Wednesday, August 17, 2011
council@muc.xmpp.org
August
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

[11:38:00] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "I am away from my desk. Leave a message."
[13:05:02] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:20:57] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:50:49] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:54:11] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:58:56] *** ralphm has joined the room
[15:00:13] <stpeter> greetings
[15:00:29] *linuxwolf waves
[15:00:43] <ralphm> Goeiemiddag!
[15:00:48] <stpeter> :)
[15:01:19] <Kev> Afternoon.
[15:02:10] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF Council Meeting"
[15:02:24] *stpeter joins a concurrent conference call
[15:02:30] <linuxwolf> heh
[15:02:48] <stpeter> I'm the IESG liaison to the IETF Tools Team :)
[15:03:05] <ralphm> I am doing a release
[15:03:24] <Kev> Wonderful.
[15:03:32] <Kev> We're all at the top of our game then :)
[15:03:43] <stpeter> heh
[15:03:48] <linuxwolf> (-:
[15:04:17] <Kev> MattJ's on his way.
[15:04:38] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[15:04:40] <Kev> I'm here.
[15:04:41] *** MattJ has joined the room
[15:04:41] <linuxwolf> presente
[15:04:48] <MattJ> Me too!
[15:04:48] <Kev> Fritzy sent apologies.
[15:05:26] <stpeter> yep, saw that
[15:05:34] *** Tobias has joined the room
[15:05:34] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:05:34] <Kev> Righty, I'll assume ralphm's still here.
[15:05:53] <Kev> 2) Agenda bashing^w^w http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0260.html - move to draft?
[15:06:11] <Kev> We've still not got much feedback on this, but I think we've probably got all we're likely to now.
[15:06:17] <linuxwolf> /nod
[15:06:20] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "on a conference call"
[15:06:23] <ralphm> yes
[15:06:26] <MattJ> Yeah, I'm prepared to +1 it
[15:06:26] <Kev> Without invoking thumbscrews, anyway.
[15:06:32] <stpeter> :)
[15:06:34] <MattJ> It's always an option ;)
[15:06:38] <linuxwolf> heh
[15:06:42] <linuxwolf> +1, btw
[15:06:47] <ralphm> +1
[15:06:57] <Kev> I'd like to give it a once-through, which I didn't have a chance to do today as I'd planned, so I expect to vote onlist tomorrow or thereabouts.
[15:07:02] <Kev> Depending how fun work is.
[15:07:07] <stpeter> Kev: thanks
[15:07:30] <Kev> We'll be waiting for Nathan's vote anyway, so hopefully I'm not holding things up.
[15:07:41] <Kev> 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0261.html - move to draft?
[15:07:43] <Kev> Same applies from me.
[15:07:54] <linuxwolf> +1 also
[15:08:04] <MattJ> Ditto
[15:08:06] <ralphm> +1
[15:08:27] <stpeter> MattJ: what does "Ditto" mean for you?
[15:08:53] <Kev> "as above"
[15:09:00] <linuxwolf> his above, or yours? (-:
[15:09:05] <MattJ> stpeter, same again
[15:09:10] <Kev> 4) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/quickstart.html to experimental
[15:09:24] <Kev> +1 here, although we can shave a bit more off.
[15:09:52] <stpeter> MattJ: does "Ditto" mean "It's always an option ;)" for XEP-0261, too? or is that +1 to both? :)
[15:10:07] <linuxwolf> I'm +1 on quickstart
[15:10:11] <stpeter> Kev: yes, that was a rough "think piece" -- it needs polishing for sure
[15:10:30] <MattJ> stpeter, it's +1, with linuxwolf and Kev (provisionally)
[15:11:10] <MattJ> I had notes on the XEPs, but they're on my PC at home, I may be able to get hold of them this week
[15:11:15] <Kev> ralphm: Quickstart?
[15:11:16] <stpeter> ok
[15:11:18] <ralphm> +1
[15:11:27] <MattJ> But as I recall it was mostly editorial (and I think they may have been long fixed)
[15:11:27] <Kev> MattJ: Quickstart?
