Wednesday, February 29, 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

[00:11:10] *** Tobias has left the room
[00:14:45] *** stpeter has left the room
[01:27:38] *** Kev has left the room
[02:42:15] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[02:42:20] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[02:42:21] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[02:52:06] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[05:05:59] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[05:05:59] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[07:10:08] *** Kev has joined the room
[07:10:09] *** Kev shows as "away"
[07:47:02] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:41:24] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:41:27] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:57:50] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:04:17] *** Kev has left the room
[13:07:23] *** Kev has joined the room
[13:07:23] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:11:52] *** Kev has left the room
[13:12:51] *** Kev has joined the room
[13:12:51] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:39:39] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:39:43] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:40:42] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[13:44:20] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[13:44:43] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[13:45:50] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[13:48:00] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:48:19] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:48:21] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:43:06] *** Tobias has left the room
[14:43:26] *** Tobias has joined the room
[14:43:27] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:44:41] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[15:05:31] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:15:31] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:18:42] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:18:44] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:18:50] *** Tobias has left the room
[15:21:20] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:21:24] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:35:55] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:37:49] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:41:58] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[15:45:55] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:52:48] *** ralphm has joined the room
[15:53:15] *ralphm waves
[15:53:21] <Kev> Hi Ralph.
[15:53:26] <Kev> I haven't even forgotten. Yet :)
[15:54:05] <ralphm> heh
[15:54:12] <ralphm> I was in a Zoo last week, so I did.
[15:56:07] *stpeter notes that he neglected to run calgen.py until about an hour ago so the meeting might not be in your calendar
[15:56:32] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:56:36] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:57:07] <linuxwolf> oopsie
[15:59:16] <ralphm> yeah, that too (last week)
[16:01:47] <Kev> Howdy folks.
[16:01:53] <Kev> 1) Bap call.
[16:01:56] <Kev> I'm here.
[16:02:06] *Tobias too
[16:02:07] <linuxwolf> presente
[16:02:19] <stpeter> Matthew seems to be offline
[16:02:23] *** Zash has joined the room
[16:02:24] *** Zash shows as "online"
[16:02:34] *ralphm is here
[16:02:40] <ralphm> stpeter: I still don't see it
[16:02:43] <Kev> Marrrrvellous.
[16:02:45] <linuxwolf> his server seems to be gone
[16:02:54] <linuxwolf> /-:
[16:03:02] <Kev> 2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-since.html
[16:03:10] <Kev> Accept as XEP?
[16:03:22] <ralphm> +1
[16:03:24] <linuxwolf> +1
[16:03:32] *** MattJ has joined the room
[16:03:39] <ralphm> I'd like to see an example of how it would work with RSM
[16:04:02] <stpeter> ralphm: true
[16:04:02] <Kev> I have serious reservations about this. Firstly that using a timestamp for this is broken, secondly that it says to use Last Activity In Presence, but doesn't cover what to do on non-initial presence, and thirdly that it says to use RSM but not how.
[16:04:02] <MattJ> +1... but... timestamps.
[16:04:09] <Tobias> +1
[16:04:25] <stpeter> by "timestamps" do you mean UTC?
[16:04:34] <ralphm> clock skew
[16:04:38] <stpeter> instead of last presence?
[16:04:55] <stpeter> I just used the format from iq:last
[16:04:59] <Kev> So I think all of those should be addressed in some way. That can happen on the vine, although I don't like it.
[16:05:01] <MattJ> Clock skew is my concern... giving 5 minutes' grace is fine, but then you possibly send duplicate updates
[16:05:23] <Kev> We have systems like this already, and they're proven not to work.
[16:05:54] <Tobias> Kev, what exactly has been proven not to work?
[16:06:19] <Kev> Tobias: Using time-of-last-something as a way of resynchronising history. Swift does it for MUCs, and you frequently end up with duplicate notifications.
[16:06:31] <ralphm> MattJ: true. This is only a problem with notifications that are idempotent. In some cases, they aren't, but I'm not sure if delayed delivery in those cases are proper anyway.
