Wednesday, September 25, 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

[00:14:42] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[00:14:43] *** stpeter has joined the room
[00:14:59] *** stpeter has left the room
[00:14:59] *** stpeter has joined the room
[00:18:28] *** stpeter has left the room
[00:18:53] *** