XMPP Council - 2011-07-06


  1. Kev has joined
  2. Kev has left
  3. Kev has joined
  4. mlundblad has joined
  5. stpeter has joined
  6. Fritzy has joined
  7. linuxwolf has joined
  8. MattJ has joined
  9. stpeter hmm, I need to push out revised versions of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-precis-framework/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis/ before the document deadline next Monday....
  10. Kev And ding, 4pm.
  11. Kev Are we sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.
  12. Kev stpeter: That sounds fun.
  13. stpeter yes, fun indeed
  14. Kev 1) Roll Call
  15. Kev I'm here.
  16. Fritzy here
  17. linuxwolf presente
  18. MattJ Here
  19. linuxwolf omfg…we actually have a Fritzy! (-:
  20. Kev Huzzah.
  21. Kev 2) Agenda bashing.
  22. stpeter laughs
  23. Kev I've noted adding Compliance.
  24. Fritzy none
  25. linuxwolf AOB, mabye
  26. linuxwolf maybe even
  27. Kev Ok.
  28. Kev 3) Accept 1.1rc2 of XEP-0143 ("Guidelines for Authors of XMPP Extension Protocols"). http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0143-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0143/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc2
  29. MattJ This has been nagging at me for a while
  30. MattJ Why do we have agenda bashing /and/ AOB? :)
  31. Kev MattJ: I have no idea, and often wondered that.
  32. Fritzy that sounds like a topic for AOB
  33. Fritzy ;)
  34. MattJ Kev, you have the power!
  35. stpeter agenda bashing could include removing items, I'd think
  36. linuxwolf that's what I was about to say, @Fritzy (-:
  37. Kev But I treot Agenda Bashing as Things Wot Require Votes, and AOB as discussion points.
  38. Kev In any case...
  39. Kev 3) Accept 1.1rc2 of XEP-0143 ("Guidelines for Authors of XMPP Extension Protocols"). http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0143-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0143/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc2
  40. MattJ Fair enough
  41. Kev I'm +1.
  42. MattJ Me too
  43. MattJ I haven't read it in detail so maybe missed anything editorial
  44. Fritzy +1
  45. linuxwolf I'll vote on list
  46. MattJ But I like this XEP and these changes
  47. Kev I wonder if it's sensible to reference something else for the instructions on how to submit a patch, just so Peter doesn't require Council approval if he changes his favourite Git workflow, but I don't mind.
  48. Fritzy ah, that's probably a good idea for a future revision. ;)
  49. linuxwolf /nod
  50. stpeter probably not a bad idea for the Council to be aware of how things are done
  51. Kev Maybe it's sensible to require approval so Peter can't require authors to jump through hoops :)
  52. ralphm has joined
  53. Fritzy Or "future evil editor"
  54. ralphm hello
  55. Kev 4) Reverting the compliance suites.
  56. Fritzy howdy
  57. ralphm +1 on #3
  58. Fritzy what does that mean exactly (#4)
  59. Kev Are we agreed that Peter reverting the compliance suite 6120/3920 references was the right thing?
  60. Kev Fritzy: Was typing.
  61. MattJ I'm agreed
  62. Kev I think we didn't intend the compliance suites to be updated in the first place when we issued the blanket "please update everything".
  63. ralphm the reverting is good
  64. linuxwolf /agreed
  65. Kev Good.
  66. Fritzy ok
  67. Kev 5) Compliance 2012.
  68. Kev Do we want compliance suites this year?
  69. MattJ +1, IMHO
  70. MattJ I've always been a fan of the compliance XEPs, even though not as much has been made of them that could have been
  71. MattJ I think they're worth the small amount of effort
  72. linuxwolf +1 also
  73. linuxwolf they help authors determine what's in, and what they can cut corners on
  74. Kev I guess the logical follow-up question is what goes in them :)
  75. linuxwolf well, we could use the previous versions as a starting point (-:
  76. Fritzy sounds logical
  77. Kev I think we skipped 2011, making http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0270.html the most recent.
