
> to double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he 
> submits.

 How would one get involved in MIX development (besides participating in
 the summit)?
>>>
>>> Discussing the decisions made at the summit, or making further suggestions, 
>>> presumably.
>>
>> Where can I find those decisions?
> 
> They were sent to the list.

To be exact, Steve wrote two sets of notes on the discussion at the XMPP
Summit in Brussels. They were sent to the Summit list, instead of here,
which might be considered unfortunate in retrospect. In any case, you
can find them here:

  http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/summit/2016-January/001794.html
  http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/summit/2016-January/001795.html

-- 
ralphm
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 11:37, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 5 July 2016 at 10:25, Florian Schmaus  > wrote:
> On 05.07.2016 11:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  
> > >> wrote:
> > On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> > > Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
> > > Florian Schmaus mailto:f...@geekplace.eu> 
>  >> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an 
> important
> > >> one like MIX, would be more open.
> > >
> > > For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can 
> keep
> > > development there and tag stable version.
> >
> > So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything 
> in
> > inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards 
> track.
> > Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for 
> active
> > development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
> >
> > I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and
> > working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches).
> 
> That approach would not be visible enough. For one, PRs are not build
> and made available as rendered HTML somewhere. Granted, this eventually
> could be changed. But I still think there is a need for a repo for
> incubating XEPs.
> 
> 
> A different repository is a different repository. PRs are just branches.

Yes.

> You're saying that one change cannot be made because it's not as big as
> the one you want.

No.

> > A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating 
> XEPs
> > and updates to existing XEPs in xsf@. My vision was to make write 
> access
> > to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to 
> publish it
> > somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab 
> ), with the hope
> > that this will encourage
> > collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
> > experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for 
> some
> > reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like 
> that.
> >
> >
> > I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a
> > really simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat.
> > All the way until Draft.
> 
> I believe the current process is seriously flawed and has never worked
> as it was envisioned. So yes, it is an admission of failure. But what's
> wrong with that if the goal is to improve it? People want feedback about
> their XEPs before they are submitted to the XSF. It is as simple as
> that. A we as XSF do not provide them with a tool-chain to support them
> with this venture. Georg Lukas has just recently made the same
> experience, I made with *every single XEP I wrote*.
> 
> 
> Until a XEP is submitted it's not an XSF effort. That's by definition,
> and it has serious implications on our IPR rules to change that - the
> submission process includes copyright assignment, for example.
> 
> All you're doing is right-shifting the process, and that'll end up with
> us dropping the Draft state because we're going from
> Proto->Experimental->Final. This isn't idle speculation, it's precisely
> what's happened in the IETF.
> 
> Instead, if you think the process is flawed, describe why, and propose
> changes to XEP-0001 - don't try to end-run around it.

We start to talk about two different topics here. One is a repo for
incubating XEPs which has an "powered by XSF" sticker on it. And the
other is about the life-cycle process of XEPs. I think I already
explained substantially why I believe such an incubating XEP repo would
be great.

And about the other process:  Maybe carbons (XEP-0280) is a good
example. It's one of the five XEPs I consider crucial for XMPP's future
(the other one being SM, CSI, MAM, and maybe MIX). It's been in last
call for nearly a year. I've not heard much from the authors. I also saw
no interest from them to progress the XEP. Of course, that's perfectly
fine and I don't blame them. In open standard and open source work,
nobody is obliged to do anything (unless you get paid for it maybe). But
as far as I know, we have no policy how to handle this. And thus, a
critical building block of XMPP technology is in a state of suspense and
makes no progress.

Is carbons the only example? No, we have 8 XEPs in last call. Some of
them for years.

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubsc

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Georg Lukas]

* Kevin Smith  [2016-07-05 12:07]:
> Discussing the decisions made at the summit, or making further
> suggestions, presumably.

What is the appropriate place to read up the decisions? And where to
discuss them?

The summit wiki links to https://pad.riseup.net/p/XMPPSummit20 which
links to a January post-summit-19 mail to summit@ regarding MIX.

There was some discussion on standards@ in May, after Dave posted his
opinion on four MIX design issues/elements/whatevers, but it was very
hard to understand for somebody who didn't participate in the summit
discussion.

Am I missing the elephant in the room?


