MSC2240: Room version 6

[turt2live]

Rendered

For links, here's the MSCs included:

• MSC2209 - Including notifications in power level auth rules.
• MSC2432 - Alias event authorisation and redaction.
• MSC2540 - Integers in canonical JSON compliance.

[ara4n]

should we try to squeeze #2244 into here too?

[richvdh]

should we try to squeeze #2244 into here too?

To be honest, I think it's unwise to set expectations that a given feature will or will not be in a given room version, particularly while that feature is still very much in development, since we end up in a situation where we never release the features we have because we are continually waiting for the next one that is almost-not-quite-ready-to-release.

(The same is true of a number of the other MSCs listed, fwiw: the rate of progress on their implementation is currently very low, and I think it's premature to propose them for room v6)

Let's wait until we think we have some things actually ready for release in a new room version, and decide then whether it's worth defining the room version at that point, or waiting for more features.

[ara4n]

i guess i was coming at this from the perspective of: "here is the backlog of MSCs which require a new room version; when we next cut a room version we should decide which are stable enough to merit inclusion so we don't forget any" rather than "let's block v6 on #2244".

[richvdh]

fair enough. I think we're using the unassigned-room-version label for that though.

[turt2live]

I did intend to include 2244 in v6 but I guess the collective answer is no?

We have a lot pending implementation, as always, however in this case I'd rather delay release than have many pointless versions.

Also it's worth noting I've talked to exactly noone on this, which is why it's a WIP.

[turt2live]

This is now ready for general review with the inclusion of the 3 MSCs we aim to target. There's a bunch of MSCs which are excluded, but if they happen to get enough of an implementation in time then they can certainly be added.

[anoadragon453]

This lgtm matches my expectation as well. Most people seem in agreement so:

@mscbot fcp merge

[mscbot]

Team member @anoadragon453 has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged people:

• @dbkr
• @uhoreg
• @turt2live
• @ara4n
• @anoadragon453
• @richvdh
• @erikjohnston
• @KitsuneRal

Concerns:

• The MSCs aren't in FCP

Once at least 75% of reviewers approve (and there are no outstanding concerns), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for information about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[turt2live]

@mscbot concern The MSCs aren't in FCP

[anoadragon453]

All listed MSCs have now entered FCP.

@mscbot resolve The MSCs aren't in FCP

[mscbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[turt2live]

Spec PR (for when this leaves FCP): #2563

[mscbot]

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.