[15:11:39] <ralphm> there seems to be some room for improvement according to some
[15:11:40] <MattJ> Quickstart... +1 for acceptance
[15:11:48] <Kev> ralphm: Always :)
[15:11:53] <Kev> 5) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mucstatus.html - Experimental?
[15:12:00] <MattJ> I haven't read the ML threads on it at all, but I think it's a good start
[15:12:01] <Kev> +1 from me.
[15:12:09] <MattJ> +1 too
[15:12:10] <ralphm> +1. I was wondering if a new namespace is needed but other than that, yay?
[15:12:25] <linuxwolf> +1 also
[15:12:32] <Kev> Fab.
[15:12:55] <stpeter> ralphm: you think we could use an existing namespace?
[15:12:55] <Kev> 6) Roadmap for the rest of the session.
[15:13:01] <stpeter> n/m
[15:13:11] <ralphm> stpeter: I believe the conditions would only be used in muc#user
[15:13:16] <Kev> I'm not sure what point us having a roadmap serves, really - we'll vote on whatever the XEP Editor puts in front of us :)
[15:13:21] <stpeter> haha
[15:13:25] <Kev> stpeter: What were you thinking of?
[15:13:31] <ralphm> so we could maybe just make <conditions/> and its childs part of that namespace
[15:13:36] <stpeter> "what were you thinking?!" :)
[15:13:57] <stpeter> Kev: is there anything we'd like to push toward finishing? personally I'd like to at least get the MUC edits done
[15:14:16] <MattJ> Well, as a personal roadmap I still want to get archiving officially submitted
[15:14:20] <Kev> I'd like to get the MUC edits done, it'd be satisfying end.
[15:14:28] <MattJ> I don't think it's far off, I just need to schedule some weekend time to see it through
[15:14:33] <stpeter> MattJ: cool
[15:14:40] <Kev> Maybe I should get XEP-Correct submitted, it's been deployed for ages now.
[15:14:51] <Tobias> ages?
[15:14:54] <stpeter> Kev: and Kurt's security labels stuff perhaps
[15:15:01] <linuxwolf> /nod
[15:15:07] <MattJ> Tobias, internet ages :)
[15:15:09] <Kev> Labels are probably ready to advance, yeah.
[15:15:12] <MattJ> ie. weeks
[15:15:18] <Kev> Months!
[15:15:22] <MattJ> *gasp*
[15:15:28] <linuxwolf> focus
[15:15:28] *stpeter consults http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-roadmap/
[15:15:42] <Kev> Does anyone have the official end of term date to hand?
[15:16:01] <stpeter> Kev: we don't know quite yet, depends on election schedule -- I'd think mid-October
[15:16:05] <Kev> OK.
[15:16:07] <linuxwolf> it's the meeting before counil/board elections? (-:
[15:16:13] <stpeter> ok, those seem like good priorities
[15:16:21] <Kev> I'm going to be wanting to miss three sessions starting 31st August, I think.
[15:16:27] <Kev> s/sessions/meetings/
[15:16:37] <linuxwolf> ok
[15:16:38] <MattJ> Ah, ouch, perhaps me too...
[15:16:43] <MattJ> Well, starting a little later
[15:16:50] <linuxwolf> eek
[15:16:51] <stpeter> Tobias: when you're finish with GSoC, perhaps we can try to finish off XEP-0234, too
[15:17:02] <stpeter> +ed
[15:17:02] <Tobias> sure
[15:17:06] <MattJ> I need to look at a calendar, but I don't know if I'll have internet for a couple of weeks from 8th September
[15:17:11] <Kev> So perhaps we'll have a couple of weeks off around the start of September, and come back to hurriedly vote everything through at the end of Sept / start of Aug.
[15:17:13] <stpeter> MattJ: ok
[15:17:18] <stpeter> right
[15:17:19] <MattJ> I rather likely shall, but... just in case
[15:17:29] <linuxwolf> Kev: you mean start of Oct
[15:17:38] <Kev> linuxwolf: Very probably.
