Thursday, February 24, 2011
council@muc.xmpp.org
February
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
           
             
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

[00:07:43] *** mlundblad has left the room
[00:23:07] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[00:43:08] *** Tobias shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[02:21:04] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "dodo"
[03:28:02] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[03:29:53] *** Tobias has left the room
[07:39:15] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:05:52] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:31:05] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[09:45:46] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[10:44:48] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[10:59:00] *** Kev shows as "away"
[11:07:35] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:33:15] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "mange"
[11:38:05] *** Kev has left the room
[11:38:33] *** Kev has joined the room
[11:38:34] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:47:28] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[13:20:24] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:20:41] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:23:59] *** Tobias has left the room
[14:04:43] *** Kooda has left the room
[14:04:50] *** Kooda has joined the room
[14:05:53] *** Tobias has joined the room
[14:28:18] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:30:10] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[15:27:59] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[15:34:17] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:36:21] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[15:44:15] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:44:41] <linuxwolf> quick caffeine run, brb
[15:44:44] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:44:52] <Kev> You've got 16 minutes. Go go go.
[15:46:05] <stpeter> howdy
[15:46:10] *stpeter replies to Kev's message
[15:46:14] <Kev> Evening.
[15:46:17] <Kev> What was my message?
[15:46:21] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:46:23] <Kev> I've got another agenda item I'm adding now.
[15:46:36] <linuxwolf> oh noes
[15:47:47] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF council meeting"
[15:47:58] <stpeter> your email message about agenda
[15:48:15] <stpeter> sorry, on a conference call at the moment, but multitasking as best as I can :)
[15:48:39] <Kev> Asking Council to review a version published 12 minutes in advance of the meeting seems excessive :p
[15:49:02] *** Fritzy has joined the room
[15:49:03] *** Fritzy shows as "online" and his status message is "Work work"
[15:50:35] <stpeter> heh
[15:50:45] <stpeter> you mean 0047?
[15:51:15] <Kev> Yeah.
[15:51:35] <stpeter> it was discussed on the list, and I assume that Council members are paying attention to the list :P
[15:51:38] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0047/diff/1.3rc2/vs/1.3rc3
[15:51:50] <stpeter> I think Council members can read one sentence in 10 minutes
[15:52:22] <stpeter> but hey XEP-0047 has been sitting around for almost a year, what's another week?
[15:52:34] <Kev> I've reviewed the change :p
[15:52:51] <linuxwolf> ditto
[15:53:01] <linuxwolf> found a typo or two
[15:54:02] *linuxwolf somewhat patiently waits for gavel
[15:55:57] <Kev> As Florian just posted this: http://florianjensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/meetings.jpg
[15:56:48] <Fritzy> hurray
[15:57:51] <stpeter> :)
[15:58:50] <Kev> Both Ralph and Matt poked.
[15:58:54] <stpeter> k
[15:59:08] *** MattJ has joined the room
[15:59:19] <stpeter> yay
[15:59:24] <MattJ> Heh, I was waiting in council@c.j.o :)
[15:59:32] <stpeter> heh
[15:59:37] <linuxwolf> heh…newb (-:
[15:59:38] *** ralphm has joined the room
[15:59:45] <MattJ> I'm in the habit of "/join council" which uses the current server - I guess I was in the wrong room when I typed it
[15:59:48] *linuxwolf made that mistake a few weeks ago
[16:00:23] <Kev> 4pm!
[16:00:33] <Kev> And a full Council, the fates are smiling upon us.
[16:00:39] <ralphm> 1700
[16:00:45] <MattJ> :)
[16:00:49] <linuxwolf> or it's the Apocalypse
[16:00:52] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[16:00:54] <Kev> All here!
[16:00:57] <linuxwolf> either would be fine
[16:00:57] <ralphm> yay
[16:00:59] <Kev> 2) Agenda bashing.
[16:01:06] <Kev> (Beyond the extensive on-list bashing)
[16:01:06] <ralphm> I'm gone in 15 min.
[16:01:13] <stpeter> k
[16:01:20] <stpeter> no bashing here
[16:01:26] <Fritzy> plenty on list. :)
[16:01:27] <Kev> A shame this'll be the longest Council for a while :)
[16:01:35] <Kev> 3) XEP-0047 1.3rc3.
http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0047/diff/1.2/vs/1.3rc3
Accept new version?
[16:01:43] <MattJ> +1
[16:01:49] <linuxwolf> found at least one typo, +1 otherwise
[16:01:56] <linuxwolf> "Upon receiving an error related to delivery of a or stanza, the sender"
[16:02:08] <ralphm> +1
[16:02:15] <stpeter> note that I added a sentence the other day but didn't check in the file -- it was discussed on list, however
[16:02:18] <stpeter> linuxwolf: noted
[16:02:21] <Kev> I had a couple of comments about this. As an aside, SHOULD wait for a reply to the iq seems wrong (unrelated to the diff). Is 'wait' the right error? I didn't check bis. And suggesting we continue sending iqs when we start receiving errors sounds wrong.
[16:02:28] <Kev> +1 though.
[16:02:51] <Fritzy> +1 myself, although maybe an example of a wait error would be nice.
[16:03:18] <Kev> 4) XEP-0184, version 1.2rc:
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0184-1.2.html
http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0184/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc2

Accept new version? See
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-February/024133.html
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-February/024160.html
[16:03:51] <Kev> I'm +1 on this. Now that it's been clarified that these aren't read receipts, I'm happy if the bit about not sending replies is modified to say that a client doesn't need the user's configuration to return a receipt to a contact that has a presence sub. I believe that was added at my behest.
[16:04:23] <stpeter> Kev: it was added at your behest, as I recall
[16:04:24] <linuxwolf> +1 also
[16:04:28] <Fritzy> +1, but what about messages from archives. Are we watching for delay?
[16:04:30] <ralphm> +1
[16:04:51] *** Dave Cridland has joined the room
[16:05:11] <stpeter> Fritzy: I think we have some text about that now, don't we?
[16:05:12] *stpeter checks
[16:05:13] <Kev> Fritzy: It explicitly says not to send from archive.
[16:05:20] <Fritzy> No, I see that.
[16:05:37] <Fritzy> I meant, it doesn't specify how you know that (yes, I realize that is in another spec)
[16:05:48] <stpeter> ah
[16:05:53] <Kev> I don't think it needs to.
[16:05:55] <Kev> Does it?
[16:06:03] <Kev> Well, it's a simple tweak to say "As in e.g. ..."
[16:06:07] *stpeter is off his conference call so can concentrate more fully now
[16:06:16] <Kev> stpeter: Are you happy to make the tweak?
[16:06:18] <Fritzy> right, I think it could be a simple reference
[16:06:19] <linuxwolf> well, it does mention XEP-0136...
[16:06:24] <Kev> linuxwolf: Ah, it does?
[16:06:32] <Kev> I reviewed it earlier, forgotten it all now.
[16:06:40] <Kev> In that case, I think we're set.
[16:06:43] <linuxwolf> "An entity MUST NOT send an ack message when a user views messages that have been archived or stored on the client or the server (e.g., viaMessage Archiving <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0136.html>; [8 <http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0184-1.2.html#nt-id36424>;]), only when first receiving the message."
[16:06:46] <stpeter> we added:

5.5 Archived Messages

An entity MUST NOT send an ack message when a user views messages that have been archived or stored on the client or the server (e.g., via Message Archiving [8]), only when first receiving the message.

[16:06:55] <Kev> I think we're set then.
[16:06:58] <Kev> Fritzy?
[16:06:59] <Fritzy> oh, why didn't I see that?!
[16:07:01] <Fritzy> ok
[16:07:03] <linuxwolf> not sure what more can be said
[16:07:11] <Fritzy> (must have been looking at the wrong version or something)
[16:07:17] <MattJ> OT, but I like "[...] this protocol does not enable the sender to know that the intended recipient has read the message or understood the message (if the intended recipient is a human being)" :)
[16:07:19] <Kev> I don't see a MattJ: note.
[16:07:26] <MattJ> I'm +1
[16:07:27] <Kev> note? vote.
