Monday, July 12, 2010
council@muc.xmpp.org
July
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

[01:30:18] *** Kev has joined the room
[01:30:20] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:20:06] *** Tobias has joined the room
[06:34:31] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[06:54:32] *** Tobias shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[06:58:47] *** Kev shows as "away"
[07:04:26] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[07:05:47] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:14:11] *** Tobias has left the room
[10:42:32] *** Tobias has joined the room
[11:12:11] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[11:16:10] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[11:56:43] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[12:07:13] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:10:56] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:16:43] *** Tobias shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[12:16:44] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[12:21:59] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:24:33] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:32:52] *** Fritzy has joined the room
[12:33:43] *** remko has joined the room
[12:33:43] *** remko shows as "online"
[12:34:49] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:35:46] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:38:52] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[12:43:03] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[12:43:09] *** psa has joined the room
[12:52:04] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:54:39] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:56:40] <psa> greetings and salutations
[12:56:46] <Kev> Evening.
[12:56:54] <remko> hello there-
[12:57:24] <Kev> Quorum early, whatever is the world coming to?
[12:57:33] *psa reviews http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-08-from-7.diff.html in preparation for submission
[12:57:36] <remko> mattj sent apologies?
[12:58:08] <Kev> Matt'll be here.
[12:59:31] <psa> maybe he sent apologies for being here :)
[13:00:08] *** MattJ has joined the room
[13:00:52] <MattJ> I'm not that apologetic
[13:01:57] <Kev> Right, no sign of Ralph being online at the moment, so let's start
[13:02:08] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[13:02:14] <Kev> Fritzy, Kev, Matt, Remko here.
[13:02:19] <Kev> 2) Agenda bashing
[13:02:28] <MattJ> None
[13:02:29] <Kev> Peter sent a bunch, anyone else?
[13:02:52] <Kev> Ok.
[13:02:59] <Fritzy> nope
[13:03:03] <psa> Ralph is probably still in mourning over the World Cup
[13:03:03] <Fritzy> I went over Peter's
[13:03:05] <Kev> 3) XEP-0060: Publish-Subscribe
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0060-1.13.html
http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0060/diff/1.12/vs/1.13rc18

Accept version 1.13?
At last vote, Ralph had comments on the spec - last week Ralph
confirmed these have been addressed, so I'm hoping we can get this
chapter of pubsub closed now!
[13:03:15] <Fritzy> +1
[13:03:17] <MattJ> +1
[13:03:27] <Kev> I checked the diff from the last version I reviewed, and this seems fine, I'm +1
[13:03:43] <remko> +1
[13:03:55] <Kev> 4) JID Mimicking.
We can either leave this in 165 and move that along to active, or
split what we need into 3920bis so we can remove the reference.
Thoughts?
[13:04:04] <Kev> I don't have a strong opinion either way.
[13:04:09] *remko feels like joining as ra1phm and voting on this topic
[13:04:22] *** ralphm has joined the room
[13:04:23] <psa> as I noted to Kev, Ralph's feedback came in over time, so there were several revisions to address it all, thus http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0060/diff/1.13rc13/vs/1.13rc18 is the diff that Ralph cares about, I think
[13:04:32] <ralphm> hi
[13:04:38] <Kev> Dave suggested that a XEP as a more fluid spec would be better for this, and I'm fine with that.
[13:04:42] <Kev> Evening Ralph.
[13:04:53] <Kev> Want to vote on pubsub? We're only on the second item.
[13:04:53] <ralphm> I just got home, and first have to put the kid in bed
[13:05:17] <Kev> Ok, we'll see you shortly then.
[13:05:19] <remko> kev: so that is the second alternative?
[13:05:45] <Kev> remko: Dave suggests advancing the XEP to active, and leaving 3920bis with a reference.
[13:05:59] <MattJ> iirc someone mentioned splitting it (I thought Dave?)
[13:06:09] <MattJ> Let me pull that conversation back up to remind myself
[13:06:14] <Kev> MattJ: possibly, I thought tha was Peter's suggestion.
[13:06:19] *Kev consults archive.