[15:17:40] <stpeter> BTW I finished with XEP-0045 yesterday -- I'll start poking people for reviews
[15:17:44] <ralphm> For me, having Jingle and MUC progress seems reasonable for this term
[15:17:58] *linuxwolf goes to kill some trees printing XEP-0045
[15:18:07] <stpeter> haha
[15:18:17] <Kev> Righty.
[15:18:19] <stpeter> that's all from me
[15:18:21] <Kev> 7) Next meeting
[15:18:24] <Kev> Next Wed?
[15:18:29] <linuxwolf> wfm
[15:18:30] <stpeter> WFM
[15:18:35] <linuxwolf> oh, I do have an AOB (-:
[15:18:49] <ralphm> aw, man!
[15:18:57] <Kev> MattJ / ralphm: next Wed?
[15:19:00] <ralphm> +1
[15:19:02] <MattJ> +1
[15:19:07] <Kev> 8) AOB.
[15:19:10] <stpeter> sheesh, next Wed is August 24th already?!?
[15:19:15] <MattJ> I know :/
[15:19:16] <linuxwolf> yup
[15:19:17] <ralphm> time flies
[15:19:22] <linuxwolf> anyhow...
[15:19:23] <linuxwolf> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/keepalive.html
[15:19:34] <linuxwolf> we never did promote this or otherwise
[15:19:42] <Kev> ~I was told a million times of all the troubles in my way...
[15:19:53] <ralphm> ah yes, I chuckle everytime I see this one
[15:20:46] <ralphm> not that it is bad, by the way. Just all that added protocol for sending around whitespace
[15:20:53] <linuxwolf> /shrug
[15:20:58] <ralphm> I am +1 on making this experimental
[15:21:23] <MattJ> Part of me thinks we should scrap the negotiation and just leave it up to deployments (which is how it is done now)
[15:21:41] <linuxwolf> MattJ: the trick is in-office vs. mobile vs...
[15:22:02] <linuxwolf> I suppose one could run a set of connection managers in the "bad" places and another for the rest of us… (-:
[15:22:03] <MattJ> I don't think the case is very different, especially when 198 is in play
[15:22:17] <MattJ> A dropped connection is a dropped connection
[15:22:47] <Kev> So, shall we treat this as a ~vote?
[15:22:57] <Kev> I'm not strictly against throwing this up as experimental.
[15:23:09] <Kev> I'm not particularly in favour of it either.
[15:23:15] <MattJ> Me neither
[15:23:23] <MattJ> Who said we need to be more accepting? :)
[15:23:29] <linuxwolf> heh
[15:23:31] <MattJ> or was it more rejecting?
[15:23:41] <Kev> linuxwolf: So what's your position?
[15:23:47] <stpeter> I don't have strong feelings about this one -- we'll see if there's energy and interest
[15:24:02] <MattJ> Ok, then publish it as experimental and we'll see how it fares
[15:24:12] <linuxwolf> I'm +1 to experimental
[15:24:16] <MattJ> I see no reason not to, and that's enough for me
[15:24:18] <Kev> I don't see a technical reason to block it, so I'm not.
[15:24:32] <ralphm> that's that then
[15:24:33] <Kev> OK, I guess we should leave it a fortnight for Fritzy to comment or such, given that this fell through the gaps.
[15:24:44] <MattJ> Thanks linuxwolf for reviving it :)
[15:24:44] <Kev> Or 10 days, or whatever period we decided was right.
[15:24:46] <linuxwolf> this was first published a month ago
[15:24:55] <ralphm> what linuxwolf syas
[15:24:57] <linuxwolf> technically, we're well past that
[15:25:04] <ralphm> and I don't think it counts as a DNV
[15:25:07] <linuxwolf> and we did discuss it then, too
[15:25:14] <Kev> What did we conclude, then?
