Monday, March 29, 2010
council@muc.xmpp.org
March
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
       
             
XMPP Council Room | https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation#council | Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/ | https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda

[02:35:13] *** Tobias has joined the room
[02:37:30] *** Tobias has left the room
[02:37:45] *** Tobias has joined the room
[02:39:55] *** Kev shows as "online"
[02:45:31] *** Tobias has left the room
[02:52:43] *** Tobias has joined the room
[03:36:40] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[03:40:20] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[04:23:10] *** Tobias has left the room
[06:11:02] *** Tobias has joined the room
[06:28:50] *** Tobias has left the room
[06:44:52] *** Tobias has joined the room
[07:19:00] *** Tobias has left the room
[07:33:26] *** Tobias has joined the room
[07:58:30] *** Tobias has left the room
[09:18:28] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:18:37] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[10:00:17] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:00:19] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:03:53] *** Kev has left the room
[11:00:17] <Kev> !ping
[11:41:48] *** Tobias has left the room
[11:51:03] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:51:04] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:53:24] *** Kev has left the room
[12:00:40] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:00:41] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:02:28] *** Kev has left the room
[12:04:22] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:04:24] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:06:27] *** Kev has left the room
[12:06:46] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:06:47] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:07:02] *** Kev has left the room
[12:12:49] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:12:51] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:13:43] *** Kev has left the room
[12:14:03] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:14:05] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:14:11] *** Kev has left the room
[12:17:53] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:17:55] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:18:12] *** Kev has left the room
[12:19:47] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:19:49] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:20:24] *** Kev has left the room
[12:20:46] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:20:48] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:21:17] *** Kev has left the room
[12:23:26] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:23:28] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:23:41] *** Tobias has joined the room
[12:24:21] *** Kev has left the room
[12:30:36] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:30:37] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:31:14] *** Kev has left the room
[13:02:25] *** ralphm has joined the room
[13:02:37] *ralphm waves
[13:03:59] <Kev> Hi Ralph.
[13:04:05] *** remko has joined the room
[13:04:05] *** remko shows as "online"
[13:04:10] <Kev> Hi Remko.
[13:04:11] <remko> hidiho
[13:04:29] <Kev> Give me 60 seconds to finish the iteam minutes, and see if Matt gets back in time.
[13:05:18] *** psa has joined the room
[13:05:22] <psa> howdy
[13:05:27] <Kev> Hi Peter. You should be relaxing :p
[13:05:30] <psa> :P
[13:05:34] <remko> hi peter
[13:05:36] <psa> mostly just catching up today
[13:05:39] <psa> lots of errands
[13:05:46] <psa> hi Remko!
[13:06:07] <Kev> Ok, let's get started and we can backpedal if Matt arrives in the next 3 minutes or so.
[13:06:22] <ralphm> I cleared out much of my unread mailinglist stuff
[13:06:28] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
Kev, Ralph, Remko here, Matt probably not here with apologies.
[13:06:34] <Kev> ralphm: I think you're current, indeed, thanks.
[13:06:40] *psa has 1750 messages in his inbox :(
[13:06:41] <Kev> 2) Agenda bashing.
[13:06:46] <Kev> Anyone?
[13:06:52] <ralphm> psa: I had over 3000
[13:06:57] <psa> ouch
[13:07:15] <Kev> I think I'm on ~1000. Only 257 threads with unread messages, though.
[13:07:20] <Kev> Anyway.
[13:07:32] <Kev> I'll assume that's a "no-bashing" :)
[13:07:36] <remko> no bashing
[13:07:41] <Kev> (Just had a 20minutes iteam meeting, going to try and beat that)
[13:07:47] <psa> heh
[13:07:49] <Kev> 3) XEP-0136: Message Archiving
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0136-1.2.html
Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0136/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc1

Votes needed from Kev, Matt, Remko
[13:07:53] <ralphm> (I didn't actually read most of it)
[13:07:53] <Kev> Matt voted +1 today.
[13:07:57] <remko> i promise to vote on-list
[13:07:58] <psa> +1 given that today is a snipperdag for me ;-)
[13:08:06] <Kev> remko: today is the last day for voting on this.