[13:06:20] <MattJ> It could well have been
[13:06:23] <psa> well I stole stuff from 165 and put it in the Internet-Draft
[13:06:28] *** zanchin has joined the room
[13:06:37] <remko> kev: do we reference XEPs a lot in rfcs?
[13:06:41] <psa> and that stuff can IMHO remain in that I-D because it is more generic
[13:06:48] *** Florob has joined the room
[13:06:56] <Kev> remko: only a couple.
[13:07:13] <psa> how we solve the problem is another question -- XEP-0165 has some ideas, but they are preliminary and not yet field-tested
[13:07:34] <Fritzy> yeah, the problem is convenience vs. security as always
[13:07:43] <Kev> psa: What's your preference?
[13:07:47] <Fritzy> and it's hard to say where the line is drawn until there are some implementations that follow the recommendation.
[13:08:03] <psa> Kev: in fact there are lots of informational references to XEPs now, however all but two of them are Draft/Final/Active -- the two exceptions being 165 (not sure if that's needed) and 201
[13:08:19] <Kev> psa: right.
[13:08:21] <psa> my preference is to remove the reference to 165
[13:08:35] <Kev> Although I hadn't realised it was 'lots'
[13:08:38] <psa> since I've borrowed all the fundamental content
[13:08:43] <remko> psa: same here
[13:08:51] <MattJ> Yes, it was stpeter; http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2010-July/002919.html
[13:08:58] <MattJ> and I'm +1 to this
[13:09:55] <psa> see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-07#section-14 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-10#section-16 (but you'll need to scroll down a bit)
[13:09:59] <Kev> I admit that I was swayed by Dave's argument, but I'll go along with the majority if they disagree.
[13:10:19] <psa> so I think 165 is awfully preliminary, but that 201 is more stable and deserves to move forward or at least have a Last Call
[13:10:47] <psa> s/165/the practical solutions in 165/
[13:11:19] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[13:11:23] <Fritzy> it assumes that clients store the roster as raw xml
[13:11:31] <psa> among other things, perhaps
[13:11:43] <Fritzy> or rather, cache it that way
[13:11:48] <Kev> So, there's nothing for Council to actually do on this, right? Just generally nod about the right way to do it.
[13:11:52] <MattJ> Kev, I agree with what Dave says as far as "Best practices change over time
(and thus a XEP number is a more stable reference), and are defined
with and by the community (hence better done within the auspices of
the XSF)."
[13:11:57] <psa> anyway, those practical recommendations are experimental and if we really cared we'd put more work into it
[13:12:09] <psa> Kev: right
[13:12:11] <MattJ> Kev, but I see much of 165 as not being just "best practices"
[13:12:19] <psa> MattJ: correct
[13:12:30] <psa> anyway as editor of 3921bis I'll remove the reference :)
[13:12:31] <Fritzy> right, there's a real extension buried in there.
[13:12:42] <psa> indeed
[13:12:52] <psa> ok
[13:12:56] <psa> moving on? :)
[13:12:59] <Kev> Ok, good enough then.
[13:13:13] <Kev> 5) 201
[13:13:14] <psa> y'all'll have plenty of chance to review 3291bis soon :)
[13:13:16] <Kev> Another reference.
[13:13:31] *psa loves it when he gets to use "y'all'll" :)
[13:13:54] <psa> right, another ref
[13:13:55] <Kev> So, I'd have thought just advancing 201 wouldmake sense.
[13:13:58] <psa> but this one is more stable and useful
[13:14:17] <psa> we had some review of it a while back and I/we cleaned it up at that time
[13:14:18] <MattJ> "I think my only complaint on this one (and 3921bis) is that it requires (quite strongly) the contents of <thread> be a UUID. Elsewhere it says that the ThreadID is an opaque string, and I can imagine there would indeed be cases when it would be useful to have some other kind of identifier there instead."
[13:14:23] <Fritzy> in 5.1 of xep201 it suggests that you don't destroy a thread when they go offline.
[13:14:26] <MattJ> Curious whether I'm alone in this
[13:14:43] <psa> Fritzy: that's an Ianism :)
[13:15:13] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[13:15:27] <Fritzy> psa http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ianism?
[13:15:37] <Kev> An ex-member of Council.
