Wednesday, February 15, 2012
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
29
       
             
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

[00:01:49] *** Tobias has left the room
[07:55:46] *** Tobias has joined the room
[07:55:48] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:22:05] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:22:05] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:36:31] *** Kev has left the room
[13:44:47] *** bear has joined the room
[13:45:01] *** bear has left the room
[13:45:36] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[13:55:25] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:17:58] <Kev> I'm having a somewhat distracted day. I'm not intending going anywhere, but in case I fail to notice the time later, could someone please send me a message when the time comes.
[14:20:37] <Tobias> sure
[14:24:06] <Kev> Thanks.
[14:50:49] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:13:23] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:13:26] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:39:46] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:40:40] *** stpeter has left the room
[15:41:11] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:42:15] *linuxwolf goes looking for his graphite-powered legacy input device
[15:42:18] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:44:58] <Kev> Yees.
[15:45:24] *stpeter dents and tweets
[15:48:49] *** Michael has joined the room
[15:48:49] *** Michael shows as "online"
[15:50:30] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:50:41] <linuxwolf> this is going to bug me all day
[15:51:52] <Kev> On a yoghurt I'm about to eat (although it's a "0% fat" one, which seems to mean "tastes icky"): "suitable for vegetarians".
[15:52:03] *** Hirotaka Sato has joined the room
[15:52:12] <Kev> One assumes this is contrary to the usual bacon yoghurts, which aren't.
[15:52:23] <linuxwolf> well, there's vegetarians and there's Vegerians
[15:52:36] <linuxwolf> or vegans
[15:53:07] <linuxwolf> which wouldn't eat yogurt if any part came from an animal is some form … such as milk
[15:53:26] <stpeter> don't forget the fruitarians!
[15:53:52] <linuxwolf> vegitarivores and meatarians
[15:53:57] <Kev> linuxwolf: It doesn't claim to be suitable for vegans (which, given it's made from milk, would probably be difficult).
[15:54:06] <linuxwolf> very true
[15:54:33] <linuxwolf> I wonder if they removed all the bacteria … which wouldn't make it yogurt
[15:54:48] <Kev> They certainly removed all the nice.
[15:55:19] <Kev> I'm sure that when I was (much) younger, fruit yoghurts used to taste of fruit. Sometimes even the one advertised on the packaging.
[15:55:24] <linuxwolf> 0% fat is almost never a good idea
[15:55:47] <Kev> I didn't notice any fruit yoghurts that weren't fun-free :/
[15:55:57] <linuxwolf> when we were younger, fruit yogurts actually contained fruit
[15:56:15] <linuxwolf> now they have "natural and artificial flavors"
[15:58:27] <Kev> I *like* cherries.
[15:58:31] <Kev> I'm sure I do.
[15:58:40] <Kev> They taste fruity and nice.
[15:58:49] <linuxwolf> you're best bet is to get plain yogurt, add fruit, and blend
[15:58:59] *** guusdk has joined the room
[15:59:05] *stpeter prefers plain, high-fat yoghurt
[15:59:05] <linuxwolf> maybe some honey too
[15:59:44] <stpeter> and how did we get on this topic? ;-)
[15:59:49] <Kev> Also: Bacon.
[15:59:56] <Kev> stpeter: I'm whining about eating a fun-free yoghurt.
[16:00:13] <linuxwolf> now I'm hugry
[16:00:20] <guusdk> hungry within a minute joining the xmpp council muc.
[16:00:25] <linuxwolf> let's get this over with so I can address that hunger thing
[16:00:25] <Kev> Yeah, I was until I tasted this yoghurt, too!
[16:00:45] <linuxwolf> I think I'll have a ham-and-cheese panini
[16:00:46] <stpeter> have we pinged Ralph and Matthew?
[16:01:02] <Kev> I have (just)
[16:01:02] *** ralphm has joined the room
[16:01:05] <linuxwolf> just pinged Ralph
[16:01:06] <linuxwolf> hehe
[16:01:07] <stpeter> oh shoot, gotta join the IETF Tools Team call
[16:01:18] <Tobias> pinged matt
[16:01:40] <Kev> Righty.
[16:01:41] *** MattJ has joined the room
[16:01:43] <Kev> 1) Roll call
[16:01:47] <Kev> I'm here!