[13:08:09] <ralphm> snipperdagen WTF
[13:08:09] <remko> psa: i have a snipperdag tomorrow ;-)
[13:08:25] <remko> kev: ok, in that case +0
[13:08:32] <ralphm> Matt did have some remarks
[13:08:34] <remko> well, +1 actually, i did read them
[13:08:38] <Kev> I'm unhappy with this, because it feels wrong.
[13:08:42] <ralphm> about the complexity
[13:08:50] <Kev> It feels complicated, and not fully thought out.
[13:09:06] <Kev> I don't have any one specific exception to it, though.
[13:09:36] *psa nods
[13:09:46] <remko> kev: so, what do we do about this then?
[13:09:49] <Kev> My problem is that 136 was mostly workable before all this complexity, and was Draft. It's now going to be more complicated, without any interop testing and no idea how well it'll work.
[13:09:52] <ralphm> is it about the new stuff, the rewrite or the whole thing?
[13:09:55] <psa> naturally, most of it is too complicated
[13:09:57] <ralphm> (the complexity issues)
[13:10:11] <Kev> ralphm: it wasn't trivial to start with, but the new stuff feels very complex.
[13:10:24] *psa looks at the author list
[13:10:36] <psa> all the Ian stuff is too complicated
[13:10:37] <Kev> remko: yes, that's the question, I'm debating whether to block it until I'm convinced it's sensible, or not.
[13:10:42] <remko> right
[13:10:46] <ralphm> Kev: so if you really feel it needs a second look, -1 it?
[13:10:50] <remko> the xep is already very complicated indeed
[13:10:57] <Kev> I don't want to be 'that guy' if it's just me and the world wants to move on.
[13:11:06] <ralphm> Kev: it is our job, really
[13:11:14] <psa> we've killed off most of that stuff -- looking forward to an end to XEP-0155 too
[13:11:15] <Kev> psa: as one of the authors, how do you feel about the complaints?
[13:11:28] <psa> the entire spec is too complex
[13:11:38] <ralphm> the spec or the protocol itself?
[13:11:38] <psa> clearly people have implemented it
[13:11:42] <psa> the protocol
[13:11:50] <Kev> psa: they've only implemented the old one though, haven't they?
[13:11:56] <Kev> I thought there was no server support for the new stuff.
[13:12:10] <Kev> If we've got interoperable implementations, I don't have much of an argument to have.
[13:12:13] <psa> Alexander and Yann have implemented the new stuff AFAIK, in ejabberd and gajim respectively
[13:12:14] <remko> i thought there was
[13:12:20] <Kev> Ah.
[13:12:28] <ralphm> do the implementations implement all of the (old) aspects
[13:12:30] <ralphm> ?
[13:12:38] <psa> ralphm: that, I'm not sure
[13:12:48] <psa> ralphm: quite possibly not
[13:12:57] <ralphm> I mean, if most of the complexity is not implemented, maybe we can cut stuff there?
[13:13:05] <Kev> I'll +0 it, then, but can we attach a Council note saying that I'm uncomfortable with the complexity, and that it should have a review and possible simplification if needed?
[13:13:12] <psa> the XSF needs an interoperability process so that we can reduce complexity before pushing things to Final
[13:13:15] *** fippo has joined the room
[13:13:23] <ralphm> psa: yeah
[13:13:27] <remko> i'm +0ing too
[13:13:32] <psa> Kev: that does not seem unreasonable
[13:13:42] <psa> IMHO we need to take a close look at this one
[13:13:44] <Kev> Excellent, thanks.
[13:13:47] <psa> and simplify
[13:13:51] <ralphm> so that basically means that we are now accepting the changes but don't like it?
[13:13:54] <Kev> This is something I do actually care about - server side history is great.
[13:14:24] <psa> right now the protocol has too many bells and whistles and options
[13:14:34] <remko> *nod*
[13:14:45] <Kev> ralphm: if half of council are in favour of the changes (you and Matt), half of Council don't like it, but don't have a specific complaint to block with (Remko and me), and there are interoperable implementations of the new stuff...I think that's a good summary, yeah.
[13:15:27] <psa> as a first step, I think we need to gather a list of implementations (not sure if Google ever implemented it with this namespace) and poll them regarding which particular features they implement
[13:15:45] <ralphm> Kev: I'm ok with the changes, yes. On the complexity, maybe the whole thing needs to be reconsidered
[13:15:50] <psa> ralphm: yeah
[13:15:52] <Kev> psa: I think that'd be good.
