Wednesday, September 18, 2013
council@muc.xmpp.org
September
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

[00:04:42] *** Lance has left the room
[00:04:46] *** Lance has joined the room
[00:04:46] *** Lance shows as "online"
[00:07:34] *** Lance has left the room
[00:07:38] *** Lance has joined the room
[00:07:38] *** Lance shows as "online"
[00:13:50] *** Lance has left the room
[00:28:46] *** Lance has joined the room
[00:28:47] *** Lance shows as "online"
[00:50:32] *** stpeter has joined the room
[00:53:18] *** stpeter has left the room
[00:57:22] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[01:23:36] *** stpeter has joined the room
[01:23:41] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[01:51:01] *** tato shows as "online"
[02:03:29] *** stpeter has left the room
[02:36:33] *** stpeter has joined the room
[02:36:34] *** stpeter has left the room
[02:36:34] *** stpeter has joined the room
[02:40:06] *** waqas has left the room
[02:45:14] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[02:45:16] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[02:50:56] *** Tobias has left the room
[02:55:46] *** stpeter has left the room
[03:09:18] *** tato shows as "online"
[03:11:55] *** tato shows as "away"
[03:12:03] *** tato shows as "away"
[03:59:38] *** waqas has joined the room
[05:02:12] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[05:12:18] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[05:25:56] *** waqas has left the room
[06:42:27] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[06:47:59] *** bear has left the room
[06:48:52] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[06:51:14] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[06:58:31] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:01:58] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[07:10:12] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[07:16:10] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[07:22:56] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[07:24:22] *** tato has left the room
[07:28:38] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[07:38:08] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:01:40] *** ralphm has left the room
[08:09:22] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:53:06] *** Kev shows as "away"
[09:20:07] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:47:12] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:47:14] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[09:52:41] *** Tobias has left the room
[09:54:23] *** Tobias has joined the room
[09:54:26] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:11:34] *** Kev shows as "away"
[10:11:46] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:57:17] *** Kev shows as "away"
[11:15:00] *** xnyhps has joined the room
[11:15:56] *** xnyhps has left the room
[11:37:24] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[11:38:19] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:00:34] *** tato has joined the room
[12:29:26] *** stpeter has joined the room
[12:29:28] *** stpeter has left the room
[12:29:28] *** stpeter has joined the room
[12:29:39] *** stpeter has left the room
[12:35:50] *** m&m has joined the room
[12:59:12] *** stpeter has joined the room
[12:59:12] *** stpeter has left the room
[13:02:36] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[13:04:07] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:11:33] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:17:23] *** Tobias has left the room
[13:20:01] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:20:03] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:23:27] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[13:26:43] *** m&m shows as "online"
[13:37:39] <Kev> I really want someone to comment on 152 so we can sensibly advance it.
[13:49:22] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[13:49:24] *** m&m shows as "online"
[13:55:34] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[13:59:30] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:59:40] *** stpeter has left the room
[13:59:40] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:59:43] *** Peter Waher has joined the room
[14:08:01] *** MattJ shows as "dnd"
[14:08:14] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:10:59] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[14:11:24] *** MattJ has left the room
[14:15:35] *** bear has joined the room
[14:15:35] *** bear shows as "dnd" and his status message is "Busy"
[14:19:56] *** waqas has joined the room
[14:28:59] <Tobias> just reading through it
[14:29:12] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:33:47] *** fippo has joined the room
[14:38:11] *** Peter Waher shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[14:41:54] *** tato has left the room
[14:55:05] *** Peter Waher shows as "online"
[14:59:59] *** MattJ has joined the room
[15:00:16] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[15:00:33] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[15:03:56] *** m&m shows as "online"
[15:05:02] *** Kev shows as "online"
[15:11:19] *** Lance has joined the room
[15:11:20] *** Lance shows as "online"
[15:12:27] <Kev> Right. 'tis time, 'tis time.
[15:12:40] <m&m> yay!
[15:12:49] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF Council"
[15:12:58] <Kev> Thanks for sorting out the meeting in my absense.
[15:13:11] <m&m> we try
[15:13:16] <Kev> I don't think we have anything to discuss today.
[15:13:18] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[15:13:21] <Tobias> here
[15:13:25] <m&m> presente
[15:13:42] <m&m> and, actually, most of the votes are due today
[15:13:58] <Kev> Yes.
[15:13:58] <Tobias> only left thing to read for me is dialback
[15:14:05] <Tobias> will do so later today
[15:14:07] <Kev> We can cover those in the meeting if anyone wants to vote here.
[15:14:17] <Kev> MattJ looks here, but isn't, if mail is to be believed.
[15:14:17] <m&m> well … I have comments
[15:14:23] <Kev> Ralph is marked AFK.
[15:14:27] <Kev> Let's go through them.
