Monday, October 18, 2010
council@muc.xmpp.org
October
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

[07:37:49] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:45:43] *** Tobias has left the room
[10:55:01] *** Kev has joined the room
[10:55:01] *** Kev shows as "online" and his status message is "Swift 1.0-beta7"
[12:00:54] *** julm has joined the room
[12:04:41] *** julm has left the room
[12:41:56] *** Tobias has joined the room
[12:55:18] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:22:55] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:49:05] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:55:37] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:58:06] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:58:06] *** Tobias has joined the room
[14:27:29] *** Tobias has left the room
[14:55:19] *** julm has joined the room
[15:57:29] *** stpeter has joined the room
[17:15:18] *** Tobias has joined the room
[17:18:37] *** Kooda has joined the room
[17:34:19] *** Kooda shows as "away" and his status message is " (Absent(e) car inactif depuis plus de 15 min)"
[17:37:17] *** Kooda has left the room
[17:45:03] *** ralphm has joined the room
[17:45:16] *ralphm waves
[17:45:31] <Kev> Evening Ralph.
[17:49:24] *** waqas has joined the room
[17:49:36] <waqas> Thanks stpeter :)
[17:49:38] *** bear has joined the room
[17:49:38] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:49:53] <stpeter> waqas: :)
[17:49:54] <waqas> Hopefully my connection will survive for an hour.
[17:50:37] *** remko has joined the room
[17:50:37] *** remko shows as "online"
[17:50:48] *** Fritzy has joined the room
[17:50:49] *** Fritzy shows as "online" and his status message is "I gotta code in my node."
[17:51:06] <waqas> The radar page in the topic is months out of date. Is there an agenda somewhere?
[17:51:31] <Kev> On the Council list.
[17:51:46] <Kev> Hi all, a possible agenda for tonight follows - please read and bash.

1) Roll call

2) Agenda bashing

3) XEP-220 (Dialback)
This is Experimental - shall we issue a last call so we can move it up to Draft?

4) XEP-201 (Threads)
Last call finished a while back on this. Are we ready to vote up to Draft?

5) Date of next meeting

6) Any other business
[17:53:27] *** zanchin has joined the room
[17:57:17] <ralphm> I'm on a train. Let's hope I continue to have a connection.
[17:58:53] <Fritzy> just don't try to vote when you're in a tunnel. :)
[17:59:31] <ralphm> let's make it quick then. There shouldn't be a tunnel in the next half hour
[17:59:42] <Kev> Two minutes yet.
[18:00:35] <Kev> I don't see Matt online.
[18:00:48] <waqas> Haven't seen him today.
[18:01:19] <stpeter> yum, lunch
[18:01:33] <remko> dito, haven't seen him either
[18:01:39] <Kev> Righty, so.
[18:01:44] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[18:01:47] <Fritzy> here
[18:01:52] <Kev> Kev, Ralph, Nathan, Remko here.
[18:01:58] <Kev> 2) Agenda bashing.
[18:02:00] <Kev> Anyone?
[18:02:17] <remko> no
[18:02:18] <stpeter> none
[18:02:18] <Fritzy> none..looks like the radar is pretty current
[18:02:24] <stpeter> Fritzy: amazingly
[18:02:33] <Kev> 3) XEP-220 (Dialback)
This is Experimental - shall we issue a last call so we can move it up to Draft?
[18:02:40] <Fritzy> +1
[18:02:58] <ralphm> +1
[18:03:36] <ralphm> It seems to nicely coincide with me having to fix some issues in Wokkel around that.
[18:03:42] <Kev> Remko?
[18:03:43] <Fritzy> :)
[18:03:54] <stpeter> ralphm: :)
[18:04:05] <remko> kev: i haven't read it :\
[18:04:09] <remko> Kev: i'll reply on list
[18:04:18] <Kev> It's dialback, it used to be in 3920 :)
[18:04:19] <Kev> But ok.
[18:04:28] <Kev> 4) XEP-201 (Threads)
Last call finished a while back on this. Are we ready to vote up to Draft?
[18:04:30] <ralphm> remko: you can read it during last call!
[18:04:39] <remko> oh ok
[18:04:43] <remko> if it's the same thing, +1 :)
[18:04:52] <Kev> The last thing that happened in the last call feedback on 201 was Peter saying he was going to go research IMAP.
[18:04:56] <Fritzy> I haven't seen much feedback on 201.
[18:05:18] <remko> kev: +1 on the last call for dialback, i misread it as an 'advance to draft'
[18:05:39] <Kev> "It seems that would be RFC 5322:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5256/