[16:07:28] <Kev> Ta.
[16:07:31] <Fritzy> still +1
[16:07:36] <Kev> 5) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/realtimetext.html
Accept as XEP?
[16:07:41] <Fritzy> -1
[16:07:41] <linuxwolf> ugh
[16:07:44] <linuxwolf> -0
[16:08:00] <MattJ> It struck me that *this* spec would have more interesting interaction with archiving :)
[16:08:02] <Kev> I'm usually +1 on Experimental stuff, and seeing what happens, but this feels so completely non-XMPPish, I'm -1.
[16:08:03] <linuxwolf> just because there's precedence, doesn't mean it's GOOD precedence
[16:08:08] <MattJ> Instant realtime replay of conversations!
[16:08:25] <Kev> I've actually implemented this before, for someone who needed it, using a far far simpler model.
[16:08:31] *** Hirotaka Sato has joined the room
[16:08:31] *** Hirotaka Sato shows as "online"
[16:08:40] *** Hirotaka Sato shows as "online"
[16:08:43] <MattJ> Kev, how exactly?
[16:08:49] <MattJ> (and... should we spec it?)
[16:08:52] <linuxwolf> Kev: ditto
[16:08:54] <Fritzy> probably
[16:08:56] <MattJ> This comes up every so often
[16:08:57] <Kev> MattJ: <fragment>I'm half-way through typ</fragment>
[16:08:58] <ralphm> So even if most of us think it is a bad idea, do we really want to discourage specs being made for the use case?
[16:09:14] <Kev> ralphm: No, I think we want to discourage specs that don't seem right.
[16:09:21] <Fritzy> the use case is fine
[16:09:22] <Kev> I'm not -1 because I don't care about the feature.
[16:09:44] <MattJ> If we reject this then we need some clear feedback for the author on why
[16:09:45] <Kev> This is 11,600 words (excluding boilerplate) if my copy/paste/wc skills are ok.
[16:09:58] <Kev> MattJ: I'd like a thread on this on standards@
[16:10:06] <Kev> I'm happy to revote after seeing some community feedback.
[16:10:20] <Kev> I'll weight in on such a discussion (I'm happy to start it)
[16:10:22] <stpeter> +1 to a discussion thread on standards@
[16:10:30] <ralphm> nod
[16:10:38] <linuxwolf> I'll be sure to provide my $0.02USD
[16:10:39] <Kev> I think this is the requirement we currently have set for Council. You can -1, but must post to standards@ with a justification.
[16:10:40] *stpeter finds two AOB items
[16:10:48] <ralphm> :-)
[16:10:56] <Fritzy> Sure, I'll -1 and post
[16:11:12] <MattJ> Ok, then I'm +1 to the -1 if we discuss it
[16:11:22] <Kev> MattJ: You mean you're +0?
[16:11:24] <Dave Cridland> I
[16:11:25] <Kev> Or you're -1?
[16:11:25] <Dave Cridland> d
[16:11:25] <Dave Cridland> o
[16:11:26] <Dave Cridland> n
[16:11:28] <Dave Cridland> '
[16:11:29] <Dave Cridland> t
[16:11:32] <Kev> Dave Cridland: Stop.
[16:11:36] <linuxwolf> Kev: I was −0 (-:
[16:11:38] <Dave Cridland> ... much like it either. :-)
[16:11:51] <Fritzy> >_<
[16:11:52] <Kev> linuxwolf: yes, I saw that. It'l ralphm's and MattJ's I missed :)
[16:11:55] <MattJ> Kev, put me as +0
[16:12:08] <stpeter> ralphm: the AOB that applies to you is that we need votes from all Council members on http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0198/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc2
[16:12:09] *** coolidge25789 has joined the room
[16:12:26] <Kev> stpeter: That's not AOB, that's last week's meeting :)
[16:12:36] <ralphm> I don't think it is a required to have everyone's +1,-1,0 for moving to experimental
[16:12:40] <stpeter> Kev: it's other business as far as this meeting is concerned :)
[16:12:45] <Kev> ralphm: do you have a stance on rtt before we move on?