[15:14:45] <Kev> 2) 301?
[15:14:52] <m&m> yeah
[15:15:20] <Kev> yeah == +1?
[15:15:21] <m&m> so, I' am +1 on the intent … but there's a lot of formatting and consistency nits
[15:15:34] <Tobias> +1 on that if they add the MUC allowable traffic discovery stuff, which they said they'll do
[15:15:46] <m&m> it was really annoying to me … and it very well could just be me
[15:15:52] <Kev> Tobias: That sounds like -1 pending changes to me. Isn't it?
[15:15:57] <m&m> me too
[15:16:04] <m&m> (sounds like it to mee, too)
[15:16:16] <Kev> m&m: I don't enjoy reading that one. It is much *much* better than it used to be. Really is.
[15:16:24] <m&m> Oh, I know
[15:16:25] <Kev> So I think the motivation to sort things out was there.
[15:16:32] <m&m> I had a slew of comments early on myself
[15:16:36] <m&m> /nod
[15:16:42] <m&m> like I said, it's nits
[15:17:11] <Tobias> Kev, right..it's probably *that* version to draft or not and not *a fixed version* to draft, right?
[15:17:13] <m&m> things the XEP Editor would be in his/her pervue to fix
[15:17:31] <Kev> Tobias: Correct. It's "Is the XEP ready for Draft?".
[15:17:38] <Kev> Not "Might it be ready for Draft later".
[15:17:39] <Tobias> if it's about *that* particular unfixed version, than i'm -1
[15:18:40] <Kev> It does raise the question of how good we want things to be before Draft. I think the MUC discovery needs to be addressed, at least.
[15:18:47] <m&m> /nod
[15:18:55] <Kev> But in general, there are other things that I'm not entirely satisfied with, but probably aren't fatal.
[15:19:12] <Kev> I'm torn on whether we should block on it until it's "Right" or not.
[15:19:25] <Tobias> for /me it's mostly MUC discovery and my editorial point i raised...after that it can go to draft
[15:19:25] <m&m> the enemy of Good is Perfect
[15:19:28] <Kev> Given slippage of Draft being essentially Final these days.
[15:19:47] <Kev> m&m: Did you have any blocking comments on it, or are you +1?
[15:20:16] <m&m> before the Draft version is published, I would really like this XEP to be consistent with other XEPs
[15:20:19] <stpeter> Kev: actually, we made good progress on advancing some specs to Final for a while there, and I'm happy to come up with more candidates for that progression
[15:20:36] <m&m> consistency in references
[15:20:37] <Kev> stpeter: It wasn't "Nothing goes to Final", but "People think of Draft as Final".
[15:20:43] <stpeter> ah
[15:20:48] <stpeter> sounds like the IETF :P
[15:20:51] <m&m> heh
[15:20:55] <Kev> m&m: Could you produce a list of these?
[15:21:02] <m&m> yes
[15:21:04] <Kev> Ta.
[15:21:10] <m&m> I kind of stopped after 4.1
[15:21:14] <Kev> So this is a -1 at teh moment from both of you anyway.
[15:21:14] <m&m> but I can pick it back up
[15:21:22] <Kev> 288
[15:21:26] <m&m> +1
[15:21:28] <Kev> 3) 288
[15:21:34] <Tobias> +1 on 288
[15:21:50] <Kev> Much as I wanted to implement this first, because I think it's the sort of XEP that bears implementing before judging, I think I'll just have to +1 it. Time time time.
[15:21:59] <Kev> 4) 220
[15:22:11] <Kev> I think we should leave this Experimental a bit longer until it's been proven in the field.
[15:22:14] <m&m> I believe Dave Cridland had implemented −288 in a previous life
[15:22:21] <Kev> Also, +1
[15:22:30] <m&m> +1 on 220
[15:22:53] <Tobias> i'll send my vote for 220 later today
[15:23:48] <Tobias> m&m, prosody also has an implementation...but occasional interop problems with dave's implementation
[15:23:51] <Kev> OK.
[15:24:01] <Kev> 5) 152
[15:24:06] <m&m> /-:
[15:24:22] <m&m> so, I can see the utility of −152
[15:24:47] <Tobias> those cusax environenments?
[15:25:07] <m&m> but it would be nice if someone that plans to implement it would comment
[15:25:33] <m&m> Tobias: possibly, yes
[15:25:48] <Tobias> well...send a mail some minutes ago..but i don't plan to implemente it so... :)
[15:25:56] <Kev> I poked Emil but got no response. I really don't think we can push this through to Draft while the people who most need it aren't supporting it.
[15:26:02] <m&m> right
[15:26:04] <m&m> agreed
[15:26:07] <stpeter> I think Emil was on vacation or moving or both
[15:26:19] <Kev> stpeter: Ah, OK. He's been showing up as Online to me all day.
