XSF logo XMPP Council - 2010-12-01


  1. Fritzy has left
  2. Kev has left
  3. Kev has joined
  4. Kev has left
  5. Kev has joined
  6. Kev has left
  7. Kev has joined
  8. Tobias has joined
  9. Tobias has left
  10. Tobias has joined
  11. bear has left
  12. Tobias has left
  13. Tobias has joined
  14. Tobias has left
  15. Tobias has joined
  16. Tobias has left
  17. stpeter has joined
  18. stpeter has left
  19. stpeter has joined
  20. MattJ has joined
  21. Kev Righty.
  22. Kev We have two Council. I don't see Fritzy online, and I'm not sure if I have MM in my roster.
  23. Kev If I have, he's not online :)
  24. MattJ He says he's having connectivity issues
  25. MattJ Give him a sec.
  26. Kev Fritzy or MM?
  27. MattJ MM
  28. linuxwolf has joined
  29. MattJ *applause*
  30. linuxwolf finally
  31. linuxwolf jeebus
  32. Kev Yay, quorum!
  33. Kev Not that we need it without anything to vote on.
  34. MattJ Heh
  35. linuxwolf I need for fire my sysadmin
  36. linuxwolf oh wait…that's me
  37. Kev Ralph's online, but not responsive.
  38. Kev Fritzy's not.
  39. linuxwolf well, quorum at least makes it feel official (-:
  40. MattJ Hmm, cisco.com doesn't seem to like this server
  41. linuxwolf ok…I'll let some folks here know, MattJ
  42. MattJ Dec 01 16:06:29 s2sin280e330 info Session closed by remote with error: undefined-condition Dec 01 16:06:29 s2sin280e330 info s2s disconnected: cisco.com->muc.xmpp.org (undefined-condition)
  43. Kev I'm happy to blame either server - or both :D
  44. MattJ :)
  45. linuxwolf heh
  46. Kev Ok, shall we have our faux-meeting?
  47. MattJ gives a faux-nod
  48. Kev 1) Roll call.
  49. linuxwolf present
  50. MattJ gift
  51. Kev Packaging includes: linuxwolf (x1), MattJ (x1), Kev (x1).
  52. Kev RalphM and Fritzy not included.
  53. Kev 2) Agenda Bashing.
  54. MattJ None
  55. Kev (hopefully stpeter will reappear at some point, as two of the three items are his)
  56. linuxwolf none from me
  57. linuxwolf heh
  58. linuxwolf he's WFH, so I can't utilize POKE
  59. Kev So let's jump to the "Our job" item and come back later for Peter's items.
  60. linuxwolf +1
  61. MattJ ++
  62. Kev So, in among us cancelling week after week because we had nothing to vote on, Joe suggested maybe Council's job was to make sure we had activity that needed attention.
  63. Kev Discuss.
  64. linuxwolf well, first...
  65. linuxwolf end of year is difficult to get anything really done (-:
  66. Kev Yes, that much is true.
  67. stpeter greetings
  68. linuxwolf that's historical
  69. Kev Evening Peter.
  70. ralphm has joined
  71. stpeter sorry, got the times wrong
  72. linuxwolf (-:
  73. linuxwolf pesky time changes
  74. linuxwolf anyhow
  75. Kev We also have a different situation from previous years - last year we started being much less forgiving with voting periods, and as such lost the backlog of voting items that we've usually acquired over previous years.
  76. ralphm waves
  77. linuxwolf I think we should be taking a more (pro) active role
  78. Kev So the need to have a meeting to go over the same items again and have people not vote again has ended.
  79. Kev Evening Ralph.
  80. linuxwolf true
  81. linuxwolf waves to ralphm
  82. MattJ If we should be more pro-active, more pro-active doing what exactly?
  83. Kev That said, I'm not opposed to us considering that it's our job to be making sure XEP progress continues.
  84. Kev The question is what the appropriate way of doing this is.
  85. Kev If it's poking the authors of XEPs we think need work, I think this may be somewhat pointless, as that's almost always Peter.