[16:12:59] <Kev> No, you can fail to express an opinion, but I want to know if you have one.
[16:13:01] <ralphm> Kev: I agree with the list action
[16:13:06] <Kev> Ok.
[16:13:19] <ralphm> so that appears to be -1 then
[16:13:23] <Kev> :)
[16:13:24] <Kev> 6) http://dave.cridland.net/xeps/google-queue.html
This is documentation of a Google protocol. What track should it be?
None seem to fit - author doesn't think it's suitable for standards
track (should use stream features), Historical is only for pre-XSF
documents, and Informational is for BCP. Should the XEP types be
tweaked?
[16:13:40] <stpeter> shouldn't it be up to Google folks to document Google extensions?
[16:13:42] *** Hirotaka Sato shows as "online"
[16:13:48] <linuxwolf> that's what I was about to ask....
[16:13:49] <Kev> So, Dave poked me about this pre-Council, and I said it should be standards track.
[16:13:57] <Fritzy> Do they care to?
[16:13:58] <stpeter> (however, note that I wrote the documentation for linklocal...)
[16:14:09] <stpeter> (and that was an Apple protocol)
[16:14:13] <Fritzy> We'll make a new track called "Google"
[16:14:16] <stpeter> haha
[16:14:19] <linuxwolf> grr
[16:14:24] <MattJ> :D
[16:14:33] <Kev> I don't see that we gain sufficient interoperability to make this worth documenting but not ST.
[16:14:37] <MattJ> I think standards track is fine
[16:14:43] *** coolidge25789 has left the room
[16:14:43] <ralphm> I think this was discussed with some Google people
[16:14:52] <linuxwolf> yeah, but if it's our standard, some things will need to change
[16:14:53] <stpeter> Jonas is on the author list
[16:15:02] <ralphm> stpeter: right
[16:15:09] <Kev> Dave Cridland can express his opinion on it being ST, but I understand he doesn't think this is the right way to do it.
[16:15:13] <ralphm> so it's ours and theirs
[16:15:21] <stpeter> but yeah we'd at least change the namespace to urn:xmpp:*
[16:15:29] <Kev> I think we should ST it, and do whatever the community thinks is the right thing to do.
[16:15:36] <Dave Cridland> stpeter, But that makes it a different protocol.
[16:15:39] <Kev> As it does seem simple and useful.
[16:15:42] <Fritzy> Do we need this simplification when we have other solutions?
[16:15:42] <stpeter> indeed it does
[16:15:55] <Dave Cridland> stpeter, THe point of documenting it is to say "this exists", nothign more.
[16:15:59] <stpeter> I think we need to take this to the standards@ list
[16:15:59] <Kev> Fritzy: from my limited understanding, this is actually simple and useful.
[16:16:05] <stpeter> Dave Cridland: in that case, Informational is right
[16:16:10] <Fritzy> Dave Cridland: then it's informational
[16:16:15] <Kev> stpeter: No, because it's not a BCP.
[16:16:24] <Dave Cridland> stpeter, Informational is described as "typically" for BCP, so there is wiggle-room.
[16:16:29] <Kev> Thus the question about whether we should update the XEP-0001 descriptions.
[16:16:38] <linuxwolf> we've used informational for other "not-quite-standard" protocols in the past
[16:16:40] <ralphm> I would say it is historical, but hey
[16:16:50] <Kev> ralphm: Historical means it was written before the JSF existed :)
[16:17:03] <linuxwolf> I would be good with Informational, FWIW
[16:17:07] <Dave Cridland> I originally thought Historical, hence its designation.
[16:17:14] <Dave Cridland> But Informational suits me fine.
[16:17:34] <stpeter> those categories need to be clarified
[16:17:44] <stpeter> now that the XSF has been around for almost 10 years
[16:17:50] <linuxwolf> or reambiguated (-:
[16:17:51] <MattJ> Good point :)
[16:17:59] <Kev> If we do put this as Informational, I think we should also create an ST version, and obsolete this one.
[16:18:11] <Fritzy> hmm..