Thanks for the pointer, I'll give that a read."
[18:05:45] <Kev> stpeter: did you get anywhere with that?
[18:05:48] <ralphm> XEP-0201 is informational
[18:06:02] <stpeter> Kev: I added a reference to some IMAP specs, but they are not directly applicable
[18:06:09] <Kev> ralphm: Right, not Draft.
[18:06:12] <stpeter> as far as I can see, anyway
[18:07:14] <Kev> stpeter: So you're happy with it as-is?
[18:07:31] <Kev> If so, does anyone object to us scheduling a vote for Active for the next meeting?
[18:07:49] <remko> no
[18:07:53] <Fritzy> No objection. I think it's a good informational spec.
[18:07:55] <ralphm> has 201 been used much?
[18:08:03] <stpeter> Kev: I think it's fine as-is -- we might need to revise it again in the future after more people implement threads
[18:08:35] <stpeter> and do recall that it was connected originally with some Ian-isms like 155 and 116 :)
[18:08:40] <stpeter> but I think we've scrubbed most of that
[18:08:41] <Fritzy> I'm planning on making it the default behavior in a future release of Sleek.
[18:09:04] <ralphm> Fritzy: ah, nice
[18:09:15] <Kev> Ok, let's vote on that next time.
[18:09:32] <ralphm> +7
[18:09:33] *** Kooda has joined the room
[18:09:44] <Kev> AOB? I have a query about voting of Council/Board that I was going to bring up on list today, but was busy.
[18:09:49] <Kev> Or, next meeting rather.
[18:09:52] <Kev> Same time next week?
[18:09:55] <remko> wfm
[18:10:00] <Fritzy> same time is ok
[18:10:06] <ralphm> hooray
[18:10:14] <Kev> So, elections.
[18:11:12] <Kev> The current bylaws are that the Council has an upper bound in size set by the members (currently 5), and that Council is made up of those people with the most votes, and an affirmative vote by the majority of voters, up to that limit.
[18:11:24] <ralphm> right
[18:11:39] <stpeter> oh no, voting rules again?!?
[18:11:40] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:11:49] *Fritzy ducks.
[18:11:54] <Kev> stpeter: I think the rules are right, but memberbot is incorrect.
[18:12:11] <Kev> I think we changed it so that members shouldn't be limited to voting for five people.
[18:12:23] <stpeter> ahhhhh
[18:12:40] <ralphm> Revote!
[18:12:46] <Kev> Because with someone needing a affirmative majority, we could well end up without a full Council.
[18:12:50] <stpeter> ralphm: :P
[18:13:28] <Kev> e.g. 8 applicants, 2 people get a vote from all members, the other 6 share the votes just less than equally, and we only have two people on Council.
[18:13:43] <stpeter> seems unlikely, although possible
[18:14:10] <Kev> It's not that infeasible if we had e.g. 3 strong candidates and 5 less strong - not suggesting that we do.
[18:14:44] <Kev> I was wondering what other people thought.
[18:15:36] <stpeter> I'm all in favor of someting re-writing memberbot :)
[18:15:58] <waqas> Are the memberbot sources public by the way?
[18:16:01] <Kev> I don't think this particular change needs a rewrite, although I'm all in favour of someone doing so.
[18:16:50] <stpeter> waqas: they should be -- but in fact it would be better for someone to start fresh because the code is not very good
[18:16:50] <waqas> I have been writing some bots lately (for statistics), and was going to do one for filling forms.
[18:18:45] <Kev> Tobias has written such a thing for gsoc a couple of years ago, and Gislan (I think) wrote a memberbot plugin for sleekbot to replace the current memberbot.
[18:18:45] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:18:54] <stpeter> Kev: what do you suggest?
[18:18:55] <Fritzy> I could find some time to do a rewrite this week, I think.
[18:19:00] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:19:08] <stpeter> I don't think we can rewrite the bot in mid-stream
[18:19:13] <Tobias> Kev: and i even heard back from a single user from australia :P
[18:19:20] <waqas> Mine would be a plugin for Riddim (bot based on Prosody sources)
[18:19:21] <Kev> stpeter: no, I think we'd need to cancel the current votes and redo them.
[18:19:26] <stpeter> erk
[18:19:35] <Kev> waqas: I'm opposed to using Riddim unless someone commits to making it work :)
[18:19:52] <Kev> I run Riddim in a couple of places, and it's great if you're willing to kill it and restart it when it falls over, but that's pretty often.
[18:20:11] <stpeter> Kev: but members still have only 5 votes -- the difference is in how they're counted
[18:20:23] <Kev> stpeter: Why do they only have five votes, though?
[18:20:25] <stpeter> so the problem is that you need to decide for whom you want to vote before you start
[18:20:34] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[18:20:37] <waqas> Kev: We were planning on making packages, and it'll probably get plugin reload without restart soon, same as Prosody.
[18:20:43] <Kev> This isn't a bylaws thing, justsomething we've traditionally done.