[15:26:20] <stpeter> so I'll ping him again
[15:26:24] <Kev> Thanks.
[15:26:29] <stpeter> yeah, probably way behind on things :)
[15:26:41] <stpeter> once I get my Linux machine I might start hacking up some features in Gajim :P
[15:26:53] <Kev> Traitor :p
[15:27:00] <m&m> heh
[15:27:14] <m&m> Long Live OS/2
[15:27:23] <Kev> Psi was supported on OS/2, incidentally.
[15:27:32] <Kev> I meant traitor for Gajim/Swift, not Linux/Mac, though.
[15:27:40] <Kev> Anyway...
[15:27:41] *** bear shows as "online"
[15:28:03] <stpeter> Kev: I'm not getting near C++ :P
[15:28:06] <m&m> Kev: stpeter work in Python d-:
[15:28:18] <m&m> moving on …
[15:28:20] <Kev> I think both Matt and I are -1 on 152 pending someone else actually wanting to implement it.
[15:28:25] <stpeter> OK
[15:28:25] <stpeter> so
[15:28:26] <Kev> Is that right?
[15:28:32] <m&m> yes
[15:28:48] <stpeter> do we have a requirement in XEP-0001 for implementations or expressions of desire to implement before advancing to Draft?
[15:28:58] <Tobias> Kev, were implementations a requirement for draft?
[15:28:59] <stpeter> I sense that we're changing XEP-0001 here
[15:29:05] <stpeter> and I have a problem with that
[15:29:05] <Kev> Implementations? No.
[15:29:17] <stpeter> if we want to change the criteria, we need to change XEP-0001
[15:29:19] <Kev> But if no-one comes forward saying they want it, it fails the test for being useful.
[15:29:35] <stpeter> I think it is very useful for CUSAX implementations, but I'm biased
[15:29:44] <Tobias> lance wants it, not?
[15:29:54] <stpeter> we poked a *lot* of people off list to get feedback on the CUSAX I-D
[15:29:58] <Lance> i've used it, yes
[15:30:00] <stpeter> they never posted to the lists
[15:30:06] <m&m> /-:
[15:30:07] <stpeter> I can poke them all again individually off list
[15:30:11] <stpeter> but it was a PITA
[15:30:25] <stpeter> and I do NOT see that this is required by XEP-0001
[15:30:32] <fippo> stpeter: heh, even you noting names of people who wanted to send feedback in STOX didn't help :-)
[15:30:47] <Kev> Incidentally:
[15:30:48] <Kev> In order for a Standards Track XEP to advance from Proposed to Draft, it must:

fill known gaps in XMPP technologies or deficiencies with existing protocols
be clearly described and accurately documented so that it can be understood and implemented by interested and knowledgeable members of the XMPP developer community
document any known security considerations with the proposed technology
be generally stable and appropriate for further field experience
have achieved rough consensus (though not necessarily unanimity) within the Standards SIG
be formally defined by an XML schema
receive the requisite votes from the XMPP Council
[15:30:51] <stpeter> BUT, that said, I will poke some folks again
[15:31:09] <stpeter> IMHO this might be a case of people needing it and not realizing that
[15:31:25] <stpeter> I think it is fine for us to actually be ahead of implementers sometimes
[15:31:27] <Kev> I don't think it has achieved rough consensus if no-one wants to implement it (or only one person).
[15:31:30] <stpeter> so that we have something ready to go
[15:31:59] <Kev> I'm happy for people to say "We need this and are going to use it for CUSAX", but only having one person saying they want it seems to fall shy of these criteria to me.
[15:32:00] <m&m> I would be happy with some people coming forward saying "I really need this"
[15:32:01] <stpeter> half the specs that are Draft should never have been advanced from Experimental, then
[15:32:15] <m&m> stpeter: very likely
[15:32:28] <stpeter> so we can deprecate those
[15:32:36] <stpeter> in any case
[15:32:41] <Tobias> and the schema contradicts the text
[15:32:46] <stpeter> I will poke some more folks and see what they have to say
[15:33:00] <m&m> well, there's a technical reason to not advance it
[15:33:06] <stpeter> time for the XSF board meeting in xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org
[15:33:09] <stpeter> see you
[15:33:10] *** stpeter has left the room
[15:33:12] <m&m> pedantically technical
[15:33:24] <Kev> Yeah, we're running over for a change.
[15:33:39] <Kev> 6) Date of next.
[15:33:48] <m&m> oh 297?
[15:34:02] <Kev> Isn't 297 pending more changes from Matt?
[15:34:14] <Kev> That's what I'd noted in the minutes.
