Wednesday, November 23, 2011
council@muc.xmpp.org
November
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

[00:36:31] *** linuxwolf shows as "online" and his status message is "pee tee oh"
[00:54:07] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[00:54:09] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[01:02:36] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[01:13:38] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[01:50:26] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[02:17:42] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[03:05:04] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[03:12:43] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[03:50:16] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[08:34:46] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:34:48] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:50:43] *** Tobias has left the room
[08:53:14] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:53:15] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[09:23:10] *** Tobias has left the room
[09:40:40] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:40:41] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[09:49:27] *** Tobias has left the room
[09:49:56] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:49:56] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:18:27] *** Tobias has left the room
[10:46:58] *** Tobias has joined the room
[10:46:58] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:23:38] *** ralphm has left the room
[13:58:20] *** Tobias has left the room
[15:16:53] *** Zash has joined the room
[15:16:53] *** Zash shows as "online"
[15:42:38] *** Zash shows as "away"
[16:02:51] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[16:07:10] *** ralphm has joined the room
[16:23:37] *** stpeter has joined the room
[16:38:26] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:38:32] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[16:42:09] *** Tobias has joined the room
[16:42:19] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:47:31] *** MattJ has joined the room
[16:48:25] <MattJ> The IETF is like one long roadshow
[16:48:48] <ralphm> Heh
[16:48:53] <MattJ> When they perform in London I'm going to buy tickets
[16:49:10] <ralphm> Do they have T-shirts with all venues and their dates, yet?
[16:49:41] <stpeter> ralphm: for those who've attended all the meetings, yes
[16:49:44] <MattJ> They wouldn't have t-shirts large enough
[16:50:12] <stpeter> MattJ: has a meeting in London been announced?
[16:50:36] <MattJ> stpeter, not that I'm aware of
[16:51:21] <stpeter> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html
[16:51:24] <stpeter> nope
[16:55:21] *** waqas has joined the room
[17:01:56] <Kev> Righty.
[17:02:03] <Kev> Shall we have a meeting then? :)
[17:02:11] <Tobias> yup
[17:02:15] <Kev> 1) Roll call
[17:02:17] <Kev> I'm here.
[17:02:22] <linuxwolf> Jeebus
[17:02:25] <linuxwolf> her
[17:02:27] <linuxwolf> here even
[17:02:31] <MattJ> Hair
[17:02:33] <MattJ> *Here
[17:02:52] <Kev> ralphm: ?
[17:02:57] *stpeter notes that linuxwolf is supposed to be on vacation right now
[17:03:07] <Kev> Bad linuxwolf, bad.
[17:03:18] *linuxwolf notes that XSF doesn't feel quite like work work
[17:03:39] <MattJ> !
[17:03:42] <linuxwolf> kids decided to start pestering me just as Kev bangs the start gavel
[17:03:45] *Kev pokes Ralph.
[17:04:21] <ralphm> here
[17:04:25] <Kev> Excellent.
[17:04:28] <Kev> 2) Selection of a new Chair.
[17:04:29] <MattJ> ETOOMANYMEETINGS
[17:04:40] <Kev> I'm happy to do this again, or happy for someone else to.
[17:04:48] <Kev> Anyone fancy cat herding?
[17:04:54] <MattJ> I'm happy for you to if you're happy to
[17:05:06] <linuxwolf> ditto
[17:05:14] <Tobias> same here
[17:05:29] <stpeter> another year of the Kev dictatorship?!? ;-)
[17:05:33] <MattJ> For the record if I was chair, the 30 minute meeting rule would be on the block
[17:05:40] <MattJ> So it's best Kev stays
[17:05:44] <linuxwolf> heh
[17:05:48] <Kev> stpeter: Benevolent.
[17:05:53] <stpeter> Kev: natch :)
[17:05:58] <linuxwolf> mostly benevolent (-;
[17:06:08] <Kev> linuxwolf: Benevolent when it's in my interests.