Georg
-- 
|| http://op-co.de ++  GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N  ++
|| gpg: 0x962FD2DE ||  o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+  ||
|| Ge0rG: euIRCnet ||  X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e h- r++ y?   ||
++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_||


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Kevin Smith]

On 5 Jul 2016, at 11:21, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> 
> On 05.07.2016 12:07, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 11:06, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 05.07.2016 11:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
 On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
 
 To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants 
 to double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he 
 submits.
>>> 
>>> How would one get involved in MIX development (besides participating in
>>> the summit)?
>> 
>> Discussing the decisions made at the summit, or making further suggestions, 
>> presumably.
> 
> Where can I find those decisions?

They were sent to the list.

/K

___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 12:07, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2016, at 11:06, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>
>> On 05.07.2016 11:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
 XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>>>
>>> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants to 
>>> double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he submits.
>>
>> How would one get involved in MIX development (besides participating in
>> the summit)?
> 
> Discussing the decisions made at the summit, or making further suggestions, 
> presumably.

Where can I find those decisions? Is there a wiki page,pad or something?
How can I make further suggestions if I don't have access to the latest
state of the XEP?

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Kevin Smith]

On 5 Jul 2016, at 11:07, Evgeny Khramtsov  wrote:
> 
> Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:10:28 +0100
> Kevin Smith  wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.  
>> 
>> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve
>> wants to double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements
>> before he submits.
> 
> IMHO, it would be much more productive to publish the XEP to, at least,
> trigger some discussion here. We're not forced for an experimental XEP
> to be ideal. I agree it's not always required to do it that way, but for
> some "hot" XEPs it would make sense.
> Because otherwise we fully rely on your free time, which you might not
> have in the near future.

I don’t disagree.

/K

___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Evgeny Khramtsov]

Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:10:28 +0100
Kevin Smith  wrote:

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> > XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.  
> 
> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve
> wants to double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements
> before he submits.

IMHO, it would be much more productive to publish the XEP to, at least,
trigger some discussion here. We're not forced for an experimental XEP
to be ideal. I agree it's not always required to do it that way, but for
some "hot" XEPs it would make sense.
Because otherwise we fully rely on your free time, which you might not
have in the near future.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Kevin Smith]

On 5 Jul 2016, at 11:06, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> 
> On 05.07.2016 11:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>> 
>> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants to 
>> double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he submits.
> 
> How would one get involved in MIX development (besides participating in
> the summit)?

Discussing the decisions made at the summit, or making further suggestions, 
presumably.

/K
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 11:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
> 
> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants to 
> double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he submits.

How would one get involved in MIX development (besides participating in
the summit)?

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Ashley Ward]

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 10:11, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> 
> On 05.07.2016 10:56, Ashley Ward wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
 Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
 Florian Schmaus  wrote:
 
> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
> one like MIX, would be more open.
 
 For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
 development there and tag stable version.
>>> 
>>> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
>>> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
>>> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
>>> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
>> 
>> For a while it’s been my vision that each XEP should have its own repo. The 
>> authors could then ‘own’ their own XEP repo - push to development branches, 
>> accept updates (to draft XEPs), etc. This would need a much higher level of 
>> automation than we have now though, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to 
>> do anything on it at the moment unfortunately.
> 
> To be frank, I think the one-repo-per-XEP approach is a terrible idea. I
> see not a single major advantage, but it would require and enormous
> maintenance and setup effort. Simply have a few people which review PRs
> against the repo for some simple constraints, e.g. that they don't mess
> with other peoples XEPs, and then merge them (note that this is
> basically the same approach the xsf/xeps repo uses).

This is essentially what we have now - the xeps repo has a bunch of PRs which 
anyone can submit, and the editors are responsible for merging. Delegating the 
responsibility of merging changes for experimental xeps to the authors (who are 
ultimately responsible anyway) seems like it would be a good idea to me.