[16:01:54] <ralphm> AOL
[16:01:58] <linuxwolf> presente
[16:02:04] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF Council"
[16:02:05] <MattJ> Here!
[16:02:06] <Tobias> here
[16:02:07] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "conference call + text chat meeting"
[16:02:14] <Kev> Amazing.
[16:02:18] <Kev> 2) Spec length
[16:02:22] <Kev> What to do about -45 and -60?
[16:02:22] <MattJ> Too long.
[16:02:39] <Kev> XEP-0312: TL;DR
[16:02:45] <linuxwolf> I doubt anyone will argue too short
[16:02:57] <MattJ> Well there are obviously only two things we can do: split or remove
[16:03:10] <ralphm> heh
[16:03:12] <Kev> Right, so, I don't argue with splitting MUC into essentially two - Administration and Usage or something.
[16:03:44] <MattJ> Makes sense
[16:03:47] <Kev> Although I'm not sure what it buys us, really, other than two shorter specs.
[16:04:00] <Kev> We want servers to implement all of it, regardless.
[16:04:15] <Kev> I suppose clients could just implement the non-admin bits (as Swift did for a while).
[16:04:18] <linuxwolf> I think we'd end up with some duplication, with regards to join/create
[16:04:20] <MattJ> Well splitting MUC makes less sense for others, I think
[16:04:30] <MattJ> *less sense than for others
[16:04:49] <ralphm> I haven't really considered splitting MUC
[16:04:51] <MattJ> OTOH I have a growing list of things I'd like to see removed from XEP-0060
[16:05:00] <ralphm> For XEP-0060 there are a lot of optional features
[16:05:06] <ralphm> that could be moved to their own spec
[16:05:11] <linuxwolf> yeah, XEP-0060 could benefit from breakup
[16:05:18] <linuxwolf> not sure about MUC right now
[16:05:26] <Kev> Ok, so is it fair to say that rough consensus is that -45 should be left alone, wrt. splitting it?
[16:05:27] <MattJ> I'm convinced there are a whole bunch of features in XEP-0060 that *nobody* is using
[16:05:39] <ralphm> there you have some very basic use cases that you can build upon
[16:06:08] <Kev> Splitting -60 seems fine to me, although I don't know it in enough depth to suggest where.
[16:06:14] <MattJ> I think MUC isn't too bad
[16:06:36] <stpeter> for MUC, I do think we could fairly easily split the dumb-client parts from the moderator/admin/owner use cases -- and *most* clients don't support any of the latter
[16:06:36] <MattJ> We just need to be sure not to add to it
[16:06:57] <Tobias> do you think the duplication would be much when splitting basic chat features and complex admin stuff for MUC?
[16:07:07] <MattJ> I wouldn't be opposed to an admin/user split of the spec
[16:07:17] <Kev> Tobias: Well, you've got room creation, kicking and things.
[16:07:23] <linuxwolf> stpeter: probably, although some discussion in the "dumb-client" spec would need to talk about create in some referential manner
[16:07:30] <stpeter> linuxwolf: for sure
[16:07:32] <Kev> So a dumb client may not be able to kick, but should still know what being kicked looks like.
[16:07:40] <stpeter> right
[16:07:40] <linuxwolf> yeah
[16:07:48] <Tobias> Kev, but these would only be added by the admin spec, wouldn't they...basic clients would still understand normal errors and such
[16:07:49] <ralphm> sure, you need to discuss roles etc in the core spec
[16:08:18] <stpeter> ralphm: true
[16:08:29] <Kev> So, my rough stance on this is that I'm not opposed to a sensible split for -45 into dumb client and admin, but that I think getting such a split would be hard work that I'm not looking forward to having to review, and very much want to not have to do.