  86. stpeter heh
  87. linuxwolf (-:
  88. linuxwolf how about we start with a roadmap (-:
  89. MattJ In my mind the council is by nature reactive, but the individuals should be proactive (writing and implementing specs is not something the council was set up to do together as a whole)
  90. linuxwolf set some goals for ourselves
  91. Kev We have a Peter again, so let's do that, yes.
  92. stpeter speaking of which, as soon as I'm done with these RFC revisions (speaking of pesky!), you'll experience a flood of XEP updates
  93. linuxwolf (-:
  94. Kev Council discussing a roadmap is another thing I think's odd - we just vote on whatever people give us.
  95. ralphm there are some areas for which people asking for specs for a number of summits
  96. Kev But anyway, we can discuss what it is that we'd like for people to give us to vote on :)
  97. linuxwolf we've had roadmaps in the past
  98. Kev We have.
  99. Kev I think they're largely stpeter maps, rather than Council maps, though :)
  100. stpeter however, we might want to recruit people to take over maintainership of various specs -- e.g., microblogging
  101. linuxwolf file transfer v2, jingle, etc
  102. Kev Anyway, I'm not proposing not having one :)
  103. MattJ Exactly who's in charge here? :)
  104. ralphm I think a roadmap is a fine idea actually
  105. Kev So.
  106. ralphm we've all said what we think needs to be done in our applications
  107. Kev Road map items.
  108. stpeter Kev: I think the members discussion about roadmap items was good, perhaps we need to poke people to take ownership of various specs
  109. linuxwolf +1
  110. Kev I'm just looking up the member discussion, hang on.
  111. Kev http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap
  112. ralphm so everything termed technical is our domain
  113. linuxwolf more or less
  114. Kev Not really Ralph, some is the WG's.
  115. ralphm except the ca stuff
  116. ralphm well, yes
  117. MattJ "and establish the JSF" <-- "oops"? :)
  118. linuxwolf well, this list looks a bit dated…sort of (-:
  119. linuxwolf the timeless goals
  120. stpeter I last posted about this on October 29 http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2010-October/006040.html
  121. Kev I'd see getting file transfer sorted as a reasonable overarching theme for this term.
  122. Matthew Miller has joined
  123. Matthew Miller has left
  124. stpeter Kev: interop testing at FOSDEM might be good
  125. linuxwolf /nod
  126. Kev It might.
  127. Kev Although it's a little hard to do that.
  128. Kev Given that FOSDEM is likely to be a fairly hospitable network.
  129. Kev Where we know that basically nothing interops with f/t on the Internet :)
  130. ralphm why?
  131. ralphm we can set up a local test bed?
  132. Kev We can set up a suitably inhospitable network, if we try.
  133. Kev The other thing that really desperately needs love is -45
  134. Kev If this year sees us do nothing except getting file transfer working and MUC cleaned up, it wouldn't be a bad thing, I think.
  135. MattJ and 198 :)
  136. MattJ and archiving
  137. Kev Well, 198 *does* work :)
  138. linuxwolf heh
  139. linuxwolf 198 works for those that have implemented it, as far as I can tell
  140. MattJ It needs some spec changes, but that's on stpeter's todo already
  141. stpeter Kev: I have a big pile of MUC edits to key in
  142. stpeter MattJ: 198 needs changes?
  143. ralphm does that include work on what joe and I termed 'hats'?
  144. Kev I don't think hats belong in -45.
  145. stpeter agreed on that!
  146. linuxwolf stpeter: I think there were some minor nits for 198
  147. Kev Not that I think they don't belong anywhere, but not 45.
  148. linuxwolf I'll try to find them
  149. MattJ stpeter, it doesn't?
  150. ralphm I know there isn't a spec for it yet, but it would maybe remove stuff from 45
  151. stpeter linuxwolf: ok
  152. MattJ stpeter, you did say a while back it was on your todo :)
  153. MattJ stpeter, Dave and I have both posted feedback to the list that needs incorporating - I think Dave's was even in patch form :)
  154. stpeter I see a two-phase approach on MUC (or in parallel) -- clean up 45 and work on hats etc.
  155. Kev MattJ: You and I should sort out what else needs doing with archiving, and ask those nice folks on Council to approve a bunch of new XEPs.
  156. MattJ Kev, agreed
  157. Kev I see hats as GC3.
  158. linuxwolf /nod
  159. ralphm does it include removal of status codes in favour of elements (like we did with errors in xmpp)
  160. ralphm ?
  161. Kev I see that as GC3 too :)
  162. stpeter hmm
  163. stpeter perhaps
  164. linuxwolf moving away from status codes is a big change
  165. Kev Anything that's going to require every single implementation of xep-0045 to be modified doesn't belong in 45 at this point.
  166. linuxwolf not that I'm in favor of status codes, mind you...