[13:16:36] <psa> so perhaps the Council can write up a note that we can add to the spec
[13:16:37] <Kev> There's also scope for a Simplified Message Archiving spec if such a thing is needed, or whatever.
[13:16:39] <ralphm> so a Call for Experience
[13:16:45] <Kev> psa: I'll take that action.
[13:16:55] <Kev> ralphm: only with a little c, because it's not a CfE :)
[13:17:05] <Kev> Or are we allowed to issue those without advancement?
[13:17:07] <psa> ralphm: well, we issue a CfE only when we want to move ot Final
[13:17:11] <ralphm> sure we can
[13:17:12] <psa> hmm
[13:17:17] <Kev> In any case, yes.
[13:17:23] <Kev> I'll write a note, and we'll ask for experience.
[13:17:28] <psa> we *have* issued those only before advancing to Final
[13:17:32] <Kev> 14 minutes gone, let's get a wriggle on :)
[13:17:37] <ralphm> we want to move this eventually, and as-is we don't seem to like it much
[13:17:45] <psa> doesn't mean we couldn't do so under other circumstances
[13:17:47] <Kev> 4) XEP-0184: Message Receipts
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0184-1.1.html
http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0184/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc7

Updated to reflect Kev's objections. Accept 1.1rc7?
[13:18:05] <Kev> I'm +1 after the latest changes.
[13:18:09] <Kev> Ralph's already +1d
[13:18:22] <psa> I like it much better now
[13:18:33] <psa> Kev's criticisms were quite warranted
[13:18:45] <ralphm> good changes, indeed
[13:19:03] <remko> kev: is there still time to vote for this tomorrow for me?
[13:19:18] <Kev> remko: yes, voting on this starts tonight, you've got a fortnight.
[13:19:23] <remko> ok
[13:19:36] <Kev> 5) Distributed MUC
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc2.html
Another distributed MUC proposal - accept as Experimental?
[13:19:58] <remko> +1
[13:20:04] <Kev> Would it be better to accept this as a competing Experimental, or have the XEP authors work together on the existing Experimental?
[13:20:07] *psa just realized he has an "AOB" item
[13:20:09] <Kev> I'm not opposed to either approach.
[13:20:24] <Kev> psa / fippo: what are your thoughts?
[13:20:44] <ralphm> I prefer both
[13:20:48] <remko> i don't mind publishing this as an experimental for aske of history, and then merging both
[13:20:49] <psa> I admit that I didn't get to read fippo's document as I had hoped to on the flight back from IETF 77
[13:21:01] <remko> s/aske/sake/
[13:21:15] <Kev> psa: I have comments on both dmucs, but I'm happy to have both on the vine.
[13:21:24] <Kev> So I'm not not objecting to publishing.
[13:21:35] <psa> I like to publish documents :)
[13:21:38] <psa> as is well-known
[13:21:48] <Kev> Ok.
[13:21:55] <psa> in the early days we had 3 or 4 pubsub specs, as Ralph no doubt recalls
[13:22:01] <ralphm> dmuc2 is not complete yet. I am especially interested in the netsplit/join stuff
[13:22:07] <ralphm> psa: indeed
[13:22:11] <Kev> psa: and you added all four together to get the monster we have now? :)
[13:22:14] <psa> dmuc1 is not complete, either
[13:22:19] <ralphm> psa: sure
[13:22:19] <Kev> No, both are WIPs
[13:22:28] *** lynX has joined the room
[13:22:35] <Kev> Anyway, shall we move onto
6) Fifth member.
Nathan and Jack standing.
[13:22:41] <ralphm> Kev: actually, no. The first pubsub spec worked with IQs :-)
[13:23:00] <ralphm> Where are they standing?
[13:23:06] <Kev> Shush.
[13:23:09] <ralphm> :-P
[13:23:35] <Kev> I'm sure either Jack or Fritzy would be a fine fifth member.
[13:23:42] <ralphm> indeed
[13:23:50] <psa> [oh, I have two AOB items...]