[16:08:44] <MattJ> In fact the main advantage I see of splitting 45 as it stands is that we can experiment with e.g. defining other protocols for admin of a room/service
[16:09:00] <stpeter> so I think it might be useful to take a look at 45 and see what it would look like with the moderator/admin/owner stuff moved to a separate spec
[16:09:11] <ralphm> nod
[16:09:15] <linuxwolf> sure
[16:09:19] <stpeter> MattJ: yes, ad-hoc commands in MUC is on my list :)
[16:09:24] <MattJ> Mine too
[16:09:27] <MattJ> Below MAM :)
[16:09:29] <stpeter> heh
[16:09:47] *linuxwolf changes 0.25USD to hildjj
[16:09:51] <stpeter> my workflow is slowing down with the impending end of my IESG term, so I'll have more time soon
[16:09:52] <Kev> Ok, so, pubsub everyone's happy with being split.
[16:09:53] <linuxwolf> s/changes/charges
[16:10:01] <linuxwolf> Kev: definitely
[16:10:10] <Kev> I don't think we need to discuss this further then, do we?
[16:10:30] <linuxwolf> not presently
[16:10:30] <stpeter> Kev: I can take a quick/rough pass at 45
[16:10:36] <Kev> I'll take -45 changes as they come, but I have assorted reservations that I'm happy to have removed by seeing something that works.
[16:10:37] <stpeter> Kev: I think it would be worth discussing 60
[16:10:50] <stpeter> clearly there's a lot in 60
[16:10:53] <Kev> stpeter: Now, or when we have some sort of split pencilled up so we can discuss it?
[16:11:13] <stpeter> well, have people looked at 60 and thought about how we might split it up?
[16:11:16] <stpeter> same kind of thing?
[16:11:20] <linuxwolf> how about we start with everyone's list of "please remove"
[16:11:22] <ralphm> a bit
[16:11:33] <ralphm> most of the configuration bits could be moved out
[16:11:34] <MattJ> I'm still in the process of XEP-0060 review
[16:11:36] <stpeter> i.e., admin/owner/etc. vs mere publish and subscribe?
[16:11:37] <linuxwolf> I've thought about it, but haven't gone into much detail
[16:11:37] <Kev> I haven't, I think everyone else here has a better grasp of pubsub than I do.
[16:11:47] <ralphm> for nodes, subscriptions and pre-conditions
[16:11:53] <stpeter> I think that pub and sub are pretty simple, really
[16:11:56] <MattJ> so I'll probably have a better list when I submit my feedback to the list
[16:11:57] <ralphm> stpeter: yeah
[16:12:01] <stpeter> ok
[16:12:11] <stpeter> so it sounds like we can circle back on this topic in a few weeks
[16:12:17] <linuxwolf> /nod
[16:12:18] <stpeter> and perhaps start a thread on the pubsub@ list?
[16:12:23] <linuxwolf> +1
[16:12:31] <stpeter> I can start a thread on muc@ when I take a rough pass at the split
[16:12:34] <Kev> 3) Last call on XEP-0267
[16:12:37] <MattJ> even for subscriptions... I think things like "multiple subscriptions" should be (re)moved (or at least fixed)
[16:12:39] <ralphm> I'd very much like to see XEP-0060 be a very stripped down spec that explains the core use case, with references to other specs for enhanced behaviour
[16:12:57] <MattJ> +100
[16:13:02] <Tobias> +1
[16:13:04] <ralphm> I'll have a pass at XEP-0060 and make a list
[16:13:27] <stpeter> ralphm: super
[16:13:30] <Kev> Do we have implementations of 267 deployed/used now?
[16:13:31] <linuxwolf> garzie
[16:13:37] <linuxwolf> grazie even
[16:13:38] <linuxwolf> gah
[16:13:58] <linuxwolf> Kev: I don't know
[16:14:10] <stpeter> Kev: there's an implementation in Prosody (experimental) but I've not yet had time to deploy it at xmpp.net
[16:14:22] <stpeter> I'd be happy to wait
[16:14:25] <Kev> I'm not opposed to Last Calling it I guess, but I'm unlikely to want to push it to Draft.
[16:14:28] <MattJ> and I haven't looked at it or tested it yet
[16:14:39] <stpeter> right
[16:14:54] <ralphm> two would be nice
[16:14:54] <stpeter> how about I test it out at xmpp.net first
[16:15:03] <MattJ> wfm
[16:15:08] <linuxwolf> +1
[16:15:22] <Tobias> sounds like a plan
[16:15:24] *stpeter notes that we might need to think about this non-requirement requirement for multiple implementations and deployment experience before pushing something to Draft
[16:15:37] <Kev> Ok. I may even have comments about it, I think.