[18:20:45] <stpeter> or, if you don't like how things went, ask Alexander to throw out your votes and start again
[18:20:59] <stpeter> um
[18:21:05] <Kev> The problem isn't memberbot, it's that we're artificially limiting members to five votes.
[18:21:19] <stpeter> well, we're electing 5 people -- why would you get 8 votes?
[18:21:39] <stpeter> we're asking you to affirmatively state that you want these 5 people on the Council
[18:21:55] <remko> which doesn't really happen
[18:21:57] <Kev> Right, but each person must have >50% people voting affirmatively on them.
[18:21:57] <stpeter> if we're going to change the voting system, we might move to preference voting or somesuch
[18:22:10] <remko> why not ask which people you would want on council, be it more or less than 5
[18:22:22] <waqas> Unless the names are randomized for each voter, the first five probably get significantly more votes :/
[18:22:31] <remko> i thought they were randomized these days
[18:22:34] <Kev> They are.
[18:22:37] <stpeter> you look at the list of candidates, decide "I was Alice, Bob, Charlie, David, and Elizabeth" and vote yes for them, no for everyone else
[18:22:44] <stpeter> waqas: they are randomized
[18:22:45] <Kev> stpeter: Yes, I understand how to vote :)
[18:22:54] <ralphm> I always decide before I start voting what my votes will be
[18:22:58] <stpeter> Kev: so what's the problem?
[18:23:01] <ralphm> I don't really see an issue
[18:23:06] <stpeter> I don't see anything to change here
[18:23:09] <stpeter> at least not for this year
[18:23:14] <Kev> Let's say we have 12 people standing next year.
[18:23:34] <Kev> and the votes go something like (making it up, they won't add up right)
[18:23:35] <stpeter> if folks want to have a long debate about voting processes for 2011, I'm all for it
[18:23:47] <Kev> 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20%
[18:23:51] <ralphm> I suggest fixing the voting system when we get into trouble
[18:23:53] <Kev> We end up with no council
[18:23:58] <ralphm> it's not like we can't fix stuff after it breaks down
[18:24:06] <Fritzy> I need to get going.
[18:24:37] <Kev> Or no board, I think, because Board elections have the same 50% requirement in the bylaws iirc.
[18:25:27] <Kev> Anyway, as long as people are convinced there isn't a problem, I'll go sit quietly in the corner.
[18:25:33] <ralphm> :-D
[18:25:34] <stpeter> Kev: I suggest we burn that bridge when we come to it
[18:25:56] <Kev> Ok.
[18:25:57] <Kev> AOAOB?
[18:26:04] <stpeter> I see the concern (now)
[18:26:07] <ralphm> I think the bylaws have a provision for solving unforseen issues by ubermajority
[18:26:28] *** remko has left the room
[18:26:39] *** remko has joined the room
[18:26:39] *** remko shows as "online"
[18:27:00] <stpeter> nod
[18:27:19] <Kev> Ok, no other business then.
[18:27:21] <stpeter> Kev: I suggest you hold your breath, then bring this up after the current round of elections :)
[18:27:36] <Kev> In that case, Thanks all, see you next week.
[18:27:45] <remko> thanks
[18:27:47] <Kev> I'll do some minutes tomorrow morning probably.
[18:27:51] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[18:27:56] <stpeter> somehow I had not seen the possibility of this :(
[18:28:20] *** Fritzy has left the room
[18:28:29] <stpeter> anyway, for Council we'll issue a Last Call for comments on XEP-0220 and expect some more votes on XEP-0201
[18:28:54] <Kev> stpeter: Well, we'll LC on 220, and Council will vote on 201 next week.
[18:29:05] <stpeter> ah
[18:29:17] <stpeter> WFM
[18:29:25] <stpeter> won't next week's meeting be the last one of this term?
[18:29:53] <Kev> Probably, I've not looked at dates.
[18:30:03] *stpeter looks for the XSF member meeting on the calendar and doesn't find it
[18:31:33] <ralphm> ah, so it the 25th
[18:31:42] <stpeter> yes
[18:31:44] <ralphm> an hour after council meeting starts
[18:31:51] <stpeter> I just asked for clarification about the time
[18:32:25] <stpeter> 19:00 UTC?
[18:32:45] <Kev> For Council or Members?
[18:32:52] <Kev> Council is 18:00 UTC next week.
[18:32:52] <stpeter> Members
[18:32:58] <ralphm> it says so in the announcment
[18:33:05] <stpeter> I missed the announcement :P
[18:33:08] <Kev> I never received an announcement.
[18:33:18] <Kev> I only knew voting had started because memberbot appeared online.
[18:33:37] <stpeter> there were some emails on the list
[18:34:00] <Kev> I had the initial meeting announcement back on Sept 20th
[18:34:07] <Kev> But not one to say proxy voting had started.
[18:34:13] <Kev> The initial announcement said 1900
[18:34:40] <ralphm> it was sent on sept 9
[18:34:54] <ralphm> eh, 8
[18:35:11] <Kev> ralphm: What was?
[18:35:18] <Kev> Ah, that mail.
[18:35:24] <ralphm> the meeting notice
[18:35:26] <Kev> Yes.
[18:35:31] <Kev> Not the voting announcement :)
[18:36:04] <stpeter> ok
[18:36:08] <stpeter> calendar updated
[18:36:44] <Kev> Thanks.
[18:36:50] <ralphm> it also noticed voting