[13:15:56] <Fritzy> MattJ I think it could be made more consistent.
[13:15:56] <Kev> Most of the complicated XEPs he had input into.
[13:16:01] <psa> :)
[13:16:12] <psa> Ian's speciality was injecting complexity
[13:16:20] <Fritzy> In any case, it suggest that you don't destroy it then, which you can infer you're never supposed to destroy a thread-id.
[13:16:24] <psa> which we didn't fight strongly enough
[13:16:44] <psa> Fritzy: yep, nothing like a Last Call to get people to review the spec... ;-)
[13:16:45] <Kev> We were young and foolish :)
[13:16:53] <Kev> So: Issue a last call?
[13:16:59] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[13:17:04] <psa> I agree that there are things that need to be fixed in 201
[13:17:12] <Kev> After which we'll address comments like these?
[13:17:12] <psa> and in 3921bis regarding threads
[13:17:13] <MattJ> oops... did WGLC on xmpp-address end today? Forgot all about it...
[13:17:17] <psa> but we can do those concurrently
[13:17:25] <Fritzy> sounds good to me then.
[13:17:30] <Fritzy> +1 on Last Call
[13:17:41] <remko> +1
[13:17:42] <MattJ> +1 on last call too
[13:17:45] <psa> MattJ: I think the MUST for UUID is unnecessary
[13:17:47] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:17:48] <Kev> +1.
[13:17:50] <ralphm> back
[13:17:51] <Kev> psa: right.
[13:17:59] <Kev> MAY even, seems appropriate
[13:17:59] <MattJ> psa, excellent, thanks :)
[13:18:04] <psa> I think that might have been an Ianism too
[13:18:05] <MattJ> Yay
[13:18:23] <Fritzy> This feels like a public shaming.
[13:18:23] <Kev> 6) 269 (Jingle early media).
[13:18:26] *MattJ 's heart lightens
[13:18:32] <psa> haha
[13:18:36] <Kev> Authors would like a last call.
[13:18:44] <Kev> I found something interesting out earlier this week.
[13:18:46] <ralphm> I'm with MattJ on the UUID stuff
[13:18:52] <MattJ> Fritzy, he practically disappeared mid-term without a trace, I don't think he'll mind much :)
[13:19:08] <Kev> If authors request a Last Call, and Council then vote not to advance it to draft, it's immediately rejected, rathe than staying Experimental :)
[13:19:09] <psa> I still have time to submit a revised 3921bis before tonight's deadline :)
[13:19:25] <Kev> Anyway, I'm not opposed to a last call if the authors want one.
[13:19:34] <remko> neither am i
[13:19:58] <ralphm> +1
[13:19:58] <MattJ> Kev, is that intentional or a loophole?
[13:20:09] <Kev> It sounds right, actually.
[13:20:10] <MattJ> +1
[13:20:16] <psa> I think it might make sense to ask for feedback on the Jingle list, but that can be done at the same time
[13:20:21] <Fritzy> Last call sounds fine +1
[13:20:22] <MattJ> Kev, does it?
[13:20:41] <Kev> LastCall is used to address feedback to gain consensus.
[13:20:42] <Fritzy> psa: sure, they should be paying attention to last calls. ;)
[13:21:00] <Kev> It should only go to vote once it's got consensus that this is the right thing.
[13:21:22] <ralphm> Kev: according to?
[13:21:28] <psa> I don't care so much about early media but the spec is stable and implemented
[13:21:29] <Kev> ralphm: xep 1
[13:21:39] <ralphm> consensus among whom?
[13:21:46] <Kev> standards-jig.
[13:21:48] <Kev> Anyway
[13:21:54] <Kev> This is strictly irrelevant to the current vote :)
[13:21:58] <ralphm> right
[13:22:26] <ralphm> as this isn't a vote
[13:22:30] <Kev> It is.
[13:22:36] <Kev> Issuing a last call is voted on.
[13:22:44] <Kev> Anyway...
[13:22:54] <Kev> 7) XEP-0266 (codecs).
[13:23:07] <ralphm> right, not a vote on the advancement, we're in agreement
[13:23:22] <Kev> I'm happy for this to have both the codecs in.