[16:16:23] <ralphm> stpeter: I think multiple implementations is still a great thing to have
[16:16:45] <Kev> I treat Experimental as "Not obivously broken" and Draft as "The way we have consensus on solving this", mostly (and Final as "done deal").
[16:16:59] <stpeter> ralphm: always, the question is: is that a requirement for advancement? XEP-0001 doesn't say that
[16:17:12] <Kev> I think the current state of 267 is that we don't know that this is the right way to do this as we've not tried it.
[16:17:14] <stpeter> but that's a topic for a future meeting
[16:17:19] <stpeter> Kev: probably
[16:17:29] <Kev> Or, to phrase it slightly better, it can't stop being Experimental until there's been an experiment.
[16:17:37] <linuxwolf> thought experiments can go far, but maybe not far enough
[16:17:45] <ralphm> right, so the non-requirement kinda makes it easier to assert if it is the right way to do a thing
[16:18:20] <stpeter> anyway
[16:18:26] <stpeter> I think we have a path for 267
[16:18:29] <Kev> We've explicitly made the bar to Experimental very low in recentish meetings.
[16:18:35] <stpeter> more experimentation on the way :)
[16:18:49] <linuxwolf> the bar as been lower (-:
[16:18:50] <MattJ> Kev, *ahem* :)
[16:18:58] <ralphm> Kev: I've never lowered the bar, I don't think it should be very high at all
[16:19:04] <ralphm> but draft should be
[16:19:10] <linuxwolf> I'm with ralphm
[16:19:31] <Kev> Right, that's what I said, isn't it?
[16:19:41] <Kev> We've discussed this recently and agreed that the bar to Experimental should be very low.
[16:19:49] <ralphm> right
[16:19:55] <Kev> It doesn't imply that Draft should be that low.
[16:19:58] <linuxwolf> yes, but some of us started very low, and others needed to move (-:
[16:20:01] *** Astro has joined the room
[16:20:04] <ralphm> so I am again arguing for actual implementations (plural) to move forward
[16:20:13] <linuxwolf> anyway, we're in general agreement, so let's move on (-:
[16:20:25] <Kev> I don't need multiple implementations to persuade me it's Draft ready - but it's the easiest way to persuade me.
[16:20:27] <Kev> linuxwolf: right.
[16:20:39] <Kev> 4) Last call on XEP-0297
[16:20:57] <MattJ> +1
[16:21:07] <linuxwolf> are there multiple implementations?
[16:21:13] <stpeter> (BTW, a quick visual comparison of http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#moderator and http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#statuscodes indicates that we'd cut about 40% of XEP-0045 by moving the moderator/admin/owner use cases)
[16:21:34] <Tobias> i don't know of a single implementation
[16:21:41] <Kev> linuxwolf: I think there are, actually, aren't there?
[16:21:41] <stpeter> (but I'll post to muc@ about that....)
[16:21:42] <linuxwolf> MattJ has one for Prosody
[16:21:46] <linuxwolf> right?
[16:21:49] <MattJ> and a client one in Verse
[16:21:50] <Tobias> ah...ok
[16:21:53] <Kev> As the BC guys are using MAM, which uses it.
[16:21:54] <MattJ> Zash wrote both
[16:21:59] <linuxwolf> /-:
[16:22:02] <Tobias> nice
[16:22:08] <MattJ> and yes, BuddyCloud
[16:22:14] <linuxwolf> ok then
[16:22:21] <linuxwolf> +1 for last call
[16:22:47] *stpeter notes that we'll need 297 for Carbons
[16:22:51] <Kev> Right.
[16:22:53] <linuxwolf> I'll make my comments during LC
[16:22:55] <Kev> I'm ok with Last Calling this.
