Wednesday, April 20, 2011
council@muc.xmpp.org
April
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
 
             
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

[01:56:19] *** stpeter has joined the room
[03:49:18] *** bear has left the room
[04:05:01] *** bear has joined the room
[04:07:52] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Out for the night."
[04:23:01] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[04:23:24] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[04:42:19] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[04:42:50] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[05:19:31] *** stpeter has left the room
[06:35:16] *** Kev shows as "online" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[07:36:20] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[07:52:26] *** Kev shows as "online" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[10:46:45] *** Kanchil+ has joined the room
[10:46:46] *** Kanchil+ shows as "online" and his status message is "Online and botty"
[10:46:46] <Kanchil+> Kev: Done.
[10:46:51] <Kev> !agenda
[10:46:51] <Kanchil+> Kev: 1) Roll call
2) Agenda bashing
3) Retract XEP-0192
4) Retract XEP-0193
5) Last Call on XEP-0262: Use of ZRTP in Jingle RTP Sessions
6) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc3 of XEP-0178: Best Practices for Use
7) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc1 of XEP-0171: Language Translation
8) Council concensus on removing Proposed from XEP-0001
9) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6?
10) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6?
11) Date of next meeting
12) Any other business
Fini
[10:46:58] <Kev> Close enough.
[12:04:40] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[12:05:10] *** Vanaryon has joined the room
[12:06:36] *** Kev shows as "online" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[12:43:50] *** Vanaryon has left the room
[13:29:36] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:49:48] *Kev wonders how many of the specs he'll have a chance to review before the meeting.
[14:08:31] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[14:15:32] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[14:15:58] *** fippo has joined the room
[14:16:57] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[14:20:30] *** Kev shows as "online" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[14:37:24] *** MattJ has joined the room
[14:39:19] <stpeter> hi MattJ
[14:39:23] <MattJ> Hi
[14:39:30] <stpeter> I'm going to check 198 into git
[14:39:36] <stpeter> so that you can see the diff
[14:39:40] <MattJ> k
[14:39:43] <MattJ> thanks
[14:39:58] <MattJ> I'm confused about what is version 1.2 :)
[14:40:57] <stpeter> well
[14:41:05] <stpeter> 1.2 was confused in several respects
[14:41:15] <stpeter> but 1.2 is what's published on the website
[14:41:30] <stpeter> I cleaned up all the XEPs to refer to 6120/6121
[14:41:37] <MattJ> Ok, so 1.2rc2 is something else?
[14:41:46] <stpeter> I don't think we want council votes on all those reference updates
[14:42:05] <MattJ> No, we don't :)
[14:42:18] <Kev> I think we should probably have a Council item to say "Switch to 6120/6121 throughout".
[14:42:37] <Kev> No-one's going to object, but they are technically non-trivial changes to the dependencies of the XEPs.
[14:42:50] <stpeter> Kev: well, there *are* exceptions because in some of the specs we legitimately refer to 3920 or 3921
[14:43:01] <stpeter> e.g., to reference Nodeprep or whatever
[14:43:07] <Kev> Righty.
[14:43:08] <stpeter> those references have been retained
[14:43:41] <stpeter> but sure, a vote on that switch seems good
[14:44:03] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:44:08] <stpeter> maybe we should make suite definitions while we're at it, although it's unclear to me if anyone ever used those
[14:46:02] *** Florob has joined the room
[14:47:10] *** bene has joined the room
[14:47:20] <stpeter> early agenda bashing ... I think that XEP-0178 is not quite ready for approval because fippo and I are still working out some fine points in the document on the standards@xmpp.org list
[14:47:45] <Kev> Right, I was going to suggest that.
[14:48:06] <MattJ> Ok, I'll stop reviewing it now then :)
[14:48:24] *stpeter replies to fippo's latest email before the meeting begins
[14:49:26] <stpeter> I also have a conference call starting in 12 minutes (I'm now the IESG liaison to the IETF Tools Team, yay!), but I don't know how much attention that will take
[14:50:03] <linuxwolf> sounds like fun
[14:50:10] <stpeter> indeed
[14:50:17] <Kev> linuxwolf: it does? :)
[14:50:25] <linuxwolf> no, it does not (-:
[14:50:28] <linuxwolf> that was sarcasm
[14:50:38] <stpeter> linuxwolf: you'll be happy to hear that I also had a HYBI WG coordination call at 11 last night :)
[14:50:50] <linuxwolf> did it involve AES-CTR?
[14:50:53] <linuxwolf> (-:<
[14:50:58] <stpeter> no!
[14:51:09] <linuxwolf> good
[14:51:23] <linuxwolf> I noticed you actually posted something to the hybi list, too
[14:51:42] <stpeter> just using one of the reserved opcodes to signal if masking is enabled
[14:52:10] *** ralphm has joined the room
[14:52:45] <stpeter> hi ralph!
[14:53:02] <linuxwolf> /nod … but the oddest things become a hill to die on over there
[14:55:03] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF council meeting"
[14:55:26] *** ralphm has left the room
[14:55:38] *** ralphm has joined the room
[14:56:50] <ralphm> hi
[14:59:22] <MattJ> Gah, phone... brb 2 minutes
[15:01:09] <stpeter> fippo: I've replied to you on the list
[15:01:25] <Kev> May as well get started, and let Matt catch up?
[15:01:29] <Kev> Or wait for him?
[15:02:08] <linuxwolf> I can catch up (-:
[15:02:19] *linuxwolf trolls the vagueness
[15:02:28] <stpeter> :P
[15:03:00] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting (actually, two!)"
[15:03:10] <Kev> So
[15:03:14] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:03:14] <Kanchil+> Kev: 1) Roll call
[15:03:25] <linuxwolf> presente
[15:03:27] <ralphm> here
[15:03:30] <Kev> MattJ's largely here.
[15:03:33] <Kev> I'm certainly here.
[15:03:47] <Kev> We're missing a Fritzy - I don't remember him saying he'd miss it, I should check I guess.
[15:04:10] <Kev> Will do so before the minutes.
[15:04:13] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:04:13] <Kanchil+> Kev: 2) Agenda bashing
[15:04:20] <Kev> Anyone?
[15:04:22] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[15:04:26] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:04:34] *** bear shows as "online"
[15:04:47] <stpeter> I bashed about 178
[15:04:51] <Kev> You did.
[15:04:53] <stpeter> before the meeting started
[15:05:09] <Kev> Onward, then.
[15:05:11] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:05:11] <Kanchil+> Kev: 3) Retract XEP-0192
[15:05:12] <MattJ> Sorry, back
[15:05:22] <stpeter> we also talked about the 6120/6121 updates
[15:05:32] <Kev> Point.
[15:05:39] <Kev> !agendaappend 6120/6121 updates.
[15:05:39] <Kanchil+> Kev: Done.
[15:05:43] <stpeter> thanks
[15:05:47] <Kev> So.
[15:05:48] <stpeter> nothing else here
[15:05:52] <Kev> !agendaup 0
[15:05:52] <stpeter> I might have an AOB or two
[15:05:52] <Kanchil+> Kev: 3) Retract XEP-0192
[15:05:58] <Kev> +1
[15:06:11] <MattJ> +1
[15:06:15] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:06:45] <ralphm> this is kinda odd
[15:06:54] <ralphm> don't authors retract xeps?
[15:07:30] <Kev> Well, a Draft XEP can't actually be Retracted.
[15:07:36] <Kev> So we're really voting to Deprecate, I think.
[15:07:38] <ralphm> also, I don't think you can go from Draft to Retracted
[15:07:49] <ralphm> in that case +1
[15:08:08] <Kev> So, yes, let's make this a vote to deprecate and revote.
[15:08:09] <Kev> +1
[15:08:13] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:08:15] <stpeter> right, deprecate is correct
[15:08:26] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#approval-std
[15:08:35] <linuxwolf> you beat me to the link
[15:08:44] <Kev> MattJ: Still +1?
[15:09:00] <MattJ> Still +1
[15:09:04] *** emcho has joined the room
[15:09:04] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:09:05] <Kanchil+> Kev: 4) Retract XEP-0193
[15:09:08] <Kev> This is Deprecate too.
[15:09:12] <Kev> +1
[15:09:16] <ralphm> +1
[15:09:17] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:09:27] <MattJ> +1
[15:09:32] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:09:32] <Kanchil+> Kev: 5) Last Call on XEP-0262: Use of ZRTP in Jingle RTP Sessions
[15:09:43] <Kev> I'm largely happy to Last Call anything :)
[15:09:48] <linuxwolf> (-:
[15:09:50] <ralphm> +1
[15:09:51] <Kev> +1
[15:09:54] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:10:01] <stpeter> it will make Phil Zimmerman happy, if nothing else
[15:10:10] <MattJ> +1
[15:10:14] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:10:14] <Kanchil+> Kev: 6) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc3 of XEP-0178: Best Practices for Use
[15:10:19] <Kev> Skipping this one.
[15:10:21] <stpeter> nod
[15:10:24] <Kev> (Ongoing list discussion)
[15:10:26] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:10:26] <Kanchil+> Kev: 7) Vote on accepting version 1.1rc1 of XEP-0171: Language Translation
[15:10:37] <linuxwolf> heh
[15:10:38] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:10:48] <linuxwolf> that was such a hard read (-:
[15:10:49] <stpeter> somehow that slipped through the cracks last year
[15:10:53] <Kev> This seems a bit of a strange thing to update. Given it'll break any existing implementations.
[15:11:01] <stpeter> right
[15:11:10] <stpeter> but as discussed on the list, there was agreement to fix it
[15:11:18] <Kev> Oh, I somehow missed that.
[15:11:18] <linuxwolf> right
[15:11:28] <ralphm> doesn't this require a numeral now?
[15:11:28] <MattJ> I guess I missed it too, but +1
[15:12:07] <stpeter> the '#' is now allowed in URNs
[15:12:12] <stpeter> s/now/not/
[15:12:18] <ralphm> I understand
[15:12:23] <stpeter> ralphm: this document was published before we had versioning
[15:12:28] <ralphm> but if it is being changed...
[15:12:53] <linuxwolf> hrm
[15:12:59] <Kev> The thread I can find on the lists is from last June, where Peter says "The authors ...approve of this change" but there was no discussion.
[15:13:13] <stpeter> Kev: because I poked them offlist
[15:13:31] <stpeter> AFAIK there was only ever the one implementation, but I'm happy to bring this back to the list
[15:13:41] <stpeter> with a versioning update to the namespace
[15:13:47] <Kev> I think "discussed on the list" is pushing it when there was only one person posting :p
[15:13:56] <stpeter> discussed among the authors
[15:13:57] <Kev> But if we believe there's only one implementation, I'm happy to change it.
[15:14:06] <stpeter> I can't promise that there's only one impl
[15:14:22] <ralphm> I really just asking whether it should be changed, not requiring it, per se.
[15:14:25] <stpeter> so let's take it to the list
[15:14:33] <stpeter> I'll start a thread about it right now
[15:14:40] <linuxwolf> /nod
[15:14:42] <Kev> I think just asking the list if anyone has implemented, and then voting in a fortnight or so seems safest.
[15:14:48] <ralphm> k
[15:14:59] <Kev> Even if there was only one implementation a year ago when you last posted, there *could* be more by now.
[15:15:15] <Kev> Everyone ok with that?
[15:15:18] <MattJ> Fine
[15:15:26] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:15:26] <Kanchil+> Kev: 8) Council concensus on removing Proposed from XEP-0001
[15:15:28] <linuxwolf> wfm
[15:15:35] <ralphm> +1
[15:15:37] <MattJ> +1
[15:15:42] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:15:47] <Kev> Council isn't the approving body for XEP-0001, but it's good to be asked anyway :)
[15:16:12] <ralphm> Kev: you +1?
[15:16:13] <Kev> I'm not opposed to removing Proposed, but I note that this needs more thought than scrubbing it, so I'd quite like to know to what we're agreeing.
[15:16:34] <Kev> Specifically, if we remove Proposed, we no longer have a way to Reject a XEP.
[15:16:39] <ralphm> well, it just that we make XEP-0001 more in line with current practice
[15:16:45] <MattJ> This /was/ discussed on the list though :)
[15:16:56] <Kev> MattJ: Was there suggested text, though?
[15:17:08] <MattJ> Not that I recall without looking
[15:17:14] <Kev> I thought it only went as far as vaguely agreeing to get rid of Proposed.
[15:17:15] <stpeter> Kev: sure we do, it comes up for a vote while still in the Experimental state and the Council votes to Reject it
[15:17:16] <Kev> Which I'm fine with.
[15:17:36] <ralphm> I don't see a problem with moving the arrow from experimental to rejected
[15:17:42] <Kev> stpeter: I mean that the only valid state change to Rejected is from Proposed.
[15:17:52] <Kev> I'm entirely happy with allowing Council to Reject at any point in Experimental.
[15:17:58] <Kev> I think this would be preferable, in fact.
[15:18:04] <ralphm> I agree
[15:18:13] <linuxwolf> or we do what happens now, and never vote on the item (-:
[15:18:18] <stpeter> in general, a number of specs have ended up going from Proposed back to Experimental (Council feedback requires an updated version but the authors don't get around to that), and it's unclear when the XEP Editor is supposed to change it back from Proposed to Experimental
[15:18:34] <Kev> Right, the current problem is, as I understand it:
[15:18:41] <stpeter> seems cleaner to just get rid of Proposed
[15:18:57] <Kev> Author asks for vote to Draft on Experimental XEP. Council deem it not ready. As XEP-0001 stands, the XEP is then Rejected with no way to get it back.
[15:19:07] <ralphm> I don't think that the 'proposed' state adds much value
[15:19:14] <Kev> This is a fine problem to solve.
[15:19:26] <linuxwolf> let's dump it!
[15:19:55] <Kev> So if what we're discussing is removing Proposed from the state chart, and making the arrow go from Experimental to Rejected instead, and letting Council do this at any time (with appropriate majority vote), I'm happy with the proposal.
[15:20:16] <linuxwolf> that's what it sounds like to me
[15:20:19] <ralphm> I also note that there is no arrow from deferred back to experimental
[15:20:20] <Kev> Does anyone disagree with that assessment and/or have a different understanding?
[15:20:20] <stpeter> yes, that's the concrete proposal
[15:20:32] <stpeter> ralphm: also something to be fixed, then
[15:20:38] <MattJ> Kev, I don't
[15:21:23] <Kev> ralphm: Not in the diagram, but the text itself documents that this is permitted.
[15:21:36] <Kev> Ok, so we're good to move on then with Council support, excellent.
[15:21:40] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:21:40] <Kanchil+> Kev: 9) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6?
[15:21:58] <ralphm> in principle our 'experimental' is really 'proposed'
[15:22:08] <Kev> ralphm: Right.
[15:22:12] <Kev> I'm +1 on this.
[15:22:16] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:22:35] <ralphm> +1
[15:22:37] <MattJ> I'm going to vote on the lis
[15:22:38] <MattJ> t
[15:22:46] <Kev> MattJ: OK.
[15:23:01] <MattJ> I've been following the discussions, but haven't reviewed the latest diff (if it's changed)
[15:23:20] <ralphm> I can't think of any other XEP with so many implementations that is experimental
[15:23:52] <stpeter> posted to the list about 171
[15:23:58] <MattJ> ralphm, heh
[15:23:59] <ralphm> stpeter: thanks!
[15:24:21] <stpeter> always best to be careful :)
[15:24:26] <linuxwolf> hehe
[15:24:35] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:24:35] <Kanchil+> Kev: 10) Accept XEP-0220 version 0.6?
[15:24:39] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:24:39] <stpeter> ralphm: it really should not have been Experimental when we copied it over from RFC 3920 to XEP-0220
[15:24:39] <Kanchil+> Kev: 11) 6120/6121 updates.