[16:18:23] <MattJ> FWIW Telepathy does or is planning to implement this
[16:18:26] <linuxwolf> how about we see what the list discussion is first
[16:18:27] <MattJ> I think
[16:18:28] <Kev> Publishing it as Informational means we think it's important enough to be worth publishing. If we don't believe it's the right solution, we should document the right solution.
[16:18:30] <Fritzy> I think this requires some more thought
[16:18:31] <Dave Cridland> Kev, I'm fine with that (and this was my original plan), but the original is deployed in at least one large implementation.
[16:18:32] <stpeter> I think informational documentation of protocols out there in the wild can be helpful
[16:18:44] <ralphm> so, what is the value of redoing it in a new namespace?
[16:18:45] *** Hirotaka Sato shows as "online"
[16:18:47] <Dave Cridland> MattJ, Does implement as specified here.
[16:18:53] <ralphm> I don't think I want more/less features
[16:18:58] <MattJ> ralphm, that we can advance the protocol
[16:18:58] <Kev> ralphm: We wouldn't for Informational.
[16:19:02] <Kev> But for ST we need to.
[16:19:19] <stpeter> ralphm: aside from the fact that "google:" is not a legitimate identifier on any planet I know about?
[16:19:27] <MattJ> Heh
[16:19:30] <ralphm> that seems bureaucratic
[16:19:32] <Kev> Good point, it's an illegal namespace :D
[16:19:35] <ralphm> stpeter's argument is sane
[16:19:35] <stpeter> I mean we dropped "jabber:" 8+ years ago?
[16:19:35] <Kev> Anyway.
[16:19:43] <MattJ> Wait, so is jabber:iq:... :)
[16:19:45] <stpeter> it's an illegal namespace, why encourage those?
[16:19:45] <Kev> Anyway.
[16:19:49] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:19:51] <stpeter> MattJ: legacy
[16:19:57] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[16:20:03] <Kev> Who is volunteering to start a list discussion?
[16:20:08] <stpeter> we were idiots back then, why encourage more idiocy?
[16:20:09] <MattJ> Dave
[16:20:12] <linuxwolf> Dave
[16:20:12] <Kev> Or are we not bothering and going ahead as Informational?
[16:20:12] <ralphm> stpeter: must namespaces be uris?
[16:20:21] <MattJ> I vote Informational
[16:20:26] <MattJ> and keep the existing namespace
[16:20:33] <MattJ> and then ST it if we want to make our own
[16:20:38] <MattJ> but that's for the list
[16:20:40] <Kev> I do want a discussion about whether this is the optimal approach.
[16:20:46] <linuxwolf> /agreed w/ MattJ
[16:20:52] <stpeter> [Definition: An XML namespace is identified by a URI reference [RFC3986]; element and attribute names may be placed in an XML namespace using the mechanisms described in this specification. ]
[16:20:53] <Dave Cridland> Oh, if you guys are happy with Informational, I see no need to bother the list with it. I'll just submit to the XEP Editor as Informational.
[16:20:56] <stpeter> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/#concepts
[16:21:03] <Fritzy> I don't think it is /the/ optimal approach, but it is very simple, and that sometimes is all a spec needs to be popular
[16:21:13] <ralphm> stpeter: thanks
[16:21:14] <stpeter> +1 to simplicity
[16:21:14] <Kev> So someone has to agree to start the list discussion to see what the best way of doing it is.
[16:21:20] <Kev> If this is sufficiently different, we should ST it.
[16:21:24] <MattJ> Dave Cridland, the list discussion would be on whether we want to make a standards track version of this
[16:21:32] <Kev> Or, rather, create an ST spec to obsolete the informational.
[16:21:32] <stpeter> MattJ: agreed
[16:21:39] <Dave Cridland> MattJ, I think that'll come naturally from submitting this one.
[16:21:41] <ralphm> I think it would be good to rename the namespace only for this reason
[16:21:46] <Fritzy> yeah, let's see what the community thinks
[16:21:53] <Kev> So who's starting the discussion
[16:21:58] <linuxwolf> Dave
[16:22:04] <Kev> Someone volunteer, I volunteered for rtt :)
[16:22:12] <stpeter> Dave has been volunteered
[16:22:14] <Fritzy> haha
[16:22:18] <Kev> Dave Cridland: Happy?