[13:24:14] <psa> Kev: as am I
[13:24:14] <Kev> Given that Jack's done this before, and he's on Board, I'm inclined to suggest Nathan for some fresh perspective, and to avoid getting too inbred, but I'd be very happy with either.
[13:24:31] <remko> same comment from me.
[13:24:51] <remko> it also seemed that jack was willing to do this more as a fallback, but i might be wrong
[13:25:17] <Kev> I asked Fabio as well, as he applied at the start of the session, but he's snowed under at the moment.
[13:25:26] <psa> despite the fact that I lack a vote in the matter, I agree with the sentiment of having new people on the Council -- it's a form of recycling
[13:25:34] <Kev> ralphm: what think you on Jack and Nathan?
[13:25:58] <ralphm> Kev: I had the same feeling
[13:26:32] <ralphm> and I'm sure Jack just wants the spot filled
[13:26:39] <Kev> Ok, we'll wait for Matt to express an opinion on-list, but that looks like Fritzy unless some terrible secret comes forward.
[13:27:02] <psa> heh
[13:27:18] <Kev> Ok, AOB. I believe someone's waiting in the wings with two items...
[13:27:22] *psa starts the "Fritzy is a spy!" meme
[13:27:35] <ralphm> since there is no actual process, do we vote or is it a humming thing?
[13:27:38] <psa> ok, AOB
[13:27:41] *** Kev shows as "online" and his status message is "Shhh, Fritzy is a spy."
[13:28:05] <Kev> ralphm: we vote. I'm assuming that until Matt votes we have the chance to revoke our previous votes, though, thus not taking it as done yet.
[13:28:20] <ralphm> ok
[13:28:22] *Kev points at his presence.
[13:28:24] <psa> I think it's a vote but that's not explicit at http://xmpp.org/council/policies.shtml
[13:28:26] <psa> ok
[13:28:39] <psa> first AOB, Thursday is April 1 :P
[13:28:42] <Kev> psa: when I checked the bylaws, I believe it said 'vote'
[13:28:47] *** ralphm shows as "online" and his status message is "Fritzy is a mad man!"
[13:29:15] <remko> oh no
[13:29:23] <remko> will we be fooled again?
[13:29:33] <psa> so I might cook something up for April 1, but I haven't come up with anything yet
[13:29:35] <Kev> remko: Guess who I'm listening to at the moment ;)
[13:29:44] <ralphm> and select a new member from among the applicants.
[13:29:47] <Kev> psa: OK. It's not strictly vital to have an AFD post, you know.
[13:29:53] <psa> last week was busy (as were all the weeks leading up to IETF 77)
[13:30:03] <psa> Kev: true -- I prefer quality over quantity
[13:30:06] <psa> second AOB
[13:31:00] <remko> don't leave us hanging here
[13:31:02] <psa> at IETF 77 I met with a guy who has an implementation of http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxe.html for whiteboarding (so that includes http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard.html I suppose)
[13:31:12] <psa> and he is working on fixes to that spec
[13:31:16] <Kev> Oh, great.
[13:31:20] <remko> excellent, taht spec needed some love
[13:31:27] <psa> in fact I heard from someone else recently who has implemented it
[13:31:28] <ralphm> this is the muc based one, yeah?
[13:31:38] <psa> ralphm: it can go through MUC
[13:31:47] <psa> the guy I met with implemented it over link-local
[13:32:13] <psa> ralphm: but it doesn't need to go over MUC
[13:32:22] <ralphm> ah
[13:32:27] <psa> anyway, I wanted you guys to know that we might have a revised version to consider soon for publication
[13:32:33] <ralphm> cool
[13:32:39] <Kev> I seem to recall that we had discussions about this at Fosdem.
[13:32:40] <psa> that's it from me
[13:32:54] <Kev> Although possibly it was at dinner.
[13:32:57] <psa> Kev: I don't recall discussions, but I wasn't there on Friday
[13:33:23] <Kev> Oh, I remember
[13:33:38] <Kev> It was how you can use whiteboarding over muc assuming the muc knows nothing about whiteboarding
[13:33:44] <psa> yes
[13:33:57] <Kev> but if you /do/ have a whiteboarding-enabled muc, it can make things much better for people joining an active whiteboard later.
[13:34:08] <psa> right
[13:34:12] <Kev> Ok, that's easy to put into any spec.