[15:24:47] <ralphm> stpeter: right
[15:24:58] <ralphm> so, where are we wanting to move it to, really?
[15:25:01] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[15:25:11] <Kev> So, are we happy with Peter going through all the XEPs and replacing 3920 with 6120 and 3921 with 6121 where he deems appropriate?
[15:25:12] <Kev> +1
[15:25:18] <ralphm> +1
[15:25:20] <stpeter> ralphm: I think we need to move it to Draft before we can do anything else with it
[15:25:30] <ralphm> stpeter: agreed
[15:25:39] <ralphm> stpeter: and then last call it next week?
[15:25:42] <ralphm> :-)
[15:25:44] <MattJ> Kev, +1
[15:25:44] <linuxwolf> heh
[15:25:48] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:25:53] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:25:53] <Kanchil+> Kev: 12) Date of next meeting
[15:26:05] <Kev> Next Wednesday, usual time? (1500GMT)
[15:26:13] <linuxwolf> wfm
[15:26:14] <stpeter> WFM
[15:26:16] <ralphm> I might not be available
[15:26:19] <ralphm> taking some time off
[15:26:26] <MattJ> +1
[15:26:28] <stpeter> I'll miss any meeting the following week (May 4) if we have one
[15:26:31] <MattJ> (to next week)
[15:26:33] <ralphm> (easter holidays)
[15:26:36] <Kev> ralphm: Happy to vote on-list?
[15:26:44] <stpeter> I'll be flying back from Amsterdam that day
[15:27:00] <ralphm> stpeter: you'll be here?
[15:27:11] <stpeter> ralphm: yes, on May 2-3 for the IESG retreat
[15:27:26] *** Florob has left the room
[15:27:41] <ralphm> stpeter: oh, nice. Are you only here on those days, or do you have more time?
[15:27:47] <stpeter> oh AOB?
[15:27:50] <linuxwolf> focus people!
[15:27:55] <ralphm> bang already
[15:27:58] <stpeter> hmph
[15:28:01] <Kev> stpeter: I'm waiting for Ralph to confirm he's happy to vote onlist.
[15:28:03] <stpeter> my other meeting was ending
[15:28:21] <ralphm> Kev: oh, I'm probably offline quite a bit
[15:28:27] <Kev> Ideally soon so we can get on with AOB before 30minute tolerance.
[15:28:38] <stpeter> I received a submission that sounds just like the April 1 XEP :) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/json.html
[15:28:40] <Kev> ralphm: I'll take that as a "Yes" :)
[15:28:41] <ralphm> Kev: but I have 2 weeks, so sure
[15:28:45] <stpeter> however, it is legitimate
[15:28:47] <Kev> !agendaup
[15:28:47] <Kanchil+> Kev: 13) Any other business
[15:28:56] <stpeter> I'll send a notice to the list after I clean it up a bit
[15:29:05] <stpeter> didn't want to announce it right before this meeting
[15:29:06] <emcho> are outsiders allowed to speak?
[15:29:11] <stpeter> it's nostly BOSH-ish
[15:29:17] <stpeter> s/n/m/
[15:29:18] <Kev> emcho: I don't see why not.
[15:29:29] <emcho> concerning the any other business item
[15:29:32] <emcho> last thursday stpeter mentioned on the jingle list that "The XMPP Council will decide at its next meeting whether to accept [Coin] as an official XEP". Peter, is this the meeting you were referring to?
[15:29:48] <Kev> emcho: It wasn't added to the agenda.
[15:29:57] <Kev> emcho: I'll make sure it's on next week's.
[15:30:08] <emcho> Kev: k thanks!
[15:30:09] <ralphm> stpeter: oh wow, that's classic. I'm not quite sure what to think about this JSON-encoded-XMPP-for-the-sake-of-BOSH
[15:30:27] <linuxwolf> /sigh
[15:30:48] <Kev> So, I think there's nothing to do with this protoXEP, it's just a proposal and soon we'll be voting on it, right?