[13:23:48] <Fritzy> The spec kind of waxes poetical about patent free and distribution free.
[13:23:50] <remko> dito
[13:23:51] <Kev> If we want interop, it seems the right thing to do - I'm not sure what Council needs to say on this, isn't it waiting for the XEP author to update to meet the consensus, and then ask for a vot?
[13:24:12] <psa> Fritzy: heh yeah :)
[13:24:16] <Kev> And after the vot, ask for a vote.
[13:24:32] <ralphm> that's the most basic encoding in RTP, right?
[13:24:52] <psa> ralphm: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0060/diff/1.13rc13/vs/1.13rc18 is the diff that addresses all of your pubsub feedback, for your reading pleasure when you have the time
[13:25:17] <ralphm> psa: yeah, I noticed the dc stuff, too. Why was that removed?
[13:25:28] <Kev> So if thee's nothing to do for 266 here, onto
[13:25:33] <Kev> 8) Date for next meeting.
[13:25:36] <psa> ralphm: dc?
[13:25:38] <Kev> Next Monday, usual time?
[13:25:49] <psa> Kev: right, 266 needs to be updated
[13:25:52] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[13:25:53] <MattJ> Kev, +1
[13:26:05] <remko> +1
[13:26:10] <Fritzy> I'm game for Monday.
[13:26:16] <Fritzy> wait
[13:26:19] <Fritzy> that'll be the Summit, right?
[13:26:29] <psa> yes it will
[13:26:32] <Fritzy> I'll be at the Summit in Portland.
[13:26:39] <ralphm> psa: dublin core
[13:26:40] <Fritzy> So, my availability is questionable.
[13:26:48] <Fritzy> anyone else going?
[13:26:48] <psa> and unfortunately some personal/family stuff has come up so I don't think I'll be at the Summit
[13:26:55] <psa> ralphm: it was purely informational and confusing people
[13:26:55] <Fritzy> psa: ah, too bad
[13:27:01] <ralphm> I'll not be at the Summit, unfortunately
[13:27:03] <ralphm> psa: ah
[13:27:09] <Fritzy> I'll go and represent then.
[13:27:12] <Fritzy> ;)
[13:27:17] <ralphm> psa: I also noticed a typo in the edit of example 155
[13:27:24] <psa> I need to ping bear too
[13:27:36] <psa> ralphm: ok great, bug reports are welcome
[13:27:40] *psa looks
[13:27:43] <Kev> Ok, so - are we skipping a week until summit's over?
[13:28:01] <Fritzy> That's what I suggest, or do it later in the week.
[13:28:04] <remko> i have no problem with that
[13:28:05] <MattJ> We skipped for Brussels iirc, but then 100% of the council was there :)
[13:28:07] <ralphm> psa: you removed a closing quote
[13:28:08] <ralphm> Kev: sure
[13:28:13] <Kev> Ok, week Monday, then.
[13:28:17] <ralphm> Anyone planning on going to Maastricht?
[13:28:18] <Kev> 9) Any other business?
[13:28:22] <remko> no
[13:28:32] <Fritzy> nodda
[13:28:37] <Kev> ralphm: possibly.
[13:28:45] <psa> ralphm: fixed
[13:28:45] <MattJ> I'm undecided on Maastricht, I think it's more than I can afford right now though
[13:28:48] <ralphm> Kev: any ideas on when?
[13:28:56] <Kev> Likely just XMPP day.
[13:29:01] <Kev> That's the Thursday, right?
[13:29:06] <psa> yes
[13:29:11] <ralphm> psa suggested some hacking on sunday?
[13:29:13] <psa> IETF has day passes now
[13:29:19] <Kev> psa: right.
[13:29:50] <Kev> Ok, without AOB I suggest we close.
[13:29:54] <psa> ralphm: only Florian pinged me in reply and he mostly just wants to find a good party I think :)
[13:29:54] <remko> ok, bibi
[13:29:57] <Kev> 2 minutes off my half-hour meeting tolerance.
[13:30:00] <Kev> Thanks all.
[13:30:02] <Fritzy> :)
[13:30:03] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[13:30:10] *psa still needs to figure out how to get from BRU to Maastricht
[13:30:23] <remko> psa: train?
[13:30:24] <Kev> psa: train?
[13:30:34] <psa> um yeah
[13:30:45] <psa> but I need to figure out where to change trains etc.
[13:30:49] <psa> well I'll do that tomorrow
[13:30:56] <psa> now I need to submit updated Internet-Drafts :)
[13:31:03] <Kev> Have fun.
[13:31:07] <psa> indeed
[13:31:10] <Kev> I'll sort out minutes tomorrow.
[13:31:19] <psa> ralphm: so you will review XEP-0060 and post to the list?
[13:31:25] <remko> psa: in Leuven and in Luik/Liege :)
[13:31:35] <remko> i'll wave from my window :)
[13:31:41] <ralphm> psa: I think I'm +1
[13:31:48] <psa> remko: :)
[13:31:59] *psa submits a new 3921bis with no more MUST for UUID
[13:32:35] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[13:32:47] <Tobias> are UUIDs such a problem?
[13:32:56] *** remko has left the room
[13:33:21] <psa> Tobias: no, but there is no reason for them to be a MUST
[13:33:45] <psa> Tobias: people could do "interesting" things with ThreadIDs if we remove the UUID requirement
[13:33:47] <ralphm> Kev: did you record my +1 on XEP-0060?
[13:33:58] <MattJ> Indeed, the UUIDs aren't a problem, just the MUST :)
[13:34:00] <Kev> No, was there one?
[13:34:13] <ralphm> Tobias: an opaque identifier suffices
[13:34:19] <Kev> I'll record it in the minutes anyhow :)
[13:34:28] <MattJ> I think it is obvious that ThreadIDs should be different for different threads... what a ThreadID is and which messages get what ThreadID is up to the implementation :)
[13:34:47] <ralphm> UUIDs might be a burden to implement
[13:35:17] <ralphm> (even though the mechanics are pretty simple, low-end devices might not want to devote cycles to that for no gain)
[13:35:23] <psa> burden or not, they are unnecessary (as a MUST)
[13:35:53] <ralphm> psa: yeah, that was collateral reasoning
[13:36:21] <ralphm> I'm really sad about not making it to Portland
[13:36:26] <psa> me too
[13:36:29] <Kev> Same.
[13:36:32] <MattJ> Same
[13:36:46] <MattJ> Let's just make the next FOSDEM 10x better to show them that :)
[13:36:59] <ralphm> also, it would be the 10th summit
[13:37:01] <Kev> I'd rather do Portland than Fosdem, TBH.
[13:37:03] <psa> unfortunately I need to be away for 12 days all told for IETF meeting + ITU-T meeting on the Monday after, and that's all I can afford right now
[13:37:12] <ralphm> Kev: agreed
[13:37:13] <Kev> I actually quite liked Portland, Brussels not so much.
[13:37:23] <MattJ> Kev, considering the travel is the least enjoyable part for me, I'd prefer making it as short as possible :)
[13:37:34] <Kev> I dislike the travel, a lot.
[13:37:46] <ralphm> I don't really mind
[13:37:47] <Kev> But I dislike being somewhere I don't like more.
[13:37:54] <ralphm> as long as it is a direct flight, that is
[13:38:09] <Kev> I really dislike being places where English isn't the first language - even Brussels.
[13:38:18] <Tobias> Kev: lol
[13:38:27] <MattJ> Aww, I like that... it makes things more interesting :)
[13:38:29] <ralphm> Kev: how come you like Portland, then?
[13:38:37] <MattJ> anyway, I can manage French a touch
[13:38:37] <Kev> ralphm: point.
[13:38:44] <Fritzy> hey hnow
[13:38:47] <MattJ> Heh
[13:39:25] <MattJ> Fritzy, the sooner y'all'll realise you're not speaking English the better off we'll both be :)
[13:39:37] <Fritzy> y'all is a southern thing
[13:39:53] <psa> indeed
[13:39:58] <psa> I lived in Atlanta for 2 years
[13:40:08] <Fritzy> Pretty small region uses that.
[13:40:15] <psa> and yes some folks really do say "y'all'll" -- gotta love that!