[16:22:21] <ralphm> i.e. if google would have chosen a valid namespace name, I would excuse them from the namespace changing stuff we regularly do
[16:22:23] <Fritzy> Dave is fine with informational, remember?
[16:22:33] <MattJ> I'd volunteer except I know I'll not get around to it right now
[16:22:41] <Kev> Fritzy: Yes, I'm not happy with Informational without a discussion :)
[16:22:44] <Dave Cridland> There's a political problem with renaming the namespace, of course, which is that given the inertia of Google's implementation, there's little hope of seeing deployment there.
[16:22:45] <ralphm> I'm +1 on accepting this on standards track in that case.
[16:23:00] <Kev> I have no objection to this going on ST.
[16:23:23] <Fritzy> sure, plus a little service discovery and away we go
[16:23:24] <ralphm> Dave Cridland: that's an assumption we should verify
[16:23:46] <Dave Cridland> ralphm, I can ask Jonas, of course.
[16:23:47] *** Hirotaka Sato shows as "online"
[16:24:11] <Kev> We're 7 minutes away from meeting-tolerance.
[16:24:13] <ralphm> Dave Cridland: I think it would be good of us to make Google aware that their namespaces are illegally named. You could even suggest they use http://google.com/something
[16:24:26] <ralphm> Dave Cridland: please do
[16:24:37] <ralphm> Kev: next?
[16:24:50] <Kev> What are people's current positions? Mine is that I either want list discussion if we want to Informational it, or to do it ST.
[16:25:00] *** taylor26215 has joined the room
[16:25:01] *** Hirotaka Sato has left the room
[16:25:08] <stpeter> Kev: same here
[16:25:11] <linuxwolf> ditto
[16:25:20] <Fritzy> +1
[16:25:22] <Kev> Dave Cridland: Are you willing to start the discussion?
[16:25:25] <Dave Cridland> My opinion is that it shouldn't be done this way, or with this namespace, in ST, and the original needs documenting irregardless of whether we persue this as ST.
[16:25:44] <Fritzy> namespace changes can happen during experimental on standards track
[16:25:50] <Kev> I'm happy to publish this Informational and obsoleted by an ST document.
[16:25:57] <Fritzy> hm
[16:25:58] <linuxwolf> Dave: sounds like you can kick off the list discussion… (-:
[16:26:08] <Fritzy> that way we could at least refer to the old version, I suppose
[16:26:13] <Dave Cridland> Righty, I'll do so - shall I formally submit this before or after?
[16:26:23] <Kev> Dave Cridland: Both at the same time would make me happiest.
[16:26:31] <Fritzy> It's all about you, isn't it?
[16:26:39] <Fritzy> ;)
[16:26:41] <Kev> Fritzy: About me? Yes.
[16:26:53] <ralphm> I'm +1 on 0198
[16:26:56] <ralphm> gotta go
[16:26:58] <Dave Cridland> Kev, K. I shall submit now, then, and then kick off the discussion once it's announced.
[16:26:59] <Kev> Bye Ralph.
[16:27:03] <stpeter> is this extension already documented on google.com somewhere?
[16:27:08] <Kev> Dave Cridland: You have the ST version ready?
[16:27:21] *stpeter needs to transfer the voting tally pages to WordPress
[16:27:40] <Kev> I was saying I didn't want the Informational submitted before the ST one.
[16:27:43] <Dave Cridland> stpeter, Erm. I can't actually recall - I know that Jonas wrote an email describing it to jdev@ at one point.
[16:27:52] <MattJ> Kev, why not?
[16:28:11] <Dave Cridland> Kev, Ah, you want an ST one? Well, that's another issue entirely... I can easily enough write out a proposal, of course.
[16:28:23] <Kev> MattJ: Because if we're Informationalising it without an ST equivalent, I think there should be a discussion on standards@ to see what the community thinks.
[16:28:30] <MattJ> about what?
[16:28:36] <Kev> The right way of doing it.