[13:34:18] <ralphm> I am wondering if the suggestions around pubsub in mucs would help this effort
[13:34:23] <Kev> So, we've a minute over my half hour tolerance.
[13:34:38] <psa> nothing more from me
[13:34:40] <Kev> Unless there are any other other businesses, I suggest we close.
[13:34:41] <psa> next meeting?
[13:34:43] <Kev> OH, next ...
[13:34:44] <Kev> right
[13:34:49] <Kev> same time next week?
[13:34:49] <ralphm> next week
[13:34:51] <Kev> Ah, no.
[13:34:56] <Kev> It's Easter Monday.
[13:35:02] <Kev> Shall we treat ourselves to a week off?
[13:35:09] <ralphm> ok
[13:35:26] <Kev> Next meeting same time a fortnight today, then.
[13:35:28] <remko> sounds good
[13:35:30] <psa> WFM
[13:35:34] <Kev> Excellent, thanks all.
[13:35:37] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[13:35:37] <remko> thanks
[13:35:38] <psa> thanks guys
[13:35:48] *psa wanders off to heat up some lunch
[13:35:49] <Kev> I'll sort out minutes before too long.
[13:36:41] <psa> thanks
[13:36:49] <psa> I'll soon go back to being offline :)
[13:39:06] <ralphm> psa: noooo
[13:39:34] <ralphm> psa: about XEP-0060, the remarks around node deletion with redirect are basically this:
[13:40:03] <ralphm> 1) it uses jid/node attributes, rather than the uri thing I have implemented
[13:41:29] <ralphm> 2) There is no mention of the <redirect/> being sent along with notifications.
[13:43:21] <ralphm> actually I only implemented 2 with a <delete node='test'><redirect uri='xmpp:example.org?;node=test2'></delete>
[13:43:54] <ralphm> and did not implement the stuff for requesting delete with redirect, because that's internal to my implementation
[13:44:07] <psa> ok
[13:44:22] <ralphm> I am not really wedded to using URIs, per se
[13:45:10] *** remko has left the room
[13:45:13] <psa> URI is consistent with http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0060-1.13.html#example-44
[13:46:00] <ralphm> except that is not allowed by Core
[13:46:03] <psa> i.e., the <gone/> error in XMPP core
[13:46:14] <ralphm> 'cause that mentions that the character data must be a JID
[13:46:25] <psa> even in bis?
[13:46:30] <ralphm> no in 3920
[13:46:51] <ralphm> I think URI is better, but then we need to grandfather JIDs in
[13:46:57] *** mlundblad has joined the room
[13:47:06] <ralphm> (e.g. by accepting schema-less URIs)
[13:47:14] <psa> yes
[13:48:04] <ralphm> a redirect on node acces example should be in XEP-0060, next to the one you linked to
[13:48:42] <ralphm> and then we now get to decide on using URIs or jid/node for the delete+redirect request and notification
[13:48:50] <psa> what do you mean by "2) There is no mention of the <redirect/> being sent along with notifications."?
[13:49:17] <ralphm> in a delete event notification sent out to (former) subscribers of the node
[13:49:36] <ralphm> it should include the redirect
[13:49:42] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:49:44] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:49:46] <psa> you mean at http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0060-1.13.html#example-158
[13:49:48] <psa> yes
[13:49:54] <psa> we need the redirect there
[13:49:55] <ralphm> this is essential for making redirects work
[13:49:56] <ralphm> yes
[13:50:11] <ralphm> so /that/ is actually the only thing I implemented
[13:50:28] <psa> that = with <redirect/> ?
[13:50:31] <psa> er
[13:50:36] <psa> without
[13:50:38] *** Kev has left the room
[13:50:44] <ralphm> delete notification with redirect
[13:50:57] <psa> ok
[13:50:57] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:50:59] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:50:59] <psa> that's better
[13:51:07] <psa> (if a redirect is in place, naturally :)
[13:51:23] <ralphm> I didn't implement 8.4.1
[13:51:34] <ralphm> because node deletion is internal to my implementation
[13:51:46] <ralphm> yes, of course it is optional
[13:51:47] *** Kev has left the room
[13:52:26] <ralphm> so with jid/node it would look like this:
[13:52:40] <ralphm> <message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit' id='foo'>
<event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'>
<delete node='princely_musings'>/>
</event>
</message>

[13:52:42] <ralphm> oops
[13:53:26] <ralphm> <message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit' id='foo'>
<event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'>
<delete node='princely_musings'>
<redirect jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' node='something_else'/>
</delete>
</event>
</message>
[13:53:33] <ralphm> vs.