[18:36:50] <ralphm> starting at oct. 1
[18:38:30] <Kev> Yep. Which didn't happen, as far as I know.
[18:38:59] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:39:21] <stpeter> Kev: I'd prefer to debate voting procedures after this round -- the scenario you raise becomes more likely as we have more candidates, but there is also the possibility that we have 5 candidates for 5 positions and one of them is deeply unpopular (receives only 20% of the vote or whatever) and then the person would be voted in despite receiving all those no votes
[18:39:36] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:39:45] <Kev> I'm not proposing changing the bylaws, which I think are right.
[18:39:59] <Kev> I think it's right that if 90% of membership think someone is unsuitable that they won't get in.
[18:40:11] <stpeter> I thought perhaps you were suggesting that we remove "with the proviso that no individual receiving less than a majority of votes cast shall be elected"
[18:40:15] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[18:40:18] <Kev> The problem I see is that membership aren't given the chance to say whether each candidate is suitable or not :)
[18:40:27] <Kev> No, I believe that is absolutely right to have.
[18:41:12] <Kev> Membership are able to express up to five people who they think are suitable, but in the current voting system (not the bylaws, just how we count votes) it says nothing about their opinion of the other X people standing.
[18:41:59] <stpeter> ah
[18:42:00] <stpeter> sure
[18:42:05] <stpeter> so we need preference voting :)
[18:42:14] <stpeter> rank them all from 1 to 8 or whatever
[18:42:25] <stpeter> I mean, all of these folks would be qualified
[18:42:31] <ralphm> or 'abstain' per candidate, next to yes and no
[18:42:31] <Kev> I don't think that's even true.
[18:42:31] <stpeter> it's hard to vote "no" on any of them
[18:42:53] <Kev> I think ideally we have a two vote system.
[18:42:59] <Kev> Or two-track, rather.
[18:43:06] *waqas is curious if HAL would get any votes if he stood
[18:43:14] <stpeter> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
[18:43:21] <ralphm> Time's up. Eindhoven
[18:43:21] <Kev> One track for voting for each member if they're suitable or not (this should be >50% for any member of Council), and one track for expressing preference.
[18:43:29] <stpeter> ralphm: tot ziens!
[18:43:35] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[18:43:43] <stpeter> too complicated
[18:43:45] <Kev> And no, I've frequently believed people have stood for Board/Council who weren't qualified :)
[18:44:04] <stpeter> well sure :)
[18:44:39] <Kev> So simply the X most popular isn't a reasonable metric, because that could pick people who everyone unanimously believes are unqualified, given a scarcity of competent candidates.
[18:45:49] <Kev> This is terribly unlikely to be the case this year.
[18:46:14] <stpeter> so we either live with the consequences and hope for better candidates next time, or modify the voting process
[18:46:16] <Kev> But then next year, when only 5 people stand, one of whom joined the XSF because it was cool and hasn't ever read or understood a XEP...
[18:46:27] <stpeter> heh
[18:46:31] <stpeter> brb
[18:47:05] *** Gam has joined the room
[18:47:16] *** lightoze has joined the room
[18:47:16] *** lightoze shows as "online"
[18:49:07] *** lightoze shows as "online"
[18:53:30] *stpeter goes back to completing his AD review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie/
[18:53:47] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:54:07] *** lightoze shows as "online"
[18:56:21] *** lightoze has left the room
[19:00:15] *** zanchin shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[19:06:50] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:07:19] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:07:47] *** bear has left the room
[19:20:02] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[19:30:13] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[19:33:16] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[19:45:02] *** Gam has left the room
[19:48:10] *** stpeter has left the room
[20:01:45] *** remko has left the room
[20:06:55] *** zanchin shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[20:10:52] *** Kooda shows as "away" and his status message is " (Absent(e) car inactif depuis plus de 15 min)"
[20:12:31] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[20:13:08] *** Zash has joined the room
[20:14:11] *** Zash has left the room
[20:18:07] *** zanchin shows as "online"
[20:18:44] *** zanchin has left the room
[20:26:56] *** Kooda has left the room
[22:02:32] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "Swift 1.0-beta7"
[22:14:35] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "*shower* brb"
[22:23:35] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[22:39:02] *** Tobias has left the room