Wednesday, December 01, 2010
council@muc.xmpp.org
December
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

[01:25:17] *** Fritzy has left the room
[02:59:31] *** Kev has left the room
[03:03:30] *** Kev has joined the room
[03:03:32] *** Kev shows as "away"
[07:24:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:53:28] *** Kev has left the room
[07:55:05] *** Kev has joined the room
[07:55:07] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:55:24] *** Kev has left the room
[07:56:33] *** Kev has joined the room
[07:56:35] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:09:53] *** Kev shows as "away"
[08:10:57] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:22:51] *** Kev shows as "away"
[08:27:49] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:39:46] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:55:56] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[09:23:55] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[09:27:25] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[09:49:29] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[09:49:43] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[09:49:49] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[09:49:55] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[09:50:04] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[10:06:50] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "courses"
[10:23:41] *** Tobias has left the room
[10:38:18] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[11:04:15] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "mange"
[11:26:25] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[11:31:38] *** Tobias has joined the room
[11:51:41] *** bear has left the room
[13:02:01] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:25:33] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:59:00] *** Tobias has left the room
[14:05:32] *** Tobias has joined the room
[14:38:38] *** Tobias has left the room
[15:01:39] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:06:41] *** stpeter has left the room
[15:12:04] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:32:47] *** MattJ has joined the room
[15:48:35] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[15:50:17] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[16:02:54] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[16:03:07] <Kev> Righty.
[16:03:46] <Kev> We have two Council. I don't see Fritzy online, and I'm not sure if I have MM in my roster.
[16:03:56] <Kev> If I have, he's not online :)
[16:04:00] <MattJ> He says he's having connectivity issues
[16:04:30] <MattJ> Give him a sec.
[16:04:50] <Kev> Fritzy or MM?
[16:05:02] <MattJ> MM
[16:05:59] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[16:06:04] <MattJ> *applause*
[16:06:05] <linuxwolf> finally
[16:06:09] <linuxwolf> jeebus
[16:06:10] <Kev> Yay, quorum!
[16:06:16] <Kev> Not that we need it without anything to vote on.
[16:06:20] <MattJ> Heh
[16:06:22] <linuxwolf> I need for fire my sysadmin
[16:06:26] <linuxwolf> oh wait…that's me
[16:06:31] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[16:06:37] <Kev> Ralph's online, but not responsive.
[16:06:42] <Kev> Fritzy's not.
[16:07:01] <linuxwolf> well, quorum at least makes it feel official (-:
[16:07:05] <MattJ> Hmm, cisco.com doesn't seem to like this server
[16:07:23] <linuxwolf> ok…I'll let some folks here know, MattJ
[16:07:31] <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)
[16:08:02] <Kev> I'm happy to blame either server - or both :D
[16:08:07] <MattJ> :)
[16:08:10] <linuxwolf> heh
[16:08:29] <Kev> Ok, shall we have our faux-meeting?
[16:08:42] *MattJ gives a faux-nod
[16:08:46] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[16:08:54] <linuxwolf> present
[16:09:01] <MattJ> gift
[16:09:09] <Kev> Packaging includes: linuxwolf (x1), MattJ (x1), Kev (x1).
[16:09:17] <Kev> RalphM and Fritzy not included.
[16:09:28] <Kev> 2) Agenda Bashing.
[16:10:01] <MattJ> None
[16:10:05] <Kev> (hopefully stpeter will reappear at some point, as two of the three items are his)
[16:10:09] <linuxwolf> none from me
[16:10:14] <linuxwolf> heh
[16:10:24] <linuxwolf> he's WFH, so I can't utilize POKE
[16:10:53] <Kev> So let's jump to the "Our job" item and come back later for Peter's items.
[16:10:59] <linuxwolf> +1
[16:11:12] <MattJ> ++
[16:11:36] <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.
[16:11:38] <Kev> Discuss.
[16:12:03] <linuxwolf> well, first...
[16:12:07] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:12:14] <linuxwolf> end of year is difficult to get anything really done (-:
[16:12:50] <Kev> Yes, that much is true.
[16:12:55] <stpeter> greetings
[16:12:56] <linuxwolf> that's historical
[16:13:10] <Kev> Evening Peter.