[16:06:42] <ralphm> /not/ idempotent
[16:06:54] <Tobias> Kev, ah..right
[16:07:17] <Kev> You don't even need clock skew for things to go wrong. You can both have duplicates and missed notifications.
[16:07:24] <ralphm> Kev: for MUCs it is a bigger problem because messages are not idempotent there
[16:07:25] <Kev> (using pubsub-since)
[16:07:44] <Kev> But anyway. It can go on the vine as everyone else is happy with this.
[16:07:59] <ralphm> well, it is not an active standard yet
[16:07:59] <Kev> I wouldn't push it to Draft in its current state, though.
[16:08:08] <ralphm> I'm not against publishing
[16:08:13] <linuxwolf> no one is asking to push it to draft yet
[16:08:13] <Tobias> right..but all this can be fixed in Experimental state
[16:08:34] <Kev> linuxwolf: No, but I'm giving a heads-up.
[16:08:41] <Kev> 3) Obsoleting 130.
[16:08:46] <linuxwolf> Kev: just be sure to post to the list, too
[16:09:03] <Kev> linuxwolf: Reasonable.
[16:09:12] <ralphm> One could also argue that we are jumping through a lot of hoops to make automatic subscriptions work without the cooperation of your 'home' server. If you lose that constraint other solutions might be better.
[16:09:35] <stpeter> ralphm: as in ask your home server to do the subscription for you?
[16:09:43] <MattJ> +1 to -0130
[16:10:06] <ralphm> stpeter: in one way or the other, yes. Then it could also just receive notifications in offline storage, for example.
[16:10:11] <linuxwolf> also +1 to −0130
[16:10:20] <Kev> I'd like to do a ~Last Call on standards@ for a few weeks to say "We'll obsolete this on the Xth March unless someone says it's in use".
[16:10:25] <stpeter> Kev: for sure
[16:10:27] <linuxwolf> of course
[16:10:33] <Kev> stpeter: It wasn't clear to me how obsoleting this would affect your cleanup, though.
[16:10:36] <Tobias> Kev, sounds like a good idea
[16:10:51] <MattJ> linuxwolf, I like what you did there :)
[16:11:02] <stpeter> Kev: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0172.html#waitlist
[16:11:14] <Kev> Ah, I'd completely forgotten that was there.
[16:11:25] <Kev> Fairy nerfs, then.
[16:11:33] <ralphm> what is the necessity of obsoleting this specification?
[16:11:52] <stpeter> ralphm: first, I'd like to clean up XEP-0172
[16:11:58] <stpeter> ralphm: second, no one is using it
[16:12:00] <stpeter> so it's cruft
[16:12:28] <stpeter> we don't want people to come along and implement things that aren't in use and weren't such good ideas in the first place ;-)
[16:12:57] <ralphm> Do other standards organizations do a similar thing?
[16:13:15] <stpeter> sometimes, yes
[16:13:24] <stpeter> but e.g. the IETF has a lot more cruft than we do
[16:13:33] <ralphm> I'm just thinking aloud here, wether we should actively work to reduce the number of standards we have around, even if noone uses it anymore, as far as we know.
[16:13:42] <stpeter> they had an effort to clean out the cruft some years ago and it was overwhelming
[16:14:16] <linuxwolf> As long as the bar for cleaning up is very very high, I'm all for it
[16:14:21] <Kev> The reference to 130 could easily be removed from 172 at least.
[16:14:48] <linuxwolf> to the best of my knowledge, though, XEP-0130 didn't really solve the problem it set out to
[16:14:50] <MattJ> Wait... how did it get to be historical?
[16:15:20] <ralphm> jabber:iq:agents, maybe?
[16:15:20] <stpeter> MattJ: because it documented a protocol in use at the time
[16:15:31] <MattJ> Who used it?
[16:15:32] <ralphm> anyway, I'm +1 in this case
[16:15:36] <ralphm> Jabber Inc
[16:15:39] <stpeter> MattJ: France Telecom
[16:15:43] <MattJ> Ok
[16:15:46] <ralphm> with France Telecom, right?
