It wasn't my plan to wash dirty laundry five years later, but here you go..
> On Fri Jul 22 07:59:44 2011, Carlo v. Loesch wrote: >> I've seen the council decide upon proposed XEPs without even reading/ >> understanding them, so I wouldn't be surprised about other atypical >> habits. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:58:37PM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > No, you've seen Council decide on proposed XEPs in a way that you didn't > like, and you assume that must mean they either didn't read, or didn't > understand your view - not that, perhaps, they simply disagreed with your > assessment. Of course your impression may differ from mine, but it sure is unusual that this is one of the very few council meetings where + the authors of the submitted XEP were not given any written explanation for any of council members' -1 votes as is stated in http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#approval + no meeting minutes were published. According to http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2006-June/thread.html 2006-06-14 is possibly the only meeting that officially yielded no results. All we have is this council chatroom log: [15:26:51] <ralphm> so, let's go forward with it. I will read up on my list [15:26:56] <stpeter> "smart" presence distribution [15:27:07] <stpeter> I have to admit that I've not read every last message on the threads about this!!! [15:27:08] <linuxwolf> |-: [15:27:09] <ralphm> does anyone have a short summary [15:27:12] <ralphm> I bailed out [15:27:22] <linuxwolf> IMO... [15:27:33] <stpeter> it's basically an optional modification to XMPP so that it's more like IRC, right lw? Wow... it has little to do with IRC.. who came up with that idea? Was it because we said IRC does one thing better than Jabber: Multicast? [15:27:35] <ralphm> the discussion didn't seem too "smart" [15:27:35] <linuxwolf> ...it's the worst of IRC brought to jabber! linuxwolf either didn't understand IRC or our proposal. The worst of IRC is its distributed database which Jabber luckily doesn't have. Now he's posting pictures of trolls. Go figure. [15:28:13] <linuxwolf> in theory, it makes distributing presence use less bandwidth/bytes At least one thing stuck. Not enough to see that it wasn't only theory. [15:28:17] <ralphm> hmm, I recollect thinking about IRC when I saw JL's drawings. Was that related? [15:28:19] <stpeter> the psyced guys are old IRC folks, their objections to XMPP have traditionally been that it's not enough like IRC :-) I stopped using IRC regularely in the mid 90's so you also have a very interesting notion of who Philipp and I are. We usually criticize design failures in both IRC and XMPP, which doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed. That's why we ended up writing XEPs in the first place. IRC is too hopeless to fix. XMPP stood a chance. But here we are in 2011 and IMHO none of the really important S2S issues are fixed. But.. besides.. what does this have to do with the XEP? Is the council meeting about some people's backgrounds rather than work? [15:28:23] <jackm> it seemed to me that the savings was negligible [15:28:42] <ralphm> at least they have chosen their name carefully then [15:28:42] <linuxwolf> and the liabilities are unacceptable (sync issues) We had worked those issues all out after discussion on the list but I presume you didn't look at the final version we submitted. It made us feel like we had spent weeks for nothing that you judged our work by our very first submission which I admit did not handle all the Jabber-specific security and consistency issues. We discussed hard with you on these things and worked your feedback into the final version... and we even implemented it and had it running. [15:28:44] <jackm> a lot less than say compressing the stream would giet you [15:29:06] <stpeter> maybe they can implement it and deploy it over a private network and then come back with some hard data? [15:29:29] <stpeter> and contrast it with stream compression [15:29:48] <ralphm> yes [15:29:51] <stpeter> since I agree that I don't see major benefits here and the argument is theoretical rather that practical [15:29:51] <ralphm> -1 "All members of the Council must vote, with the possible values being +1 (approve), 0 (neutral), or -1 (disapprove, with reasons)." Reasons, Ralph? I know them now after we met at the FSW in June.. but that's like.. 5 years late! [15:29:55] <linuxwolf> possibly [15:30:12] <linuxwolf> but I'm -1 until they can disprove current experience (-: The problem wasn't very theoretical. Matthias Wimmer provided figures just months earlier: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2006-May/011158.html and http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2006-May/011182.html Over 70% of XMPP messages were <presence/> stanzas of which almost 60% were duplicate resends over the same TCP line. In the grand total that means that over 40% of stanzas in interserver XMPP traffic are redundant. Presumably still today, although I would love fresh and independent figures. We had also implemented the XEP in psyced, but the saving were obvious: about 40% of stanzas less! And nobody bothered to give us an official statement or acknowledge that "hard data" had already been there at the time of the meeting. So it felt very surreal the Council was talking about us providing facts as if there weren't any. We also couldn't believe someone would even suggest stream compression can achieve similar savings. Of course it can't, because each of those 40% redundant stanzas has a different to="" recipient. Only fixing the protocol does the job. It looked as if they were talking about other people and other stuff. So I decided I would not work on XMPP any further. I didn't even bother to find out if the way we were dismissed was intentional or out of distraction. > Still, it's nice to see you've not changed your habit of attempting to > slander anyone who disagrees with you. Presuming Council didn't bother or didn't understand are the two nicer options to explain this behaviour.