[17:06:13] <linuxwolf> heh
[17:06:39] <ralphm> +1 for kev
[17:06:48] <ralphm> also, I am experiencing a lot of lag
[17:06:49] *Kev rubs his hands with evil glee
[17:06:54] <stpeter> heehee
[17:07:00] <linuxwolf> can I change my vote? (-;
[17:07:10] <Kev> ralphm: That's ok, you've done the important bit now, you can vote for everything else on-list :D
[17:07:20] <ralphm> hehe
[17:07:22] <Kev> Right.
[17:07:29] <Kev> 3) XEP-0068
Accept new version?

[17:07:51] <Kev> This was the x- stuff in http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0068-1.2.html, as I recall
[17:07:57] <stpeter> yes
[17:08:24] <stpeter> do you guys need the diff again? I posted it to the council@ list a while back
[17:08:31] <Kev> I don't, thanks.
[17:08:41] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[17:09:06] <MattJ> I do :)
[17:09:08] <MattJ> Looking for it
[17:09:10] <Kev> So, I was reading this earlier, and while I'm not opposed to dropping x-, especially if those smart IETF guys want us to, I'd like some more guidance in -68 about what to do instead, I think, to avoid conflicts.
[17:09:12] <MattJ> and... where's HAL, hmm
[17:09:19] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1
[17:09:25] <MattJ> HAL says this one: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1
[17:09:30] <MattJ> Oh, you're faster than he is :)
[17:09:53] <MattJ> Ah yes, memory jogged
[17:10:26] <Kev> stpeter: I was wondering about maybe something like suggesting people use project-specific (or similar) names.
[17:10:36] <Kev> So as to reduce the chance of conflicts.
[17:10:52] <linuxwolf> at one point, I thought we'd suggested using Clark-notation with your own namespace
[17:10:58] <Kev> Or is that, too, in opposition to the X-Dash
[17:11:04] <linuxwolf> e.g. {http://example.com/protocol/foo}myfield
[17:11:11] <stpeter> there are some recommendations in the xdash I-D
[17:11:19] <Kev> stpeter: Right, but not in -68.
[17:11:24] <stpeter> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash
[17:11:43] <stpeter> sure, I'd be fine with adding those to -68 as well
[17:11:47] <stpeter> there's not big hurry
[17:12:00] <Kev> I wonder if updating to match xdash is premature, too.
[17:12:13] <stpeter> I just don't to publish an RFC about how x- is bad while -68 says the opposite :)
[17:12:23] <Kev> stpeter: Duplication isn't strictly necessary, but some sort of onward pointer seems to be.
[17:12:35] <Kev> (Beyond the proposed "Don't use x- because xdash says not to)
[17:12:45] <stpeter> Kev: we could certainly wait at least until after the WGLC in the APPSAWG @ IETF
[17:12:58] <MattJ> "SHOULD identify a convention to allow local or implementation-specific extensions, and reserve delimeters for such uses as needed."
[17:13:01] <Kev> Excellent. My first vote of term is a -1. I feel good.
[17:13:02] <ralphm> what linuxwolf said
[17:13:05] <ralphm> alternatively, we have existing 'scoping' with pubsub# and muc#
[17:13:18] <ralphm> damn lag
[17:13:23] <linuxwolf> (-:
[17:13:46] <MattJ> Ok, idea... a note in -0068 about xdash potentially being the future?
[17:13:49] <Kev> So, agreement to hold off until a) WGLC and b) some suggestions for alternatives in a new 1.2?
[17:14:02] <linuxwolf> Kev: +1
[17:14:08] <Kev> I'm happy with a note saying "xdash looks like the future" right now, if people would rather that, yes.
[17:14:12] <linuxwolf> (to your suggestions)
[17:14:12] <MattJ> That way we acknowledge the xdash movement, without committing to it
[17:14:22] <stpeter> WFM
[17:14:31] <Tobias> Kev, sounds reasonable..so yes
[17:14:39] <MattJ> We need a "council note" element in XEPML :)
[17:14:47] <stpeter> heh
[17:14:48] <Kev> MattJ: I've suggested that before, I think.