[16:28:49] <linuxwolf> I think we should allow this informational one first, start the list discussion, and see where it goes
[16:28:53] <MattJ> Informationalising it isn't about the right way of doing it
[16:29:00] <MattJ> It's about how Google have it implemented *now*
[16:29:22] <MattJ> which can be used as the basis of an ST document if we decide we want one
[16:29:24] <Kev> I basically feel unhappy about us documenting this non-ST, given that it's basically one deployment.
[16:29:28] <Dave Cridland> MattJ, Right - at least three implementations of this exist now.
[16:29:36] <MattJ> Kev, one significant deployment
[16:29:39] <Dave Cridland> Kev, It's not one implementation. If it were...
[16:29:46] <Kev> MattJ: Yes.
[16:29:59] <Kev> Dave Cridland: Yes, and I think we should see if it's the right way before we encourage more implementations.
[16:30:06] <Kev> By claiming that this is a BCP.
[16:30:16] <MattJ> I don't see we should claim it as a BCP
[16:30:23] <Kev> MattJ: That's what Informational means.
[16:30:32] <MattJ> The current definition of "informational" is another matter
[16:30:36] <linuxwolf> fine, then let's redefine informational
[16:30:40] <linuxwolf> then publish
[16:30:41] <MattJ> We've already decided it's too limited
[16:30:43] <Kev> linuxwolf: I'm fine with that.
[16:31:03] <Kev> Although that's Board, rather than Council :)
[16:31:03] <linuxwolf> it used to have a broader definition anyway
[16:31:08] <MattJ> So fix XEP-0001, publish queue as informational, debate forming an ST doc from it
[16:31:10] <stpeter> Kev: right :)
[16:31:15] <stpeter> but documentation is good
[16:31:37] <Dave Cridland> (FWIW, I'd be more comfortable with Historical in the XEP framework - ie, "this is how it's been done, we don't say this is a good idea".)
[16:31:47] <Kev> So'd I.
[16:31:52] <stpeter> fine by me
[16:32:03] <Kev> Assuming we modify historical to mean "Implemented outside the standards track"
[16:32:09] <linuxwolf> I'm fine with Historical too
[16:32:11] <Kev> +wordsmithing.
[16:32:14] <linuxwolf> do we also want to clarify what the definition of "is" is (-:
[16:32:16] <Dave Cridland> But that means redefining Historical to encompass things developed outside the XSF but after it was instigated.
[16:32:19] <stpeter> "Documentation is like sex. When it's good, it's very good. When it's bad, it's better than nothing." -- Jeremie Miller
[16:32:34] <stpeter> ok my other call is starting
[16:32:38] <Dave Cridland> stpeter, Is that Jer's quote? I never knew it was him.
[16:32:38] <Kev> Ok, we've passed tolerance.
[16:32:45] <linuxwolf> oh, +1 on 198
[16:32:45] <stpeter> meeting city this morning!
[16:32:51] <stpeter> linuxwolf: noted
[16:32:57] <stpeter> and ralphm's vote on 198 is noted
[16:32:58] <Kev> I'm happy to vote on this next week as Historical, and someone should ask Board to modify -0001.
[16:33:13] <Kev> 7) Date of next meeting
[16:33:16] <Kev> Next Wednesday?
[16:33:22] <linuxwolf> wfm
[16:33:23] <MattJ> +1
[16:33:36] <Kev> Fritzy: ?
[16:33:36] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "IESG telechat"
[16:33:45] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[16:33:48] <Fritzy> that's fine.
[16:33:53] <Kev> 8) AOB?
[16:33:53] <Fritzy> +1
[16:34:00] <stpeter> I'll update the calendar for next Wed
[16:34:04] <Kev> Ta.
[16:34:09] <Fritzy> Nope.
[16:34:10] <stpeter> some folks need to vote on 198
[16:34:15] <stpeter> and the vcard inbox item
[16:34:16] <Kev> stpeter: We know.
[16:34:18] <Fritzy> yup, I'll do that on list today
[16:34:18] <stpeter> just a reminder :)
[16:34:28] *Fritzy plays catchup.
[16:34:31] <Kev> Anything else?