  78. linuxwolf then s/392[01]/612\1/g (-:
  79. stpeter yes we skipped 2011
  80. linuxwolf I don't think we need a new suite every year…but it's worth it now with the new XMPP specs
  81. Kev I'd like to strike -16 off the list, and replace it with 191.
  82. Kev I don't like -16.
  83. Fritzy :)
  84. stpeter yeah I don't either
  85. Kev Well, 'replace'. 191 is already there.
  86. Kev Otherwise, that looks like a fairly sensible base.
  87. Kev I'm not sure what else we'd particularly need on there.
  88. linuxwolf I'd like to add −201
  89. Fritzy should someone copy it up and put it in inbox for next meeting?
  90. linuxwolf maybe −296 if I can get it updated (-:
  91. linuxwolf Fritzy: +1
  92. linuxwolf and thanks for volunteering? (-:
  93. stpeter heh
  94. Kev I'm not entirely convinced about 201.
  95. linuxwolf I am
  96. Kev 296 seems much more valuable.
  97. linuxwolf I have a couple of nits to clean up in 296
  98. darkrain has joined
  99. linuxwolf but I can also see about starting on this compliance 2012
  100. Kev Shall we take it to list, then, and you can justify including 201 there? :)
  101. linuxwolf (-:
  102. linuxwolf it's not a hill for me to die on
  103. MattJ I'd be unsure of very recent XEPs in compliance suites
  104. Kev MattJ: Yes, me too, except that 296 is documenting best practice.
  105. linuxwolf exactly
  106. stpeter types 'cp xep-0270.xml inbox/compliance2012.xml
  107. linuxwolf it's something a lot of clients are already doing
  108. linuxwolf well, the "good" clients (-:
  109. linuxwolf stpeter: hehe
  110. ralphm :-D
  111. Kev Although maybe referencing experimental XEPs in a compliance suite isn't smart.
  112. Kev I wonder if any of the others are.
  113. ralphm I fully agree there
  114. linuxwolf ok, so then I'll propose 296 move forward? (-:
  115. ralphm so I suppose stuff needs to happen before 2012
  116. Fritzy haha
  117. Kev Right.
  118. linuxwolf ralphm: we can start on it, but yes
  119. Kev So rough idea for the moment is to make compliance 2012 = 2010 + 6120 -16, and to consider threads and locking on-list?
  120. MattJ +1
  121. linuxwolf sure
  122. Kev Ok.
  123. Kev 6) Date of next meeting.
  124. Kev SBTSBC?
  125. MattJ +1
  126. linuxwolf +1
  127. Fritzy +1
  128. MattJ whether I can make it I don't know yet, I won't know until next week
  129. MattJ I'll try to send apologies in advance if I can't
  130. Kev Ta.
  131. Kev 7) Any other agenda bashing?
  132. Fritzy uh, AOB vs. Agenda Bashing?
  133. Fritzy ;)
  134. linuxwolf 1) a nit in 0297, the namespace is "urn:xmpp:forward:tmp", but it should be "urn:xmpp:forward:0", yes?
  135. linuxwolf 2) did anyone ever follow up on the xep-0220 discussion?
  136. stpeter I did not follow up on dialback
  137. stpeter that was my action item
  138. Kev linuxwolf: It should be, really, yes, now it's accepted.
  139. MattJ +1
  140. MattJ to #1
  141. MattJ and to following up on 220 as well
  142. linuxwolf Kev: I'm starting on an update to carbons, including msg-fwd, and found that little nit (-:
  143. Kev Wonderful, thanks.
  144. Kev I'll poke the authors.
  145. linuxwolf (-:
  146. stpeter I'll send the 220 message now before I do a deep dive on i18n madness
  147. linuxwolf I can provide you a patch (-:
  148. Kev I wouldn't bother, unless you've already done it :)
  149. linuxwolf I think I have…in one of my clones (-:
  150. Kev I suspect it'd take as long to apply the patch as to write it.
  151. linuxwolf Kev: yeah, pretty much
  152. Kev Aaaaanything else?
  153. ralphm nope
  154. linuxwolf nay from me
  155. Fritzy nodda
  156. Kev I'll try to remember to not include agenda bashing next time, and we can bash on-list, or AOB in the meeting.
  157. Kev Right, if we're all done...
  158. Kev Thanks all.
  159. Kev gangs the bavel.
  160. stpeter scrolls up to see if needs to do anything with 143 yet
  161. stpeter ah no, lw to vote on list
  162. linuxwolf stpeter: I didn't read the changes yet, sorry!
  163. stpeter no worries
  164. linuxwolf likes to read first, vote second (-:
  165. stpeter details, details
  166. linuxwolf ok, off to prep for my next meeting...adios
  167. Kev Enjoy.
  168. stpeter enjoy!
  169. linuxwolf today's light…only 3 (-:
  170. stpeter heh
  171. darkrain has left
  172. ralphm has left
  173. Fritzy has left
  174. stpeter ok I looked at the XEP-0220 issues
  175. stpeter at least briefly
  176. stpeter it is very frustrating
  177. stpeter and I have some IETF deadlines so I might need to delay real work on this until Tuesday
  178. Kev I'm sure it'll wait.
  179. stpeter I am about ready to suggest that Philipp and I need to work on separate specifications of the protocol, and the Council can decide which one it wants to advance -- until then, RFC 3920 will remain the canonical documentation
  180. MattJ That would be sad, but if it needs to happen to further the specs, so be it
  181. stpeter not sure yet -- I'll try to reach some consensus on the list
  182. stpeter sends a conciliatory note
  183. MattJ stpeter, you're a trouble-maker ;)
  184. linuxwolf /-:
  185. stpeter sorry, I got annoyed
  186. stpeter there's no reason to be so snarky
  187. stpeter we're all trying to work toegher on this stuff
  188. stpeter together, even
  189. MattJ +1, your last email is fine by me
  190. linuxwolf I think I would have been ruder, myself (-:
  191. stpeter and http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber still contains numerous errors, but I don't publicly question their motives
  192. MattJ Don't remind me that page exists
  193. MattJ It's better than it used to be, at least
  194. MattJ Mainly since it no longer has the out-of-context quote of me
  195. stpeter ok, enough dialback for today, now I need to crank out a bunch of internationalization work and put together some slides for a presentation about XMPP on Friday before some "smart grid" group
  196. MattJ What's the not-so-smart grid?
  197. stpeter the dumb grid
  198. stpeter how electricity gets to your house :)
  199. stpeter people are making it smarter using demand-response technologies and such
  200. MattJ Evidently
  201. stpeter in fact they're already using XMPP (some of them, anyway)
  202. stpeter "price went up, you might want to turn off the clothes dryer" and such
  203. stpeter but the folks using XMPP are doing commercial and industrial applications mostly
  204. Kev They should purchase Swiften licenses to use as their libraries...
  205. stpeter Kev: good idea, I'll let them know ;-)
  206. stpeter also some embedded stuff -- actual XMPP-enabled washers and dryers and such
  207. Kev They should...
  208. stpeter it's a bit crazy ;-)
  209. stpeter the sensors stuff is semi-related -- I never saw further replies to those threads, though...
  210. stpeter anyway, bbiab
  211. MattJ :)
  212. MattJ brb, need to relocate to a printer
  213. linuxwolf I think it's time for lunch…bbl
  214. MattJ has left
  215. stpeter lunch is a good idea
  216. mlundblad has left
  217. mlundblad has joined
  218. linuxwolf has left
  219. linuxwolf has joined
  220. Kooda has joined
  221. Kooda has joined
  222. mlundblad has left
  223. linuxwolf has left