[17:14:52] <linuxwolf> that's not a bad idea, actually
[17:14:53] <MattJ> I think you have
[17:15:06] *stpeter notes that some RFCs contain "IESG Note" sections
[17:15:06] <Kev> (I say "I think", but what I really mean is "I'm very sure I have")
[17:15:27] <linuxwolf> that sounds like an AOB item to me (-:
[17:15:29] <Kev> Golly, time is getting on.
[17:15:32] <MattJ> Heh
[17:15:32] *** bear has joined the room
[17:15:35] <Kev> So, I think we've discussed this to death.
[17:15:47] <Kev> 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc3.html
Accept as Experimental
[17:15:58] <linuxwolf> ah, less controversial items
[17:16:04] <MattJ> Heh
[17:16:04] <Kev> linuxwolf: Possibly :)
[17:16:05] <linuxwolf> </sarcasm>
[17:17:05] <Kev> So, my reading of this was (a few weeks ago) that it's a fourth DMUC spec, using pretty much the approach of the third (FMUC) with some uglies.
[17:17:34] <Kev> And that, given FMUC's mine, I'll pretty much defer to the rest of Council on whether to accept or not.
[17:17:41] <MattJ> Would you highlight the uglies (in an email if many)?
[17:17:53] <MattJ> I think I'll vote on list after reviewing both specs
[17:17:56] <Kev> That'd mean me re-reading. Let me scan now, I've not re-read this week.
[17:17:59] <linuxwolf> can you provide me a link to fmuc?
[17:18:25] <MattJ> The scary thing is that none of these XEPs are the way I would do it :P
[17:18:41] <Kev> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0289.html
[17:18:44] <linuxwolf> MattJ: the best thing about standards is there's so many of them
[17:19:00] <ralphm> MattJ: submit a dmuc4 (we started at 0?)
[17:19:01] <linuxwolf> grazie
[17:19:11] <MattJ> There are two, mine, and everyone else's
[17:19:12] <Kev> MattJ: You may be solving a different problem - I think the drive for DMUC/FMUC at the moment is largely for slightly specialist deployments.
[17:19:18] <linuxwolf> oh, FMUC expires next week
[17:19:46] <Kev> Anyway, dmuc3 does things like sending rosters in a new namespace, instead of re-using the current MUC notation, or the iq:roster notation.
[17:19:51] <Tobias> i'd also be nice if new XEP on this topic would have a short section on comparison against the already existing approaches of nearly the same thing
[17:20:02] <MattJ> Kev, indeed, most of these are designed around different (but similar) requirements
[17:20:03] <Kev> It does message forwarding not using the message forwarding spec.
[17:20:07] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting"
[17:20:23] <MattJ> By dropping some requirements you can vastly increase simplicity, which is where the divide comes from I think
[17:20:32] <linuxwolf> Kev: I think that's because this may be documenting existing work … prior to your msg-fwd work
[17:20:55] *stpeter has been thinking about distributed chat again recently but hasn't had time to update his DMUC spec
[17:20:56] <Kev> linuxwolf: Oh. That wasn't my understanding, I hadn't realised that.
[17:21:05] <ralphm> linuxwolfnod
[17:21:21] <Kev> ralphm / linuxwolf: Do you know how long Trident have had this working for?
[17:21:26] <linuxwolf> I may be misinformed also
[17:21:52] <Kev> Anyway, this is looking like it's moving to a discussion on list, doesn't it.
[17:22:04] <Kev> So we've got two AOB items.
[17:22:08] <Kev> 5) Date of next meeting.
[17:22:11] <linuxwolf> it does … although ...
[17:22:12] <Kev> Does this time next week work for everyone?
[17:22:19] <linuxwolf> gah, slow down there TEx
[17:22:19] <stpeter> WFM
[17:22:22] <Tobias> WFM
[17:22:23] <stpeter> heh
[17:22:27] <Kev> linuxwolf: Only 9minutes left!