[16:15:51] <linuxwolf> ralphm: correct
[16:16:00] <stpeter> JINC had support for it in XCP, but that support is gone
[16:17:08] <Kev> So we believe that the only people using it are now saying it's obsolete. That seems fine to me. Put out a ~Last Call and fine.
[16:17:14] <stpeter> Kev: rightio
[16:17:31] <Kev> 4) The continuing shortification effort.
[16:17:40] <Kev> stpeter: You wanted to further discuss this?
[16:18:17] <stpeter> I didn't see people jumping up and down with excitement about my rough split of XEP-0045
[16:18:29] <MattJ> Indeed
[16:18:32] <Kev> I have it open in my browser, but haven't read it yet.
[16:18:36] <linuxwolf> I haven't finished reading it yet
[16:18:46] <stpeter> it's very rough, just to give a sense
[16:18:52] <stpeter> perhaps it's not worth the effort
[16:18:55] <linuxwolf> (well, I haven't started either (-: )
[16:18:55] <MattJ> I think the difference is less marked with XEP-0045, since it doesn't have a lot of optional features like pubsub
[16:19:04] <linuxwolf> /nod
[16:19:05] <stpeter> MattJ: perhaps
[16:19:10] <ralphm> I've looked at pubsub
[16:19:25] <stpeter> MattJ: revising XEP-0060 is on my to-do list for Life After IESG™
[16:19:28] <ralphm> Those many mandatory features are also tricky there
[16:19:59] <ralphm> it is ongoing work, that I plan to take my time on
[16:20:00] <Kev> I think it's much easier to split 60 than 45, but I'll give this split a read through.
[16:20:07] <MattJ> stpeter, there is life after IESG??
[16:20:28] <linuxwolf> stpeter: that should be a TV show (-:
[16:20:28] <stpeter> Kev: all right
[16:20:40] <stpeter> I haven't looked at 60
[16:20:44] <Kev> One thought I had is that if we do split 45, we should leave 45 in place with a reference to all three subXEPs, saying "You MUST implement all of these".
[16:20:46] <stpeter> will do in April, I think
[16:21:15] <Kev> That way the function of -45 doesn't change, but people could support just XEP-0313 or whatever, if that's deemed useful. Although I'm not sure yet that it is.
[16:21:27] <ralphm> Kev: that makes sense
[16:21:46] <Kev> Is there more to discuss on this right now, or shall we move on?
[16:21:50] <stpeter> move on
[16:22:00] <Kev> 5) Date of next meeting.
[16:22:02] <ralphm> The same could go for XEP-0060, but I'm not that far to reach a conclusion on that yet.
[16:22:09] <Kev> Same old story?
[16:22:14] <linuxwolf> WFM
[16:22:18] <ralphm> +1
[16:22:37] <MattJ> wfm, though I'm terribly confused by all these changes :)
[16:22:45] <MattJ> and the fact that there was a meeting last week with no agenda
[16:22:48] <stpeter> heh
[16:22:52] <MattJ> I can't keep up
[16:22:57] <linuxwolf> (-:
[16:23:11] <Kev> MattJ: I thought we could meet in case there was AOB.
[16:23:17] <stpeter> what are the changes?
[16:23:27] <MattJ> Aren't the meetings usually Tuesday?
[16:23:31] <Kev> I was going to suggest we cancel, and then I realised that other people might come along with AOB for us and be horribly disappointed that we weren't here.
[16:23:37] <Kev> No, Wednesday, have been for aages :)
[16:23:38] <Tobias> +1 for same time
[16:23:44] <stpeter> they've been Wednesday
[16:23:50] <Kev> We did Tuesday for a brief while and then switched back.
[16:23:56] <linuxwolf> we did a couple of Tuesdays because I'm a git
[16:24:01] <MattJ> Well yes, it's been Wednesday forever
[16:24:10] <MattJ> (as far back as my memory goes)
[16:24:16] <MattJ> then we switch to Tuesday and I get used to it
[16:24:23] <MattJ> as long as I can blame linuxwolf it's fine
[16:24:24] <Kev> Ok, I'll assume we're on for SBTSBC then.