[13:40:43] <MattJ> Heh
[13:40:43] <psa> but I'm not one to talk, since I was born in NY :)
[13:40:58] <Fritzy> There are some spelling differences, but other than that, it's the same language.
[13:41:14] <psa> Fritzy: don't worry, this is a running joke with Kev
[13:41:23] <Fritzy> I'm familiar with it.
[13:41:26] <psa> ok :)
[13:42:03] <Fritzy> Kev and I argue about stuff all the time.
[13:42:04] <MattJ> Talking of running, I'll be off for a bit :)
[13:42:16] <Fritzy> ciao
[13:42:22] <psa> bye!
[13:42:30] <Fritzy> psa: you're syncing up with Bear on the Summit? I'll synch up with him then.
[13:42:48] <Fritzy> psa: I've got to announce that hackfest still.
[13:42:54] <Fritzy> I should do that today after talking to Bear.
[13:43:07] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[13:43:33] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[13:45:36] *psa heats up some lunch
[13:46:33] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:46:40] <psa> do I read the record correctly that we're finally done with XEP-0060?!?!
[13:48:07] <Fritzy> yes
[13:48:11] <psa> ok
[13:48:42] <psa> I'm going to remove all the definitional stuff from XEP-0201 because it's in 3921bis now -- no good reason to define it in two places :)
[13:51:53] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[13:52:58] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[13:55:27] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[13:55:39] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:55:59] *** Kev shows as "away"
[13:57:07] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[13:58:06] *** Fritzy shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:00:40] *** Kev shows as "online"
[14:04:39] *** jkhii has joined the room
[14:04:55] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[14:08:29] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[14:16:00] *** jkhii shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:16:43] *** ralphm has left the room
[14:18:06] *** Fritzy shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:18:16] *** jkhii shows as "online"
[14:18:26] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:18:30] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:20:15] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[14:23:45] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[14:25:17] *** Florob has left the room
[14:29:43] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[14:34:30] *** jkhii shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:35:56] *** Fritzy shows as "online" and his status message is "Nobody said Coldplay was easy."
[14:37:33] *** psa shows as "dnd" and his status message is "on the phone"
[14:49:23] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:49:53] *** jkhii shows as "online"
[14:54:35] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[14:55:13] *** Kev shows as "online"
[15:02:08] *** jkhii has left the room
[15:02:12] *** jkhii has joined the room
[15:05:31] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[15:07:11] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[15:09:23] *** zanchin shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[15:09:35] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[15:11:14] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[15:13:19] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[15:13:27] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[15:14:10] *** Kev shows as "away"
[15:18:47] *** jkhii has left the room
[15:32:09] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[15:35:18] *** psa shows as "online"
[15:41:03] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[15:41:17] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[15:46:50] *** Kev shows as "online"
[15:52:09] *** zanchin shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[16:23:12] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[16:23:20] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[16:30:21] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[16:30:40] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[16:30:47] *** psa shows as "xa" and his status message is "running an errand, back in 45-60 minutes"
[16:33:57] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[16:36:23] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[16:46:25] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[16:48:13] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[16:53:26] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[17:02:13] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[17:03:42] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:04:25] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[17:14:25] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:14:27] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:19:05] *** psa shows as "online"
[17:19:53] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[17:22:36] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[17:26:07] *** Kev shows as "away"
[17:34:01] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[17:35:55] *** Kev shows as "online"
[17:38:30] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:38:54] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[17:40:35] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[17:42:15] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[17:47:24] *** Kev shows as "away"
[17:48:58] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:53:14] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[18:02:46] *** Tobias has left the room
[18:07:15] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[18:08:58] *** zanchin shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:20:46] *** psa has left the room
[18:46:46] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[19:08:20] *** Fritzy has left the room
[19:29:47] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[19:30:29] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[19:34:03] *** MattJ has left the room
[20:57:03] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[21:41:41] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[21:45:19] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[21:55:21] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:01:58] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[22:21:40] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:21:40] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[22:31:54] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:42:48] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[22:52:51] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[23:12:50] *** zanchin shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[23:41:39] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[23:51:40] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"