As I said though, to make this work (and not just a maintenance nightmare) 
would require a lot of automation - automatically creating repos and 
maintaining ownership, publishing updates, etc. If it worked well it would be 
awesome, but if it doesn’t work particularly well then it would be worse than 
what we currently have, so I’ll just drop this obligatory xkcd here to stop 
myself getting too excited... https://xkcd.com/1319/ 

Cheers,

Ash


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Dave Cridland]

On 5 July 2016 at 10:25, Florian Schmaus  wrote:

> On 05.07.2016 11:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  > > wrote:
> > On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> > > Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
> > > Florian Schmaus mailto:f...@geekplace.eu>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an
> important
> > >> one like MIX, would be more open.
> > >
> > > For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can
> keep
> > > development there and tag stable version.
> >
> > So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
> > inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards
> track.
> > Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for
> active
> > development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
> >
> > I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and
> > working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches).
>
> That approach would not be visible enough. For one, PRs are not build
> and made available as rendered HTML somewhere. Granted, this eventually
> could be changed. But I still think there is a need for a repo for
> incubating XEPs.
>
>
A different repository is a different repository. PRs are just branches.
You're saying that one change cannot be made because it's not as big as the
one you want.


> > A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating
> XEPs
> > and updates to existing XEPs in xsf@. My vision was to make write
> access
> > to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to
> publish it
> > somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab ), with the hope
> > that this will encourage
> > collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
> > experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for
> some
> > reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like
> that.
> >
> >
> > I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a
> > really simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat.
> > All the way until Draft.
>
> I believe the current process is seriously flawed and has never worked
> as it was envisioned. So yes, it is an admission of failure. But what's
> wrong with that if the goal is to improve it? People want feedback about
> their XEPs before they are submitted to the XSF. It is as simple as
> that. A we as XSF do not provide them with a tool-chain to support them
> with this venture. Georg Lukas has just recently made the same
> experience, I made with *every single XEP I wrote*.
>

Until a XEP is submitted it's not an XSF effort. That's by definition, and
it has serious implications on our IPR rules to change that - the
submission process includes copyright assignment, for example.

All you're doing is right-shifting the process, and that'll end up with us
dropping the Draft state because we're going from
Proto->Experimental->Final. This isn't idle speculation, it's precisely
what's happened in the IETF.

Instead, if you think the process is flawed, describe why, and propose
changes to XEP-0001 - don't try to end-run around it.

My suspicion is that the only thing you'd propose changing or removing is
the Council veto for ProtoXEPs, and if this is the case you're welcome to
try. Indeed, I'd positively encourage you to add in guidance, allowable
uses of the veto, an appeals process, and so on. I'd even be curious as to
what removing it entirely would do.


>
> > I've no particular interest in improving the quality of ProtoXEPs - the
> > quality gate there is next to zero anyway (by intention). The quality
> > gate kicks in at Draft, and we should worry, if anything, about that
> > Introducing more roadblocks to get to Draft doesn't seem useful.
> >
> > Basically, your labs proposal ought to happen, but it ought to be the
> > Experimental state, not some new state beforehand.
>
> No, please not. IMHO  counterproductive and ultimately harms the XMPP
> ecosystem.
>

Believe me when I say the previous few months of British politics have
entirely eroded my patience for unsubstantiated claims.


>
> - Florian
>
>
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Steve Kille]

Dave,

 

The update that is coming is a LOT of change.

 

I am anticipating that subsequent updates will be smaller and more frequent, 
which will facilitate broad community involvement.

 

 

Steve

 

 

I'd note that I don't think this is XEP development "behind closed doors" as 
such, but I do think it's not using the community to its fullest, and thus not 
being as open as it could be, and this does yield some discomfort - whether 
that's fair or not is something of a moot point.

 

/

 

___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 11:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  > wrote:
> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> > Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
> > Florian Schmaus mailto:f...@geekplace.eu>> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
> >> one like MIX, would be more open.
> >
> > For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
> > development there and tag stable version.
> 
> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
> 
> I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and
> working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches).

That approach would not be visible enough. For one, PRs are not build
and made available as rendered HTML somewhere. Granted, this eventually
could be changed. But I still think there is a need for a repo for
incubating XEPs.

> A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating XEPs
> and updates to existing XEPs in xsf@. My vision was to make write access
> to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to publish it
> somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab ), with the hope
> that this will encourage
> collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
> experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for some
> reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like that.
> 
> 
> I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a
> really simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat.
> All the way until Draft.