  167. Kev No, quite.
  168. ralphm just assessing the scope
  169. stpeter we had talked about status elements as an extension, so strictly speaking it would not be in 45 anyway
  170. ralphm hah, so it would build on 45
  171. ralphm as if it is not big enough already :-)
  172. stpeter right
  173. stpeter :P
  174. linuxwolf "too big to fail(off)"
  175. Kev ralphm: My opinion of scope for 45 changes is stuff that's largely backwards compatible and cleans up the ambiguities. Of which there are plenty.
  176. MattJ +1
  177. stpeter Kev: yes I think that's right
  178. MattJ I was always against a radically new protocol, but I'm not so much anymore
  179. Kev So, are we roughly done with the roadmap discussion?
  180. stpeter and I think that's what my edits worked toward
  181. stpeter ye
  182. stpeter MattJ: :)
  183. Kev Right, so
  184. ralphm stpeter: you mentioned mobile stuff and microblogging
  185. Kev Peter wanted to discuss open issues on specs.
  186. Kev Agenda item 4!
  187. stpeter people wanted a radically new protocol back in 2002, also
  188. linuxwolf (-:
  189. stpeter ok
  190. linuxwolf xmpp-ng
  191. stpeter let's see, open issues
  192. stpeter XEP-0266 -- Jingle codecs
  193. stpeter it would be good to finish that up
  194. Kev What needs doing there?
  195. stpeter it's difficult to get consensus on that topic
  196. stpeter I'm just raising open issues so we know what's coming :)
  197. Kev Consensus on 266 is impossible.
  198. stpeter I'd like to find someone else to maintain the microblogging spec
  199. linuxwolf I'm going to need to drop in a minute or two
  200. stpeter Kev: depends on how rough it is :)
  201. stpeter ok
  202. Kev Most people not disagreeing violently is going to be the best bet.
  203. Kev stpeter: Oh good, the 'rough consensus' oxymoron :)
  204. MattJ :)
  205. stpeter clearly the FT stuff needs updating
  206. stpeter perhaps we can push out new versions after interop testing at FOSDEM?
  207. Kev Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
  208. stpeter and same for 198 and roster versioning?
  209. Kev My interest in interop testing is largely checking everything behaves s2s at the moment, but clients shouldn't be neglected.
  210. linuxwolf /nod
  211. stpeter do we have a chatroom for the interop testing next week? just jdev?
  212. Kev We don't, that I know of.
  213. MattJ I made the interop room on this server the other day, but didn't announce it
  214. Kev I think bear took ownership of that event, but I've not seen anything since.
  215. Kev I'll poke the iteam into action for whatever's required :)
  216. stpeter heh ok
  217. Kev MattJ's volunteered to run the CA, I think.
  218. MattJ Indeed
  219. stpeter wow http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap is ancient
  220. MattJ Quite
  221. stpeter I'll update the roadmap tomorrow afternoon or Friday -- swamped through noon tomorrow
  222. Kev Other items on the horizon are Matt's and my history stuffs, the changes to other stuff around that (I'd like to update Mine to use it, although I never got a reply from Joe about that), xep-correct and similar stuffs.
  223. Kev We've hit the limit of my meeting patience, so shall we stop there for today? I think we've discussed most things.
  224. Kev Date of next meeting.
  225. ralphm I'd like the stuff from stpeter's mail on it
  226. stpeter yep
  227. Kev Next Wednesday, same time.
  228. stpeter +1 here
  229. ralphm +1
  230. linuxwolf +1
  231. MattJ +1
  232. stpeter updates the calendar
  233. Kev 7) Any other business?
  234. linuxwolf stpeter: grazie!
  235. Kev Thanks Peter.
  236. MattJ doesn't say anything
  237. stpeter none here for now
  238. linuxwolf I got nothing
  239. Kev Jolly good :)
  240. Kev Ok, thanks all, then.
  241. Kev I'll sort out something in way of minutes in the not too distant future.
  242. Kev bangs the gavel.
  243. MattJ Thanks
  244. stpeter calendar updated
  245. MattJ Thanks :)
  246. linuxwolf has left
  247. stpeter http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-council.ics is your friend :)
  248. stpeter or http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-all.ics
  249. ralphm has left
  250. Tobias has joined
  251. Tobias stpeter: the automatic updating of calendars works, right?
  252. stpeter Tobias: I updated it manually :)
  253. stpeter next time I'll let it update automatically
  254. Tobias that doesn't really answer my question, does it? :)
  255. stpeter nope :)
  256. Tobias has left
  257. Tobias has joined
  258. Tobias has left
  259. Tobias has joined
  260. Tobias has left