[15:34:22] <m&m> I thought he already made them, and that is what was published two (three?) weeks ago
[15:34:36] *Tobias thought that too
[15:34:41] <m&m> I thought he had made the changes, but they had not been published
[15:34:43] <MattJ> A disembodied voice says yes
[15:34:46] <Kev> Ah, OK.
[15:34:51] <Kev> Voting on that next week, then?
[15:35:09] <MattJ> wfm
[15:35:13] <Tobias> wfm
[15:35:18] <Kev> 6) Date of next.
next weke?
[15:35:28] <m&m> sure
[15:35:31] <Tobias> okay
[15:35:35] <m&m> wfm (both 5 and 6)
[15:35:42] <Kev> 7) AOB?
[15:36:19] <Tobias> none here
[15:36:20] <Kev> I'll take that as a No.
[15:36:25] <Kev> Thanks all.
[15:36:27] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[15:36:29] <Tobias> thank you
[15:36:41] <m&m> gracias
[15:37:04] *** Peter Waher has left the room
[15:38:13] *** m&m shows as "online"
[15:39:08] *** fippo has left the room
[15:40:26] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:45:34] *** m&m shows as "online"
[15:51:29] *** Tobias has left the room
[15:52:18] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "In a meeting!"
[15:59:37] *** bear shows as "away"
[16:04:38] *** bear shows as "online"
[16:08:59] *** waqas has left the room
[16:32:24] *** tato has joined the room
[16:32:53] *** Tobias has joined the room
[16:32:56] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:37:30] *** Lance shows as "online"
[16:37:31] *** Lance shows as "online"
[16:45:44] *** bear shows as "away"
[16:55:54] *** tato has left the room
[17:04:57] *** waqas has joined the room
[17:09:31] *** bear shows as "online"
[17:19:31] *** bear shows as "away"
[17:23:47] <Kev> Upon reflection (and checking xep1), I don't think the whole 'we treat Draft quite like Final' is something we've tacitly accepted, I think it's what is implied by:
[17:23:48] <Kev> Note: Once an XMPP Extension Protocol has been advanced to a status of Draft, it is expected that the specification will be the basis for widespread implementation and for deployment in production environments. As a result of such implementation and deployment experience, the protocol may be subject to modification, including changes that are backwards-incompatible. Although such backwards-incompatible modifications shall be avoided if at all possible, deployment of a Draft protocol in mission-critical application may not be advisable.
[17:23:54] *** bear shows as "online"
[17:25:03] <Kev> That is, we're doing the Right Thing by making the move to Draft a Big Deal.
[17:25:48] <MattJ> I clearly need to read the meeting logs now
[17:25:53] *** Lance shows as "away"
[17:25:56] *** m&m shows as "online"
[17:26:08] <Kev> I think it would be better to do that than rely on the minutes' summary.
[17:33:52] *** Lance shows as "online"
[17:44:23] *** Lance shows as "away"
[17:45:11] *** stpeter has joined the room
[17:45:11] *** stpeter has left the room
[17:45:17] *** stpeter has joined the room
[17:46:19] *** Lance shows as "online"
[17:46:27] *** bear shows as "away"
[17:49:05] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[17:49:39] <MattJ> .
[17:49:45] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:49:47] *** m&m shows as "online"
[17:50:03] <waqas> .
[17:50:21] <m&m>
[17:55:05] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:01:45] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:17:52] *** bear shows as "online"
[18:21:45] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:28:11] *** bear shows as "away"
[18:33:13] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:34:30] *** stpeter has left the room
[18:38:37] *** tato has joined the room
[18:56:39] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[19:04:22] *** Tobias has left the room
[19:07:47] *** Tobias has joined the room
[19:07:50] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[19:08:04] *** Lance shows as "away"
[19:12:37] *** Lance shows as "online"
[19:17:58] *** tato has left the room
[19:23:12] *** bear shows as "online"
[19:33:21] *** bear shows as "away"
[19:39:11] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[19:44:30] *** Lance shows as "away"
[19:45:37] *** Lance shows as "online"
[19:49:02] *** m&m shows as "online"
[19:49:54] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[19:52:46] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[19:52:47] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[19:59:43] *** Lance has left the room
[20:35:52] *** bear shows as "online"
[21:11:57] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[21:19:24] *** stpeter has joined the room
[21:24:00] *** m&m has left the room
[21:26:33] *** m&m has joined the room
[21:53:50] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:57:06] *** Tobias has left the room
[21:58:03] *** Tobias has joined the room
[21:58:07] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[22:17:03] *** Tobias has left the room
[22:18:33] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:20:56] *** m&m shows as "online"
[22:21:54] *** m&m has left the room
[23:02:29] *** tato has joined the room
[23:10:03] *** Lance has joined the room
[23:10:04] *** Lance shows as "online"
[23:12:07] *** stpeter has left the room
[23:31:48] *** MattJ shows as "away"