XSF logo XMPP Council - 2010-07-05


  1. Kev has joined
  2. Tobias has joined
  3. Tobias has left
  4. Tobias has joined
  5. Tobias has left
  6. Tobias has joined
  7. Tobias has left
  8. Kooda has joined
  9. Kooda has left
  10. Kooda has joined
  11. Tobias has joined
  12. Kev_ has joined
  13. Kev_ has left
  14. Kev_ has joined
  15. MattJ has joined
  16. Kev_ Wow, two members of Council here already.
  17. Kev_ </sarcasm>
  18. MattJ I got here before 19:00 ;)
  19. Kev_ Yes, me three.
  20. Kev_ Give them until ten past, I guess.
  21. MattJ *nod*
  22. ralphm has joined
  23. ralphm *phew*
  24. MattJ Haha
  25. Kev_ Well done, with 30 seconds to spare.
  26. Kev_ Or, 60, rather.
  27. Kev_ Ok, ten past.
  28. Kev_ 1) Roll call.
  29. Kev_ Kev, Ralph, Matt present. Remko and Fritzy still AWOL.
  30. Kev_ 2) Agenda bashing.
  31. MattJ None
  32. Kev_ I only really wanted a meeting to get everyone back in reviewing specs after Remko and Fritzy dropped off the Council radar.
  33. Kev_ 3) Pubsub
  34. MattJ What's to discuss?
  35. Kev_ The only thing holding this up now is Ralph approving Peter's rollbacks, I think.
  36. MattJ Besides, I've changed my mind, I like pubsub now
  37. Kev_ So Ralph - can you check them and let Peter know, please?
  38. Kev_ 4) Voting.
  39. Kev_ And, the people this applies to aren't here.
  40. Kev_ I wanted to remind people that the reviewing and voting is the reason we've got a Council, and failing to do that isn't helping.
  41. ralphm yeah
  42. Kev_ Dave stepped down because he wasn't managing to hit the meetings, and was having to vote on-list.
  43. Kev_ It's entirely inappropriate for the other of Council to not attend meetings *and* not vote on list.
  44. Kev_ But hi Choir.
  45. Kev_ 5) Date of next meeting.
  46. Kev_ Next Monday as usual?
  47. ralphm Kev_: did stpeter announce the changes yet, or are they just in vcs?
  48. MattJ +1
  49. Kev_ There's a small chance I'll be unavailable, will update if so.
  50. MattJ ok
  51. Kev_ ralphm: I do not know - could you coordinate with him, please?
  52. Kev_ I suspect that once you're generally ok with the changes there'll need to be another vote.
  53. ralphm ah: "FYI. Ralph, this is for you. :)"
  54. ralphm in the pubsub list
  55. ralphm missed that :-)
  56. Kev_ But it seems pointless to go through another vote for everyone if the changes weren't what you wanted.
  57. Kev_ So, AOB?
  58. ralphm Kev_: seeing the summary, I'm ok with it then
  59. MattJ I was going to mention that I'm working on a replacement/successor series of XEPs to 136
  60. Kev_ Ok, I'll speak to Peter and arrange a new vote.
  61. Kev_ MattJ: excellent.
  62. MattJ But that's all for now
  63. ralphm we can quibble about details, but the document is never static
  64. Kev_ But we've discussed that offlist anyway :)
  65. Kev_ I think we're all done then.
  66. Kev_ Thanks to those who turned up.
  67. MattJ np, thanks for chairing as usual :)
  68. Kev_ bangs the gavel.
  69. ralphm MattJ: oh, that sounds painful. The amount of discussion on XEP-0136 is uncountable, it seems
  70. Kev_ I'll write minutes and send around - possibly tomorrow.
  71. MattJ ralphm, the problem precisely :)
  72. ralphm Although it'll probably never beat XEP-0060
  73. ralphm :-P
  74. MattJ ralphm, but it turns out the only active client implementation is using one feature of the XEP, and that's about it :)
  75. Kev_ I would like to use the successor in Swift.
  76. Kev_ As long as it's modular and sane.
  77. MattJ I'll try not to let you down :)
  78. Kev_ I don't object to all the 136 options existing - only to having them all in one place, and some of them being such a silly way of doing them.
  79. Kev_ Anyway, I'm off out, bibi.
  80. remko has joined
  81. MattJ See you
  82. Kev_ has left
  83. ralphm MattJ: that is sad
  84. MattJ ralphm, indeed
  85. remko has left
  86. MattJ This only came to light to me because of the student implementing it in Prosody for GSoC
  87. MattJ Some of the design decisions I still can't fathom
  88. ralphm I'm going to try keep 'features' out of any spec if there isn't a high probability of it being implemented
  89. ralphm i.e. let implementations drive specifications more
  90. MattJ Yes, agreed
  91. MattJ Put out a basic spec, see what direction it gets pushed in (if any)
  92. ralphm implementations == experiments, really
  93. MattJ Indeed
  94. MattJ and to be fair this is usually what the XSF does very well
  95. MattJ It just happens that there are some specs that really take everyone's fancy, and end up a dog's dinner
  96. ralphm haha
  97. Tobias has left
  98. Tobias has joined
  99. Kev ralphm: I think it's more thn "If it's not needed, don't put it in"
  100. Kev I think it's "If it's possible to implement without it, don't put it in", and then put it in another spec.
  101. Kev No-one dislikes small specs.
  102. Tobias has left
  103. Tobias has joined
  104. ralphm Kev: right
  105. Kooda has left
  106. ralphm has left
  107. mlundblad has joined
  108. mlundblad has left
  109. MattJ has left
  110. Tobias has left