[16:13:10] *** ralphm has joined the room
[16:13:11] <stpeter> sorry, got the times wrong
[16:13:15] <linuxwolf> (-:
[16:13:19] <linuxwolf> pesky time changes
[16:13:20] <linuxwolf> anyhow
[16:13:51] <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.
[16:13:52] *ralphm waves
[16:13:52] <linuxwolf> I think we should be taking a more (pro) active role
[16:14:09] <Kev> So the need to have a meeting to go over the same items again and have people not vote again has ended.
[16:14:12] <Kev> Evening Ralph.
[16:14:19] <linuxwolf> true
[16:14:25] *linuxwolf waves to ralphm
[16:14:48] <MattJ> If we should be more pro-active, more pro-active doing what exactly?
[16:14:52] <Kev> That said, I'm not opposed to us considering that it's our job to be making sure XEP progress continues.
[16:15:01] <Kev> The question is what the appropriate way of doing this is.
[16:15:21] <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.
[16:15:35] <stpeter> heh
[16:15:43] <linuxwolf> (-:
[16:15:49] <linuxwolf> how about we start with a roadmap (-:
[16:15:53] <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)
[16:15:55] <linuxwolf> set some goals for ourselves
[16:16:05] <Kev> We have a Peter again, so let's do that, yes.
[16:16:06] <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
[16:16:14] <linuxwolf> (-:
[16:16:28] <Kev> Council discussing a roadmap is another thing I think's odd - we just vote on whatever people give us.
[16:16:36] <ralphm> there are some areas for which people asking for specs for a number of summits
[16:16:39] <Kev> But anyway, we can discuss what it is that we'd like for people to give us to vote on :)
[16:16:42] <linuxwolf> we've had roadmaps in the past
[16:16:49] <Kev> We have.
[16:16:58] <Kev> I think they're largely stpeter maps, rather than Council maps, though :)
[16:17:02] <stpeter> however, we might want to recruit people to take over maintainership of various specs -- e.g., microblogging
[16:17:04] <linuxwolf> file transfer v2, jingle, etc
[16:17:07] <Kev> Anyway, I'm not proposing not having one :)
[16:17:14] <MattJ> Exactly who's in charge here? :)
[16:17:28] <ralphm> I think a roadmap is a fine idea actually
[16:17:40] <Kev> So.
[16:17:42] <ralphm> we've all said what we think needs to be done in our applications
[16:17:43] <Kev> Road map items.
[16:17:43] <stpeter> Kev: I think the members discussion about roadmap items was good, perhaps we need to poke people to take ownership of various specs
[16:17:57] <linuxwolf> +1
[16:18:21] <Kev> I'm just looking up the member discussion, hang on.
[16:18:39] <Kev> http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap
[16:19:50] <ralphm> so everything termed technical is our domain
[16:19:56] <linuxwolf> more or less
[16:20:04] <Kev> Not really Ralph, some is the WG's.
[16:20:08] <ralphm> except the ca stuff
[16:20:13] <ralphm> well, yes
[16:20:18] <MattJ> "and establish the JSF" <-- "oops"? :)
[16:20:27] <linuxwolf> well, this list looks a bit dated…sort of (-:
[16:20:32] <linuxwolf> the timeless goals
[16:20:37] <stpeter> I last posted about this on October 29 http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2010-October/006040.html
[16:20:40] <Kev> I'd see getting file transfer sorted as a reasonable overarching theme for this term.
[16:20:55] *** Matthew Miller has joined the room
[16:20:55] *** Matthew Miller has left the room
[16:20:59] <stpeter> Kev: interop testing at FOSDEM might be good
[16:21:05] <linuxwolf> /nod
[16:21:10] <Kev> It might.
[16:21:16] <Kev> Although it's a little hard to do that.
[16:21:28] <Kev> Given that FOSDEM is likely to be a fairly hospitable network.
[16:21:42] <Kev> Where we know that basically nothing interops with f/t on the Internet :)
[16:22:04] <ralphm> why?
[16:22:13] <ralphm> we can set up a local test bed?
[16:22:29] <Kev> We can set up a suitably inhospitable network, if we try.
[16:23:00] <Kev> The other thing that really desperately needs love is -45
[16:23:24] <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.