[16:22:57] <stpeter> that's why I'm interested in seeing this done
[16:22:59] <linuxwolf> which are related to Carbons
[16:23:01] <ralphm> http://archive.jabber.org/docs/proto-draft/envelope.html
[16:23:02] <Tobias> i gave it a read earlier and it made sense and sounds logical...so +1 for this
[16:23:07] *** Kooda shows as "xa"
[16:23:16] <ralphm> was wat it reminds me off, and XEP-0033's claim that it supersedes that
[16:23:46] *MattJ gives ralphm bonus points for citing archive.jabber.org
[16:24:02] <ralphm> Heh
[16:24:17] <ralphm> I've been around for a bit I suppose
[16:24:21] <linuxwolf> (-:
[16:24:32] <linuxwolf> I think I actually tried to implement that, too
[16:24:41] <Kev> I think we need -297 LC votes from Ralph and Tobias?
[16:24:58] <ralphm> I think, contrairy to its claim, that jabber:x:envelope might actually have implementation
[16:25:06] <ralphm> that said, I'm +1 on LC
[16:25:09] <Tobias> i'Ve only implemented / used XEP-0033 some years ago
[16:25:20] <Tobias> Kev, see 16:22
[16:25:23] <Tobias> +1
[16:25:29] <ralphm> this spec is richer and more well defined
[16:25:35] <Kev> Tobias: Ta.
[16:25:45] <Kev> Ok, moving ever onwarsd.
[16:25:47] <ralphm> especially the security considerations
[16:25:49] <Kev> Also, onwards.
[16:25:58] <Kev> 5) http://gitorious.org/xmpp/xmpp/blobs/master/extensions/xep-0166.xml#line1399
[16:26:04] <linuxwolf> ralphm: envelope was only meant to be the addressing bits, −297 really does wrap another (message) stanza
[16:26:08] <Kev> Is that line redundant?
[16:26:19] <Kev> It looks it to me.
[16:26:58] <ralphm> linuxwolf: yeah, I suppose. It's just juggling elements :-)
[16:27:19] <Tobias> Kev, where is the same already said? or is the behavior described common sense?
[16:27:24] <ralphm> linuxwolf: one might argue that embedding a message in another element makes backwards compatibility harder
[16:27:30] <Kev> Tobias: There was a thread about this on the mailing list.
[16:27:44] <MattJ> I missed the thread
[16:27:45] <Kev> I wonder if I can find it.
[16:27:56] <Kev> But the summary was that the error it refers to doesn't exist.
[16:27:58] <linuxwolf> ralphm: that's what explicit namespace declarations are for (-:
[16:28:01] <MattJ> so am lacking any context or opinion (it seems sensible)
[16:28:10] <linuxwolf> I don't recall that jingle thread
[16:28:13] <stpeter> MattJ: we discussed this on the jingle@ list
[16:28:13] <ralphm> linuxwolf: as an aside, Blain Cook asserted the same thing about Atom payloads and pubsub events.
[16:28:14] <Kev> Nor is there anything in 166 that talks about encrypted streams to use this on.
[16:28:17] <stpeter> and on standards@
[16:28:34] *linuxwolf checks his subscriptions
[16:28:38] <stpeter> wel
[16:28:40] <ralphm> linuxwolf: in that he'd like it better if the payload was outside the pubsub element
[16:28:40] <stpeter> actually
[16:28:41] <stpeter> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2012-January/025717.html
[16:28:44] <stpeter> that's the start of the thread
[16:28:55] <stpeter> so I only forwarded my conclusions to the jingle@ list
[16:28:56] <Kev> That's the one, thanks Peter.
[16:29:03] <stpeter> anyway, no hurry
[16:29:07] <stpeter> we can discuss next week
[16:29:09] <stpeter> or on the list
[16:29:11] <linuxwolf> yeah
[16:29:17] <linuxwolf> I need to rebuild my context
[16:29:25] <Kev> Ok.
[16:29:30] <Kev> 6) Date of next meeting.
[16:29:30] <linuxwolf> it was sent on my b-day … I ignored a lot of email that day (-:
[16:29:34] <Kev> SBTSBC?
[16:29:38] <linuxwolf> +1
[16:29:45] <MattJ> +1
[16:29:54] <stpeter> heh
[16:30:03] <Tobias> looks up what it means
[16:30:05] <stpeter> wfm
[16:30:13] <linuxwolf> Same Bat Time Same Bat Channel
[16:30:13] <stpeter> I assume it's same bat time, same bat channel
[16:30:16] <Kev> Tobias: I don't *think* it's an established acronym, just one I use.
[16:30:22] <Kev> linuxwolf: Right.