[17:22:30] <linuxwolf> -1 to next week
[17:22:30] <MattJ> wfm
[17:22:31] <ralphm> Kev I don't know, the document reads like an existing thing
[17:22:33] <linuxwolf> I'm in China
[17:22:50] <linuxwolf> again
[17:22:51] <Kev> Everyone ok for the same time in a fortnight?
[17:22:53] <MattJ> linuxwolf, council meetings too democratic to join from China?
[17:23:12] <MattJ> wfm
[17:23:13] <linuxwolf> I think I can make it in two weeks … I'd have to compare the times
[17:23:24] <linuxwolf> are we still looking at 1700 UTC?
[17:23:26] <ralphm> I can do next week. I am in San Francisco from 6-15 dec
[17:23:34] <stpeter> poor linuxwolf will be flying across the big lake again soon
[17:23:41] <linuxwolf> /sigh
[17:23:54] <Tobias> in two weeks works for me too
[17:23:59] <linuxwolf> and I won't have any status until the way back
[17:24:13] <Kev> Will we have anything to discuss next week to make it worth having a meeting with linuxwolf voting onlist?
[17:24:19] <Kev> Or shall we do the week after and have Ralph vote onlist?
[17:24:29] <stpeter> IMHO, week after
[17:24:29] <Kev> (Or leave it until we have something to discuss)
[17:24:39] <linuxwolf> I'm pretty sure that I'll be in the air for next week
[17:25:02] <linuxwolf> my trip is 11/29 to 12/09
[17:25:10] <Kev> By the time Ralph's back you're looking at 21st Dec, which is pretty close to the Christmas break.
[17:25:15] <ralphm> Kev: sure. I might be able to attend, but it'll be my first full day at Mochi, so probably no.
[17:25:17] *stpeter will get busy on XEPs again now that he has completed his penultimate IETF meeting with IESG responsibilities
[17:25:33] <Kev> Ok, so, I propose we leave it until we have something to discuss, and then have a meeting with 4 members and one onlist, whenever that is.
[17:25:39] <MattJ> stpeter, congratulations :)
[17:25:43] <linuxwolf> sounds good to me
[17:25:45] <MattJ> Kev, +1
[17:25:59] <linuxwolf> ping?
[17:26:05] <Kev> pong?
[17:26:16] <linuxwolf> wow … burst of lag
[17:26:21] <Tobias> Kev, +1
[17:26:27] <Kev> Ok, then.
[17:26:36] <Kev> (I'm assuming Ralph isn't opposed to not having meetings he can't make)
[17:27:01] <stpeter> heh
[17:27:01] <Kev> 6) Any other business
[17:27:13] <Kev> Council note in XEPs and GSoC from Peter.
[17:27:14] <MattJ> Yes, I haven't congratulated Tobias yet :)
[17:27:23] <linuxwolf> I think 1700 UTC is 0100 CST
[17:27:24] <ralphm> I am not opposed to that
[17:27:27] <Tobias> isn't GSoC something for the board?
[17:27:37] <Kev> Tobias: Council typically is heavily involved.
[17:27:49] <Kev> By which we really mean Kevin is typically heavily involved, and he's on Council :)
[17:27:55] <ralphm> haha
[17:27:57] <Tobias> Kev, ahh..okay... -)
[17:27:57] <linuxwolf> heh
[17:28:10] <Kev> But Council are part of voting on projects.
[17:28:12] *stpeter will have time to help with GSoC in 2012
[17:28:16] <Kev> stpeter: What did you want to discuss?
[17:28:35] <linuxwolf> stpeter: 4 more months? (-:
[17:28:41] <ralphm> linuxwolfisn't that perfect timing for when you get back from karaoke?
[17:28:45] <stpeter> Kev: I had a tickler item on my calendar from months and months ago for us to get coordinated about GSoC earlier in the cycle this time
[17:28:54] <linuxwolf> ralphm: heh, we'll have to see
[17:29:01] <stpeter> Kev: we can discuss at a future meeting
[17:29:11] <linuxwolf> consider us tickled?