[15:25:15] <ralphm> nobody objected so nobody objecte
[15:25:16] <ralphm> d
[15:25:27] <linuxwolf> exactly
[15:25:28] <linuxwolf> (-:
[15:25:30] <Kev> I had remembered discussing it, was surprised it hadn't been actioned (yay, verbs)
[15:25:39] <linuxwolf> haha
[15:25:43] <Kev> I don't remember what we said at the time, though.
[15:25:53] <Kev> In any case, we're done unless someone else has OB.
[15:25:54] <linuxwolf> none of us present objected
[15:26:02] <linuxwolf> Fritzy had yet to comment
[15:26:13] <linuxwolf> and I think Ralphm joined too late to say something (-:
[15:26:21] <Kev> Righty.
[15:26:23] <stpeter> sigh, I have another conference call after this one :)
[15:26:24] <Kev> Yes, publish, then.
[15:26:33] <Kev> OK, I'm not hearing any other business, so thanks all.
[15:26:40] <linuxwolf> none from me
[15:26:48] *Kev angs the avel.
[15:26:56] <linuxwolf> heh
[15:27:04] <stpeter> Kev: would you like to buy a "b"?
[15:27:16] *Kev angs the bavel.
[15:27:22] <stpeter> :)
[15:27:30] <linuxwolf> oy vey
[15:30:08] <MattJ> :)
[15:30:17] <MattJ> Now, one more meeting before I can sleep...
[15:30:22] <MattJ> bbl
[15:30:45] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:33:00] <stpeter> thanks, guys
[15:33:06] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:33:10] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:40:57] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:45:46] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[16:07:12] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:07:22] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[16:08:10] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[16:09:15] *** Kev shows as "online"
[16:11:43] *** Tobias has joined the room
[16:11:44] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:12:25] *** Tobias has left the room
[16:21:22] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:32:32] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:36:49] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[16:37:03] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:40:52] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[16:50:19] *** MattJ has left the room
[17:14:20] *** bear shows as "online"
[17:20:20] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting"
[17:21:54] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[17:23:25] *** ralphm has left the room
[17:31:11] *** Tobias has joined the room
[17:31:11] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[17:32:09] <Tobias> on MUC finishing: wasn't there a discussion sometime back on using SASL for logging into protected rooms instead of specifying the plain text password?
[17:33:03] <Kev> Tobias: There was a discussion, yes.
[17:33:37] <Tobias> Kev, but nothing came out of it, right?
[17:34:04] <Kev> Right.
[17:34:32] <stpeter> I think that would be an extension
[17:34:46] <stpeter> I wrote an email about it at least but the feedback wasn't great :)
[17:34:57] <Tobias> yeah...just came to mind while working on something
[17:35:07] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/remote-auth.html
[17:35:15] <stpeter> in fact more than an email :)
[17:35:35] <stpeter> feedback is welcome
[18:11:48] *** Tobias has left the room
[18:12:07] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "I am away from my desk. Leave a message."
[18:25:53] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "lunch"
[18:36:25] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:36:30] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[18:49:24] *** Tobias has joined the room
[18:49:25] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[18:52:53] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:04:25] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[19:09:17] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:10:08] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:42:08] <stpeter> ok, let me review the meeting log here and see what action items are required of the Editor :)
[19:44:00] <stpeter> well, apparently we need to wait for Fritzy to weigh in, so no actions for me
[20:00:37] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "on a conference call"
[20:06:55] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[20:08:01] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[20:08:23] <linuxwolf> stpeter: actually, no, we're not waiting for fritzy (-:
[20:10:22] <linuxwolf> we had already discussed keepalive at the 7/20 meeting, with no objections from that session
[20:10:28] <linuxwolf> s/session/meeting/
[20:11:22] <linuxwolf> we're already well past the "no objections" time set by XEP 1
[21:14:00] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:23:53] *** Tobias has left the room
[21:31:00] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "running an errand"
[22:15:03] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:15:03] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[22:33:38] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[22:35:09] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[22:35:15] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[22:35:25] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[23:00:59] <stpeter> hmm, yes, linuxwolf is right about the keepalive spec
[23:04:26] *** stpeter has left the room