[16:24:27] <Kev> 6) AOB?
[16:24:45] <ralphm> -
[16:24:47] <MattJ> nack
[16:24:54] <stpeter> calendar updated
[16:25:00] <linuxwolf> nay
[16:25:01] <Kev> Thanks Peter.
[16:25:12] <Kev> Ok, then I think we're done.
[16:25:20] <Kev> Thanks all.
[16:25:21] <Kev> Fini.
[16:25:23] <stpeter> BTW I shall fix up pubsub-since before publishing it
[16:25:25] <linuxwolf> and 6 minutes to spare (-:
[16:25:55] <Tobias> stpeter, btw any progress on the fosdem/summit recap for http://xmpp.org? anyway i could help?
[16:26:15] <stpeter> oh yeah
[16:27:15] <Kev> I'm applying for GSoC in between trying to get work done, BTW.
[16:27:19] *** Zash shows as "away"
[16:27:22] <Kev> Florian's helping with some stuff.
[16:27:32] <Kev> We need to put out a call for ideas, once Florian's sorted out that page.
[16:28:29] <MattJ> Thanks Kev, +1 to GSoC if people can manage it :)
[16:28:37] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[16:29:28] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[16:29:49] <stpeter> Kev: are we working on the application via wiki or somesuch?
[16:30:05] <Kev> I was going to try and find last year's, and mostly duplicate it.
[16:30:09] <Kev> Do you want to help?
[16:31:20] <stpeter> yes
[16:31:33] <stpeter> although the mostly duplicate strategy sounds good
[16:31:51] <stpeter> I'll need something to occupy my time in Life After IESG™
[16:33:19] <Kev> Yees.
[16:36:05] *** ralphm has left the room
[16:36:15] *** ralphm has joined the room
[16:43:22] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[16:47:46] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:48:39] *** Zash shows as "online"
[17:02:45] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:27:43] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:35:04] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[17:54:48] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "short break from vCard-horror"
[17:54:52] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "short break from vCard-horror"
[18:13:12] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "on a conference call"
[18:13:33] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:17:50] *** Kooda shows as "away" and his status message is "mange"
[18:22:35] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[18:23:33] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:24:32] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:33:04] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[18:35:24] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:36:41] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[18:45:24] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:06:46] <ralphm> Hmm, I notice both XEP-0045 and XEP-0060 are still Draft.
[19:07:34] <Tobias> yeah..we have just 11 final XEPs
[19:08:52] <ralphm> right, the observation makes me less nervous about splitting stuff up.
[19:11:03] <MattJ> Heh
[19:28:01] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:31:54] <stpeter> I was hoping we could push 45 to final less than 10 years after it went to draft, but probably no such luck
[19:32:10] <Zash> Criteria?
[19:32:50] <Zash> "been in the Draft state for at least six (6) months, has been implemented in at least two separate codebases, and has been voted forward on the standards track by the XMPP Council."
[19:33:23] <ralphm> Zash: quoting XEP-0001 on us, huh?
[19:34:12] <Zash> ;P
[19:34:25] <ralphm> Seriously, though, it was never deemed ready for a vote, so far.
[19:39:55] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:39:59] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[19:51:19] *** Kev shows as "away"
[19:51:42] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[19:54:39] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[20:01:25] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[20:16:25] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[20:17:53] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[20:24:39] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[20:25:43] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:27:45] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[20:46:23] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting!"
[20:51:25] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[22:18:27] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:28:27] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:29:29] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:31:24] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:31:31] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[22:55:09] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[23:05:09] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[23:16:35] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[23:16:38] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[23:33:54] *** Kooda shows as "away"
[23:38:30] *** Zash shows as "away"
[23:39:31] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[23:42:01] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[23:44:41] *** Tobias has left the room
[23:53:31] *** Zash shows as "online"
[23:58:57] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"