[17:29:14] <stpeter> yep
[17:29:25] <Kev> I was intending to tickle when Google announced GSoC '12 (assuming they do)
[17:29:28] <stpeter> I'll bring it up again at the next meeting
[17:29:39] <Kev> So, the other thing was Council notes in XEPs.
[17:29:45] <linuxwolf> +1 from me
[17:29:46] <stpeter> Kev: I think we decided we wanted to think about it earlier
[17:29:51] <ralphm> For the record, we have a FOSDEM devroom
[17:29:56] <linuxwolf> yay
[17:29:58] <Kev> Is there anything for us to discuss? Does someone want to volunteer to update the stylesheet?
[17:30:06] <ralphm> and will be talking about it in 1.5h
[17:30:17] <Kev> ralphm: Yes, that's great thanks. Sorry I can't make that meeting.
[17:30:20] <linuxwolf> I can take a look at it, but no firm commit from me yet
[17:30:27] <Tobias> and the XSL for the PDF publishing part... :)
[17:30:32] <Kev> Lovely, action item for linuxwolf.
[17:30:36] <Kev> And for Tobias.
[17:30:46] <Kev> Anything else?
[17:30:49] <stpeter> Kev: that can be the first section of the document, doesn't need a special XML element, I think
[17:30:54] <ralphm> or is it 20:00 UTC?
[17:30:58] <Kev> stpeter: WFM.
[17:31:03] <MattJ> 20:00
[17:31:10] <linuxwolf> yeah, right when I have a doc appt
[17:31:13] <ralphm> my train is pulling into the station
[17:31:17] <ralphm> bang!
[17:31:18] <Kev> Ok, I think we're done.
[17:31:20] <linuxwolf> talking about me becoming a cyborg
[17:31:21] <Kev> Thanks all :)
[17:31:42] *Kev does the first gavel banging of the new term.
[17:31:50] <Kev> I'll send out minutes as per usual, delayed as per usual :)
[17:31:52] <ralphm> yay
[17:31:53] <stpeter> woot!
[17:31:55] <linuxwolf> /nod
[17:32:00] <stpeter> thanks, guys
[17:32:13] <Kev> Speaking of that, are the room logs working again?
[17:32:21] <Kev> No.
[17:32:21] <MattJ> They were broken?
[17:32:24] <linuxwolf> I think any meeting over the next two weeks will be difficult for me … so we'll see
[17:32:28] <Kev> Have been since the upgrade, yes.
[17:32:35] <linuxwolf> ugh
[17:32:37] *stpeter wanders off to do some PTO things during his paid time off, but will be back in time for the FOSDEM chat
[17:32:42] <Tobias> k...see you guys later or so...heading home now
[17:32:45] <MattJ> I'll take a look at that too then
[17:32:49] <Kev> Thanks Tobias.
[17:32:52] <Kev> Thanks MattJ.
[17:32:54] <stpeter> I hadn't realized the logs were gone
[17:33:08] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "away from keyboard, bbl"
[17:33:27] <Kev> HTTP 500.
[17:33:32] <linuxwolf> eek
[17:34:11] <Kev> I only care because that's what I use for pulling the minutes off.
[17:34:25] <Kev> I should really try out this live minute taking thing Board do.
[18:15:18] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:25:18] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:37:27] *** Tobias has joined the room
[18:37:28] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[18:45:02] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[19:21:06] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[19:55:55] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:06:16] *** ralphm has left the room
[20:24:39] *** waqas has left the room
[20:29:02] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:30:54] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:37:03] *** stpeter has left the room
[21:07:16] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:08:40] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[21:25:53] *** Tobias has left the room
[21:35:54] *** Tobias has joined the room
[21:35:57] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[22:08:03] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[22:22:04] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:32:05] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:36:02] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[23:08:52] *** Tobias has left the room
[23:38:53] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "I am away from my desk. Leave a message."
[23:46:50] *** Kooda shows as "away"