[16:30:25] <ralphm> I should be
[16:30:27] <ralphm> it
[16:30:28] <linuxwolf> Kev likes to channel Adam West
[16:30:31] <Tobias> ah...k
[16:30:37] <Tobias> +1 then
[16:30:46] <Kev> Tobias: We went through a period where I'd say "same bat time same bat channel" for this agenda item. So I started abbreviating.
[16:31:06] <Kev> 7) AOB?
[16:31:06] <linuxwolf> s/Adam West/William Dozier/
[16:31:44] <linuxwolf> no AOB from me
[16:32:07] <MattJ> nack
[16:32:13] <Kev> Nor anyone else, it seems.
[16:32:17] <Kev> Ok then.
[16:32:20] <ralphm> yay
[16:32:21] <Kev> Thanks all :)
[16:32:26] <MattJ> Thanks
[16:32:32] *Kev gavels the hammer. Or something.
[16:32:54] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:33:19] *linuxwolf goes back to lamenting the loss of his pencil
[16:33:46] <linuxwolf> now I don't know what to do when I'm pondering
[16:34:17] <Kev> I have some almost-yoghurt you could eat!
[16:34:22] <stpeter> heh
[16:34:29] <linuxwolf> I think I might have a fancy wood pencil
[16:34:56] <linuxwolf> aha!
[16:35:00] <linuxwolf> found my pencil bag
[16:35:02] <stpeter> linuxwolf: now that I'm using PGP more often, you and I might want to do a keysigning sometime ;-)
[16:35:15] <linuxwolf> that would require me to use PGP d-:
[16:35:30] <stpeter> linuxwolf: you usually sign your @cisco mail, don't you?
[16:35:36] <linuxwolf> I do
[16:35:42] <linuxwolf> CMS
[16:36:02] <stpeter> oh
[16:36:27] *stpeter sees his inbox bump up over 30 messages and starts to scrub it
[16:36:41] <linuxwolf> (-:
[16:37:02] <Astro> did I read channels? buddycloud channels?
[16:38:11] <ralphm> Astro: bat channels
[16:38:24] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:38:34] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[16:38:40] <stpeter> :)
[16:43:16] *linuxwolf looks at using PGP
[16:44:38] <linuxwolf> I can get my PGP key printed on my business cards, but not my cert
[16:44:40] <stpeter> linuxwolf: I go back and forth between PGP, S/MIME, and nothing
[16:45:25] <stpeter> linuxwolf: however, in my experience very very few people us S/MIME, whereas PGP is mildly useful for sending messages encrypted
[16:45:55] <stpeter> I even use openpgp for IM messages at times (at least with migri, who helps out with xmpp.org list administration)
[16:46:36] *stpeter tests out the beta version of the IETF datatracker
[16:48:16] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "on a conference call"
[16:51:57] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[16:53:28] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:53:36] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[16:54:37] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[17:01:06] *** Michael has left the room
[17:04:09] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:04:36] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[17:14:09] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:17:12] *** Astro has left the room
[17:21:17] *** guusdk has left the room
[17:22:10] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:22:14] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[17:23:48] *** Hirotaka Sato has left the room
[17:47:58] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[17:51:04] *** stpeter has left the room
[18:08:23] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:09:37] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[18:12:41] *** stpeter has joined the room
[18:14:47] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:20:59] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[18:37:57] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:47:58] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:00:38] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:02:42] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:02:45] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[19:20:38] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:27:00] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:35:03] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[19:37:24] *** Astro has joined the room
[19:40:03] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[19:50:04] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[19:50:47] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[19:56:02] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[19:56:13] *** ralphm has left the room
[19:57:54] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[19:58:08] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[20:08:13] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:18:13] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[20:29:10] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:34:48] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:34:50] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:51:29] *** Astro has joined the room
[20:51:44] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:52:42] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:58:28] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:59:26] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[21:10:46] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:13:38] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "*facepalm*"
[21:20:46] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[21:26:32] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[21:57:47] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[22:22:53] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:22:54] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[22:31:05] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[22:54:38] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[23:12:36] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[23:15:11] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:25:11] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[23:43:06] *** Astro has left the room
[23:50:35] *** MattJ shows as "online"