[13:53:59] <ralphm> <message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit' id='foo'>
<event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'>
<delete node='princely_musings'>
<redirect uri='xmpp:pubsub.shakespeare.lit?;node=something_else'/>
</delete>
</event>
</message>
[13:54:10] <psa> right
[13:54:48] <ralphm> Using URIs has the potential of hybrid protocol solutions
[13:54:56] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "Jag är inte här just nu"
[13:54:56] <ralphm> I am not sure if we need to cater for that
[13:54:57] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "Jag är inte här just nu"
[13:55:30] <ralphm> the only reason to use URIs in the error element is because it requires character data
[13:55:40] <psa> true
[13:55:46] <ralphm> and URIs are an easy way to specify JID+node
[13:56:27] <psa> they look funny, but they are easy :)
[13:56:59] <ralphm> it is still too bad the first element is required (even if it may be empty)
[13:57:37] <ralphm> anyway, in the end I have no real preference
[13:57:38] *psa shrugs
[13:58:12] <ralphm> the uri stuff is currently in wokkel
[13:58:28] <ralphm> but the only working deployment is under my control
[13:58:33] <ralphm> (that I know of)
[13:58:49] <psa> I think URIs are preferable simply because new subscribers are going to receive an XMPP <gone/> error with a URI anyway (under 3920bis)
[13:59:22] <psa> the lack of a <redirect/> error in the examples right now is a simple spec bug so I will fix that
[13:59:23] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:59:29] <psa> s/error/element/
[14:00:55] <ralphm> ok, let's go with URIs then
[14:01:01] <psa> +1
[14:01:14] <ralphm> leaves the possibility to go to PuSH or some other fancy other thing
[14:01:21] <psa> yep
[14:01:55] <ralphm> now I am going to relax a bit. Have a good snipperdag!
[14:02:05] <psa> :)
[14:02:14] <psa> ralphm: where do we stand on IQ notifications?
[14:02:25] <ralphm> oh, nobody replied to my post
[14:02:45] <psa> ah I see it
[14:02:50] <psa> I'll try to do that tomorrow
[14:03:09] *psa starts a reply as a reminder
[14:03:26] <psa> thanks for the reply
[14:04:24] <ralphm> drop me a line to chat on it, if needed
[14:04:29] <psa> ok
[14:04:32] <psa> will do
[14:04:35] <ralphm> cool
[14:04:43] <psa> now, back to our regularly schedule snipperdag :)
[14:04:47] <ralphm> :-)
[14:04:48] <psa> +d
[14:04:54] <psa> thanks, Ralph!
[14:05:31] <ralphm> and you
[14:05:51] *psa disappears in a puff of smoke ;-)
[14:05:54] *** psa has left the room
[14:06:17] *** ralphm has left the room
[14:24:58] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:34:56] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:37:08] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[14:40:42] *** Kev shows as "online"
[15:08:59] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "Jag är inte här just nu"
[15:09:00] *** mlundblad shows as "online"
[15:30:13] *** fippo has left the room
[15:41:04] *** Tobias has left the room
[15:41:17] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[15:51:40] *** Kev shows as "online"
[16:01:42] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[16:04:30] *** Kev shows as "online"
[16:05:10] *** Tobias has joined the room
[16:23:42] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[16:32:22] *** Kev shows as "online"
[16:57:01] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "zzz"
[17:02:04] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "zzz"
[17:08:44] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:09:09] *** Kev shows as "online"
[17:26:29] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:28:16] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[17:34:57] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:53:29] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:54:57] *** Kev shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:57:08] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[17:58:57] *** Tobias has left the room
[23:25:55] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "zzz"
[23:26:09] *** mlundblad shows as "online"
[23:43:50] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "Jag är inte här just nu"
[23:43:50] *** mlundblad shows as "away" and his status message is "Jag är inte här just nu"