XMPP Council - 2012-03-14


  1. Kev has joined
  2. Tobias has joined
  3. Kev has left
  4. Kev has joined
  5. Tobias has left
  6. linuxwolf has joined
  7. Zash has joined
  8. Zash has left
  9. Zash has joined
  10. linuxwolf has left
  11. linuxwolf has joined
  12. linuxwolf has left
  13. stpeter has joined
  14. MattJ has joined
  15. ralphm has joined
  16. ralphm waves
  17. MattJ laps at the shore
  18. Kev Oh good, we're going to have one of *those* meetings.
  19. stpeter heh
  20. Kev Right, it's time.
  21. Kev 1) Roll call.
  22. Kev I don't see Tobias online.
  23. Kev But he sent apologies, so that's fine.
  24. Kev I also don't see a Matt Miller, who also sent apologies.
  25. MattJ Ahoy
  26. Kev I do see a me.
  27. Kev ralphm?
  28. Kev He was here five minutes ago!
  29. stpeter heh
  30. MattJ Give him until :05
  31. MattJ We don't have much on the agenda
  32. Kev Right.
  33. ralphm I already waved
  34. Kev 2) Message Forwarding
  35. Kev Last call's expired, I think, so we should vote on Draftness.
  36. MattJ Hmm, I read the feedback but it is out of my infamous short-term memory
  37. Kev The only feedback we had in the LC thread was Zash.
  38. Zash Noone but me replied?
  39. MattJ pulls it up
  40. MattJ Didn't MM?
  41. Kev Not in the LC.
  42. Kev There were previous threads (linked by Zash).
  43. MattJ Hmm, maybe he commented here when we voted on the LC
  44. Zash http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120215/#16:20:39
  45. MattJ Ok, so we should poke him for his comments
  46. Kev And maybe we should provide some sort of guidance for uses of 197.
  47. Kev *297
  48. Kev MattJ: Shall I leave that to you? :)
  49. MattJ Ok :)
  50. Kev Excellent.
  51. Kev Presumably we then LC it again.
  52. Kev ralphm: You happy with this plan?
  53. ralphm that sounds reasonable
  54. Kev 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0172/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc1
  55. ralphm Although I'm not sure if another LC is needed
  56. Kev I'm +1
  57. Kev ralphm: I don't think it hurts, and we want to solicit opinion.
  58. MattJ +1
  59. ralphm +1
  60. Kev 4) Date of next meeting. 4pm next Wednesday, UK time?
  61. MattJ I see what you did there :)
  62. MattJ wfm
  63. stpeter UK time?
  64. stpeter is that the same as this time UTC?
  65. Kev stpeter: you claimed it was difficult because of DST, so I was being explicit.
  66. Kev Yes, it is for next week.
  67. stpeter Kev: wasn't difficult for me at all, but I'm more flexible than Matt is
  68. ralphm Just always use UTC.
  69. stpeter yep
  70. Kev 1600 GMT it is :)
  71. ralphm I think the difficulty was in figuring out local time, not the actual time of day.
  72. Kev Actually.
  73. Kev Is it this Sunday they changed? :)
  74. ralphm 1600 UTC for all others
  75. Kev No, the following.
  76. Kev So yes, 1600.
  77. Kev 5) AOB?
  78. ralphm US changed a few days ago, we change last weekend of March
  79. stpeter a new verson of XEP-0301 will find its way to me soon, according to the author
  80. Kev Righty.
  81. MattJ Just a note that I have located the MAM XML, have reviewed it and know the changes I want to make, and have it open in an editor to make them
  82. Kev We don't need to do anything with that, I think.
  83. stpeter I need to address XEP-0047 call for experience feedback
  84. stpeter probably there are other tasks I need to complete, too
  85. Kev So no AOB, then?
  86. stpeter not really
  87. Kev Excellent.
  88. Kev Thanks all.
  89. Kev bangs the gavel.
  90. stpeter yay
  91. MattJ Thanks
  92. stpeter brb
  93. MattJ Is there a board meeting today?
  94. Kev Oh, right - I submitted the XSF's application to GSoC btw.
  95. Kev We could do with more ideas, still.
  96. stpeter reloads the ideas page
  97. ralphm has left
  98. ralphm has joined
  99. ralphm stpeter: I think that byte-for-byte comparison of resourcepart is problematic.
  100. ralphm stpeter: e.g. in python, I get unicode objects from my parser
  101. ralphm i.e. the attribute values (where they usually appear) are already decoded from their UTF-8 representation
  102. dwd has joined
  103. dwd MattJ, Yes, there's a board meeting just starting.
  104. stpeter ralphm: feel free to post to the list about that -- I tend to agree, but I'm not decided yet
  105. dwd ralphm, I agree that actual byte-for-byte is wrong, but I don't think we need go further than codepoint comparison or perhaps canonicalization.
  106. ralphm dwd: right
  107. ralphm so I sent that message to the list
  108. stpeter so I saw, thanks
  109. Tobias has joined
  110. Kev has left
  111. linuxwolf has joined
  112. Zash has left
  113. stpeter has left
  114. stpeter has joined
  115. stpeter has left
  116. stpeter has joined
  117. linuxwolf has left
  118. ralphm has left