[16:34:46] <stpeter> nope
[16:34:50] <linuxwolf> nay
[16:34:51] <Kev> Ok.
[16:34:57] <Fritzy> nodda
[16:34:59] <MattJ> Just to confirm... my votes for 198 and vcard4 are in, yes? I got no reply
[16:35:24] <Kev> MattJ: I've not seen them on-list. If they're in the buffer, I'll see them when I do the minutes :)
[16:35:28] <stpeter> MattJ: didn't see those
[16:35:34] <MattJ> Hmph
[16:35:38] <stpeter> MattJ: scrolling up
[16:35:41] <MattJ> I'll try from my other account again
[16:35:50] <Kev> Ok.
[16:35:50] <stpeter> MattJ: probably just my fault
[16:35:51] <MattJ> erm, I sent to the list, sorry
[16:35:55] <stpeter> ah ok
[16:35:57] <stpeter> that works
[16:35:58] *Kev bangs the gavel
[16:36:00] <Kev> Thanks all.
[16:36:02] <stpeter> thanks
[16:36:03] <Fritzy> ciao
[16:36:05] <linuxwolf> adios
[16:36:07] <MattJ> Thanks
[16:36:10] *stpeter turns his attention to the IESG telechat
[16:36:17] <MattJ> Enjoy :)
[16:36:20] <stpeter> oh yeah
[16:36:20] *linuxwolf preps for next meeting
[16:36:29] <MattJ> Just can't get enough telechats
[16:36:35] <linuxwolf> hi ho, hi by
[16:36:37] <stpeter> this is a fun one -- the meeting schedule for IETF 80
[16:36:45] <MattJ> Is that Prague?
[16:37:08] <stpeter> yes
[16:37:10] <linuxwolf> Some say that's Kev's favorite city to visit
[16:37:14] <stpeter> haha
[16:37:23] <stpeter> it's a beautiful city
[16:37:42] <MattJ> Kev, ok... I don't see my email in the archives... +1s anyway
[16:38:02] <MattJ> Kev, I also asked where vcard4 puts User Profile
[16:42:22] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:42:34] *** Steffen Larsen has joined the room
[16:42:35] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[16:43:36] *** Dave Cridland shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:43:46] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[16:46:17] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[16:48:33] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[16:51:17] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[16:51:26] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[16:53:36] *** Dave Cridland shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[16:56:19] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[16:57:08] *** Fritzy shows as "away" and his status message is "Work work"
[16:59:35] *** Dave Cridland shows as "online"
[17:01:19] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:03:57] *** taylor26215 has left the room
[17:06:20] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:06:33] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[17:11:21] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:16:21] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:21:23] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:23:15] *** Fritzy shows as "online" and his status message is "Work work"
[17:26:23] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:31:25] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:36:27] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:36:33] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[17:41:27] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:46:28] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:51:29] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[17:56:31] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[18:01:32] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[18:02:33] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[18:04:38] *** Steffen Larsen has left the room
[18:10:02] *** Dave Cridland has left the room
[18:31:31] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "away at lunch"
[18:31:59] *** Tobias has left the room
[18:37:51] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[19:13:01] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[19:19:02] *** ralphm has left the room
[19:26:40] *** bear has left the room
[19:26:41] *** bear has joined the room
[19:52:39] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[19:54:54] *** ralphm has joined the room
[20:00:27] *** julm has joined the room
[20:07:37] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:20:42] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:25:10] *** Tobias has joined the room
[20:28:49] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[20:33:35] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:37:48] *** Fritzy shows as "away" and his status message is "Work work"
[20:56:30] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:01:45] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:18:49] *** Fritzy shows as "online" and his status message is "Work work"
[21:24:47] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "on the phone"
[21:32:41] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[21:37:10] *** ralphm has left the room
[21:52:41] *** Tobias shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:15:24] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[22:22:22] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:22:50] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[22:57:43] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[23:00:01] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[23:03:11] *** stpeter has left the room
[23:06:10] *** Fritzy shows as "away" and his status message is "Work work"
[23:09:44] *** Fritzy shows as "online" and his status message is "Work work"
[23:56:51] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "dodo"