I believe the current process is seriously flawed and has never worked
as it was envisioned. So yes, it is an admission of failure. But what's
wrong with that if the goal is to improve it? People want feedback about
their XEPs before they are submitted to the XSF. It is as simple as
that. A we as XSF do not provide them with a tool-chain to support them
with this venture. Georg Lukas has just recently made the same
experience, I made with *every single XEP I wrote*.

> I've no particular interest in improving the quality of ProtoXEPs - the
> quality gate there is next to zero anyway (by intention). The quality
> gate kicks in at Draft, and we should worry, if anything, about that
> Introducing more roadblocks to get to Draft doesn't seem useful.
> 
> Basically, your labs proposal ought to happen, but it ought to be the
> Experimental state, not some new state beforehand.

No, please not. IMHO  counterproductive and ultimately harms the XMPP
ecosystem.

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Kevin Smith]

On 5 Jul 2016, at 10:22, Dave Cridland  wrote:
> On 5 July 2016 at 10:10, Kevin Smith  wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>> > XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>> 
>> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants to 
>> double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he submits.
>> 
> 
> One could solve this by maintaining a branch (as a "working" PR) while the 
> double-checking happens, for example. Plus, at this point, everyone will have 
> forgotten the precise details of the Summit discussion anyway; 
> publish-and-be-damned seems like a fine idea to me.
> 
> I'd note that I don't think this is XEP development "behind closed doors" as 
> such, but I do think it's not using the community to its fullest, and thus 
> not being as open as it could be, and this does yield some discomfort - 
> whether that's fair or not is something of a moot point.


I don’t disagree.

/K
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Dave Cridland]

On 5 July 2016 at 10:10, Kevin Smith  wrote:

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> > XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>
> To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants
> to double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he
> submits.
>
>
One could solve this by maintaining a branch (as a "working" PR) while the
double-checking happens, for example. Plus, at this point, everyone will
have forgotten the precise details of the Summit discussion anyway;
publish-and-be-damned seems like a fine idea to me.

I'd note that I don't think this is XEP development "behind closed doors"
as such, but I do think it's not using the community to its fullest, and
thus not being as open as it could be, and this does yield some discomfort
- whether that's fair or not is something of a moot point.


> /K
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Daniel Gultsch]

Just using Pull Requests to track XEPs that are in a per-experimental phase
sounds good to me. We are on Github after all and we should embrace it's
features before we come up with some home brewed solution. I mean looking
at the number of open PR it is basically already used as such.

2016-07-05 11:05 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland :

> Florian,
>
> On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>
>> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>> > Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
>> > Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
>> >> one like MIX, would be more open.
>> >
>> > For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
>> > development there and tag stable version.
>>
>> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
>> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
>> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
>> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
>>
>>
> I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and
> working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches).
>
>
>> A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating XEPs
>> and updates to existing XEPs in xsf@. My vision was to make write access
>> to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to publish it
>> somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab), with the hope that this will encourage
>> collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
>> experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for some
>> reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like that.
>>
>
> I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a really
> simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat. All the way
> until Draft.
>
> I've no particular interest in improving the quality of ProtoXEPs - the
> quality gate there is next to zero anyway (by intention). The quality gate
> kicks in at Draft, and we should worry, if anything, about that Introducing
> more roadblocks to get to Draft doesn't seem useful.
>
> Basically, your labs proposal ought to happen, but it ought to be the
> Experimental state, not some new state beforehand.
>
>
>> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>>
>
> In this, we entirely agree.
>
>
>>
>> - Florian
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Standards mailing list
>> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
>> ___
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 10:56, Ashley Ward wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>
>> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>>> Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
>>> Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>>
 I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
 one like MIX, would be more open.
>>>
>>> For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
>>> development there and tag stable version.
>>
>> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
>> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
>> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
>> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
> 
> For a while it’s been my vision that each XEP should have its own repo. The 
> authors could then ‘own’ their own XEP repo - push to development branches, 
> accept updates (to draft XEPs), etc. This would need a much higher level of 
> automation than we have now though, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to do 
> anything on it at the moment unfortunately.

To be frank, I think the one-repo-per-XEP approach is a terrible idea. I
see not a single major advantage, but it would require and enormous
maintenance and setup effort. Simply have a few people which review PRs
against the repo for some simple constraints, e.g. that they don't mess
with other peoples XEPs, and then merge them (note that this is
basically the same approach the xsf/xeps repo uses). It would be
possible to setup something like this in 30 minutes.

- Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Kevin Smith]

On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.

To be fair, that isn’t what’s happening here, it’s just that Steve wants to 
double-check that the text reflects the Summit agreements before he submits.

/K
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Ashley Ward]

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:56, Ashley Ward  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>> 
>> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>>> Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
>>> Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>>> 
 I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
 one like MIX, would be more open.
>>> 
>>> For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
>>> development there and tag stable version.
>> 
>> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
>> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
>> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
>> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
> 
> For a while it’s been my vision that each XEP should have its own repo. The 
> authors could then ‘own’ their own XEP repo - push to development branches, 
> accept updates (to draft XEPs), etc. This would need a much higher level of 
> automation than we have now though, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to do 
> anything on it at the moment unfortunately.

I, of course, meant the authors could accept updates to experimental XEPs. Once 
they’re draft then the editors/council would become the ‘owners’.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ash



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Dave Cridland]

Florian,

On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:

> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> > Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
> > Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> >
> >> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
> >> one like MIX, would be more open.
> >
> > For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
> > development there and tag stable version.
>
> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
>
>
I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and
working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches).


> A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating XEPs
> and updates to existing XEPs in xsf@. My vision was to make write access
> to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to publish it
> somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab), with the hope that this will encourage
> collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
> experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for some
> reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like that.
>

I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a really
simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat. All the way
until Draft.

I've no particular interest in improving the quality of ProtoXEPs - the
quality gate there is next to zero anyway (by intention). The quality gate
kicks in at Draft, and we should worry, if anything, about that Introducing
more roadblocks to get to Draft doesn't seem useful.

Basically, your labs proposal ought to happen, but it ought to be the
Experimental state, not some new state beforehand.


> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>

In this, we entirely agree.


>
> - Florian
>
>
>
> ___
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> ___
>
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Ashley Ward]

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> 
> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>> Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
>> Florian Schmaus  wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
>>> one like MIX, would be more open.
>> 
>> For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
>> development there and tag stable version.
> 
> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.

For a while it’s been my vision that each XEP should have its own repo. The 
authors could then ‘own’ their own XEP repo - push to development branches, 
accept updates (to draft XEPs), etc. This would need a much higher level of 
automation than we have now though, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to do 
anything on it at the moment unfortunately.

Cheers,

Ash


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
> Florian Schmaus  wrote:
> 
>> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
>> one like MIX, would be more open.
> 
> For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
> development there and tag stable version.

So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.

A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating XEPs
and updates to existing XEPs in xsf@. My vision was to make write access
to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to publish it
somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab), with the hope that this will encourage
collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for some
reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like that.
XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.

- Florian




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Evgeny Khramtsov]

Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
Florian Schmaus  wrote:

> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
> one like MIX, would be more open.

For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
development there and tag stable version.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Florian Schmaus]

On 05.07.2016 09:41, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> Tue, 5 Jul 2016 08:10:13 +0100
> Kevin Smith  wrote:
> 
>> Yes, Steve’s done a pass of significant changes - he just wants me to
>> run a quick review over it before submitting the next version.
> 
> Hi, Kevin.
> Is it possible to publish this raw version somewhere? I don't care
> about bad formatting, wording etc. We just want to provide code for
> developers asap, even if it is unstable.

I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
one like MIX, would be more open.

- Florian




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Evgeny Khramtsov]

Tue, 5 Jul 2016 08:10:13 +0100
Kevin Smith  wrote:

> Yes, Steve’s done a pass of significant changes - he just wants me to
> run a quick review over it before submitting the next version.

Hi, Kevin.
Is it possible to publish this raw version somewhere? I don't care
about bad formatting, wording etc. We just want to provide code for
developers asap, even if it is unstable.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] MIX progress

[Kevin Smith]

Hi Evgeny,

On 5 Jul 2016, at 07:29, Evgeny Khramtsov  wrote:
> Is anyone working on the MIX (XEP-0369) spec? Can I look at
> a preliminary updated version? I'm playing with MIX-MUC interaction
> code and it seems like ACL and config interaction is the most
> challenging part, which we sadly don't have currently
> defined in the published version.

Yes, Steve’s done a pass of significant changes - he just wants me to run a 
quick review over it before submitting the next version.

/K

___
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___