[16:23:45] <MattJ> and 198 :)
[16:23:55] <MattJ> and archiving
[16:23:57] <Kev> Well, 198 *does* work :)
[16:23:57] <linuxwolf> heh
[16:24:11] <linuxwolf> 198 works for those that have implemented it, as far as I can tell
[16:24:12] <MattJ> It needs some spec changes, but that's on stpeter's todo already
[16:24:19] <stpeter> Kev: I have a big pile of MUC edits to key in
[16:24:24] <stpeter> MattJ: 198 needs changes?
[16:24:27] <ralphm> does that include work on what joe and I termed 'hats'?
[16:24:35] <Kev> I don't think hats belong in -45.
[16:24:40] <stpeter> agreed on that!
[16:24:42] <linuxwolf> stpeter: I think there were some minor nits for 198
[16:24:45] <Kev> Not that I think they don't belong anywhere, but not 45.
[16:24:46] <linuxwolf> I'll try to find them
[16:24:48] <MattJ> stpeter, it doesn't?
[16:24:49] <ralphm> I know there isn't a spec for it yet, but it would maybe remove stuff from 45
[16:24:50] <stpeter> linuxwolf: ok
[16:24:58] <MattJ> stpeter, you did say a while back it was on your todo :)
[16:25:20] <MattJ> stpeter, Dave and I have both posted feedback to the list that needs incorporating - I think Dave's was even in patch form :)
[16:25:21] <stpeter> I see a two-phase approach on MUC (or in parallel) -- clean up 45 and work on hats etc.
[16:25:22] <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.
[16:25:30] <MattJ> Kev, agreed
[16:25:38] <Kev> I see hats as GC3.
[16:25:45] <linuxwolf> /nod
[16:26:06] <ralphm> does it include removal of status codes in favour of elements (like we did with errors in xmpp)
[16:26:08] <ralphm> ?
[16:26:18] <Kev> I see that as GC3 too :)
[16:26:36] <stpeter> hmm
[16:26:48] <stpeter> perhaps
[16:27:03] <linuxwolf> moving away from status codes is a big change
[16:27:03] <Kev> Anything that's going to require every single implementation of xep-0045 to be modified doesn't belong in 45 at this point.
[16:27:25] <linuxwolf> not that I'm in favor of status codes, mind you...
[16:27:30] <Kev> No, quite.
[16:27:48] <ralphm> just assessing the scope
[16:27:53] <stpeter> we had talked about status elements as an extension, so strictly speaking it would not be in 45 anyway
[16:28:15] <ralphm> hah, so it would build on 45
[16:28:22] <ralphm> as if it is not big enough already :-)
[16:28:28] <stpeter> right
[16:28:31] <stpeter> :P
[16:28:33] <linuxwolf> "too big to fail(off)"
[16:28:39] <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.
[16:28:53] <MattJ> +1
[16:28:56] <stpeter> Kev: yes I think that's right
[16:29:10] <MattJ> I was always against a radically new protocol, but I'm not so much anymore
[16:29:14] <Kev> So, are we roughly done with the roadmap discussion?
[16:29:14] <stpeter> and I think that's what my edits worked toward
[16:29:22] <stpeter> ye
[16:29:27] <stpeter> MattJ: :)
[16:29:36] <Kev> Right, so
[16:29:37] <ralphm> stpeter: you mentioned mobile stuff and microblogging
[16:29:47] <Kev> Peter wanted to discuss open issues on specs.
[16:29:50] <Kev> Agenda item 4!
[16:29:50] <stpeter> people wanted a radically new protocol back in 2002, also
[16:29:56] <linuxwolf> (-:
[16:30:02] <stpeter> ok
[16:30:02] <linuxwolf> xmpp-ng
[16:30:07] <stpeter> let's see, open issues
[16:30:18] <stpeter> XEP-0266 -- Jingle codecs
[16:30:24] <stpeter> it would be good to finish that up
[16:30:30] <Kev> What needs doing there?
[16:30:32] <stpeter> it's difficult to get consensus on that topic
[16:30:42] <stpeter> I'm just raising open issues so we know what's coming :)
[16:30:53] <Kev> Consensus on 266 is impossible.
[16:30:55] <stpeter> I'd like to find someone else to maintain the microblogging spec
[16:31:01] <linuxwolf> I'm going to need to drop in a minute or two
[16:31:02] <stpeter> Kev: depends on how rough it is :)
[16:31:04] <stpeter> ok
[16:31:06] <Kev> Most people not disagreeing violently is going to be the best bet.