[15:31:07] <ralphm> let's publish it
[15:31:15] <ralphm> +1
[15:31:20] <ralphm> if it comes up for vote
[15:31:46] <Kev> I'm impressed that it seems to take my ugly proposal from the April 1st XEP and make it less legible :D
[15:31:53] <MattJ> Kev, +1 :(
[15:32:12] <ralphm> they can battle!
[15:32:16] <Kev> Anyway.
[15:32:19] <Kev> AOAOB?
[15:32:19] <linuxwolf> ugh
[15:32:42] <linuxwolf> none from me
[15:32:51] <MattJ> None
[15:32:51] <ralphm> nope
[15:32:58] <Kev> Excellent.
[15:33:02] <Kev> Thanks all!
[15:33:03] <ralphm> hooray!
[15:33:05] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[15:33:09] *linuxwolf waves
[15:33:09] <Kev> 32 minutes :(
[15:33:12] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[15:33:14] <stpeter> Kev: check the date on that submission, though
[15:33:37] <stpeter> it predates yours, but there was some IPR wrangling at Nokia
[15:33:38] <ralphm> woah
[15:33:40] <Kev> stpeter: Oh. I wonder why I didn't remember this, then.
[15:33:54] <stpeter> Kev: because I never announced it until now
[15:33:58] <Kev> Excellent.
[15:33:59] <stpeter> this got lost in my inbox
[15:34:26] <stpeter> along with many other old topics
[15:34:52] *stpeter works to get his inbox back down from 5 to 0 :)
[15:35:04] <stpeter> emcho: sorry about the snafu, we'll get it on next week's agenda
[15:35:07] <fippo> stpeter: +1 @ 0178
[15:35:14] <stpeter> fippo: excellent, thanks
[15:35:15] <emcho> stpeter: no problem at all
[15:35:55] <MattJ> emcho, since discussions are currently happening on the list about Coin, it's probably wise to wait a week anyway
[15:36:10] <ralphm> I am not quite sure about JSON and extensibility in general
[15:36:14] <emcho> MattJ: yes that makes sense
[15:36:23] <stpeter> ralphm: me neither
[15:36:26] <MattJ> ralphm, I'm not sure I'm happy with this XEP :/
[15:36:29] <ralphm> What I am seeing happening at, for example, the activity streams stuff saddens me
[15:36:31] <stpeter> MattJ: true
[15:36:36] <Kev> ralphm: JSON isn't any less extensible than XML, you just need to make it horribly ugly to achieve the same things.
[15:36:41] <stpeter> :)
[15:36:48] <MattJ> It's a non-standard translation from XML to JSON
[15:37:01] <MattJ> Prosody could easily support JSON in BOSH (wait, it does since 1st April...)
[15:37:10] <Kev> :)
[15:37:13] <ralphm> Kev: that's my point. This is how it goes: 1) XML SUCKS! Let's use JSON, because it is *easier*
[15:37:19] <MattJ> But if we were to do it in the style of this XEP, we would use JSON that matches our internal stanza structures
[15:37:35] <ralphm> 2) hmm, we need to change how many values this attribute can have, let's up the version
[15:37:48] <ralphm> 3) hmm, we really need extensibility. Let's add namespaces.
[15:37:55] <MattJ> Otherwise we'd end up doing all kinds of transformations on the server that I'm sure would negate any performance advantages on the client
[15:37:56] <ralphm> 4) WOW. This is HORRIBLE!
[15:38:01] <ralphm> 5) Let's use XML?
[15:38:18] <Kev> Supporting this protoXEP seems to make the server work much harder.
[15:38:39] <Kev> ralphm: I think there are plenty of cases where JSON is a reasonable format, to be fair.
[15:38:54] <stpeter> ralphm: :)
[15:39:10] <ralphm> Kev: yes, but I don't think it quite works for an exchange standard between services
[15:39:15] <Kev> Right.
[15:39:26] <Kev> It works well when it's an internal transfer format.
[15:39:30] <Kev> e.g. Ajaxy things.
[15:39:30] <stpeter> right
[15:40:05] <stpeter> Kev: but internal is the new external
[15:40:17] <Kev> Please let's not get started with that silliness here.
[15:40:47] <ralphm> Well, it is used for APIs quite a bit too
[15:40:53] <stpeter> looks like I need to update http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/
[15:41:04] <stpeter> ralphm: it seems you were DNV on XEP 65
[15:41:08] <ralphm> and as long as those namespaces are controlled by one entity for a particular service, that's probably ok
[15:41:16] <ralphm> stpeter: noo?
[15:42:01] *** bene has left the room
[15:42:18] <ralphm> stpeter: that's sad. I am +1 on the changes. Didn't I pass this on?
[15:42:24] <Kev> NAFAIK.
[15:42:49] <ralphm> Let me get my time machine then.
[15:44:23] <ralphm> cya
[15:44:38] *** ralphm has left the room
[15:46:11] <stpeter> I might have missed it
[15:46:28] <stpeter> (sorry, was replying to email and processing XEPs so I missed ralphm)
[15:46:41] *stpeter updates the voting table and takes appropriate XEP Editor actions
[15:47:36] *stpeter scrolls up to determine action items
[15:50:13] *** emcho has left the room
[15:50:25] <stpeter> another action item for next week is http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensors.html (it's been updated to reflect earlier feedback)
[15:51:15] <Kev> Have they asked for another vote, then?
[15:52:01] <stpeter> they asked me if it could be reconsidered given that they'd updated it, yes
[15:53:01] <Kev> Ok.
[15:54:47] <stpeter> Kev: how are we handling new XEP authors now w.r.t. git check-ins?
[15:55:02] <fippo> stpeter: no action about 220 yet please - it seems some examples (13) are buggy and I still need to read the latest version
[15:55:29] <stpeter> fippo: right -- we're waiting for a vote from Nathan Fritz as well
[15:55:35] <stpeter> ack
[15:56:24] *stpeter reads http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/council/110420/ instead of continually scrolling up
[15:59:30] <Kev> stpeter: We use the Gitosis stuff to give them access, I guess.
[15:59:39] <Kev> Or just ask them to fork us on Gitorious and you can do stuff that way.
[16:01:04] <stpeter> the latter seems easier :)
[16:09:42] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/ updated
[16:13:40] <Kev> Thanks.
[16:13:44] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "I am away from my desk. Leave a message."
[16:14:18] <MattJ> > "My apologies for the error, naturally that is 2011-05-10."
[16:14:36] <MattJ> stpeter, I signed the date on a bank form the other day as "2009", you're forgiven :)
[16:17:16] <stpeter> haha
[16:17:24] <stpeter> at least I have the decade correct
[16:19:09] *stpeter corrects an error in http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/ (MW to vote on list about the dialback spec)
[16:28:39] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:49:49] *** fippo has left the room
[16:49:58] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[16:50:13] *** Kev shows as "online" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[17:05:26] *** bear shows as "online"
[17:44:23] *** Tobias has joined the room
[17:53:46] *** Tobias has left the room
[17:54:25] *** Tobias has joined the room
[18:28:08] *** Tobias has left the room
[19:01:35] *** Tobias has joined the room
[19:04:36] *** Kooda shows as "dnd"
[19:18:35] *** Tobias has left the room
[19:18:43] *** Tobias has joined the room
[19:18:44] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:19:01] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:33:02] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[19:35:37] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[19:35:58] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:36:50] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:16:40] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[20:17:40] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[20:50:50] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[20:57:18] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[21:06:54] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[21:10:39] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[21:12:56] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:22:58] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[21:38:54] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:49:02] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:04:29] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[22:06:12] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[22:06:54] *** Kev shows as "away" and his status message is "http://swift.im/releases/swift-1.0/"
[22:12:09] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[22:14:51] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:15:37] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[22:23:52] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being too idle"
[22:53:53] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of not being here"
[23:24:55] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[23:31:46] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "détaché"
[23:41:21] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[23:42:58] *** stpeter has left the room
[23:51:29] *** Tobias has left the room