[16:31:17] <Kev> stpeter: Oh good, the 'rough consensus' oxymoron :)
[16:31:38] <MattJ> :)
[16:31:39] <stpeter> clearly the FT stuff needs updating
[16:31:49] <stpeter> perhaps we can push out new versions after interop testing at FOSDEM?
[16:31:58] <Kev> Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
[16:32:08] <stpeter> and same for 198 and roster versioning?
[16:32:17] <Kev> My interest in interop testing is largely checking everything behaves s2s at the moment, but clients shouldn't be neglected.
[16:32:26] <linuxwolf> /nod
[16:32:36] <stpeter> do we have a chatroom for the interop testing next week? just jdev?
[16:32:46] <Kev> We don't, that I know of.
[16:32:51] <MattJ> I made the interop room on this server the other day, but didn't announce it
[16:32:58] <Kev> I think bear took ownership of that event, but I've not seen anything since.
[16:33:14] <Kev> I'll poke the iteam into action for whatever's required :)
[16:33:19] <stpeter> heh ok
[16:33:25] <Kev> MattJ's volunteered to run the CA, I think.
[16:33:33] <MattJ> Indeed
[16:34:04] <stpeter> wow http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap is ancient
[16:34:20] <MattJ> Quite
[16:34:30] <stpeter> I'll update the roadmap tomorrow afternoon or Friday -- swamped through noon tomorrow
[16:34:35] <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.
[16:35:23] <Kev> We've hit the limit of my meeting patience, so shall we stop there for today? I think we've discussed most things.
[16:35:27] <Kev> Date of next meeting.
[16:35:32] <ralphm> I'd like the stuff from stpeter's mail on it
[16:35:33] <stpeter> yep
[16:35:36] <Kev> Next Wednesday, same time.
[16:35:40] <stpeter> +1 here
[16:35:43] <ralphm> +1
[16:35:45] <linuxwolf> +1
[16:35:51] <MattJ> +1
[16:35:55] *stpeter updates the calendar
[16:36:02] <Kev> 7) Any other business?
[16:36:06] <linuxwolf> stpeter: grazie!
[16:36:11] <Kev> Thanks Peter.
[16:36:14] *MattJ doesn't say anything
[16:36:23] <stpeter> none here for now
[16:36:31] <linuxwolf> I got nothing
[16:36:34] <Kev> Jolly good :)
[16:36:39] <Kev> Ok, thanks all, then.
[16:36:49] <Kev> I'll sort out something in way of minutes in the not too distant future.
[16:36:53] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[16:37:23] <MattJ> Thanks
[16:37:28] <stpeter> calendar updated
[16:37:42] <MattJ> Thanks :)
[16:39:02] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:39:08] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-council.ics is your friend :)
[16:39:34] <stpeter> or http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-all.ics
[16:41:29] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[16:51:30] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[17:08:16] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:08:25] *** ralphm has left the room
[17:20:21] *** Tobias has joined the room
[17:22:45] <Tobias> stpeter: the automatic updating of calendars works, right?
[17:27:58] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[17:33:51] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[17:34:54] <stpeter> Tobias: I updated it manually :)
[17:35:06] <stpeter> next time I'll let it update automatically
[17:35:14] <Tobias> that doesn't really answer my question, does it? :)
[17:35:21] <stpeter> nope :)
[17:46:16] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[17:47:28] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[17:47:36] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "running an errand"
[18:19:43] *** Tobias has left the room
[18:49:36] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:53:16] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "douche"
[18:56:08] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:58:35] *** Kev shows as "online"
[19:09:07] *** Kev shows as "away"
[19:20:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[19:25:58] *** Tobias has joined the room
[19:27:11] *** Tobias has left the room
[19:39:15] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:39:30] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:44:00] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[19:55:16] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[19:58:09] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[20:18:09] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[20:25:16] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[21:07:39] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:10:20] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[21:19:31] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[21:27:11] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:50:13] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "détaché"
[21:53:15] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[21:57:01] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:58:41] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[22:06:07] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:10:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[22:11:16] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[22:20:34] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[22:28:41] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[22:32:53] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:33:32] *** Tobias has joined the room
[22:41:27] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[22:59:52] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[23:06:07] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[23:07:25] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[23:10:16] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[23:31:45] *** Tobias has left the room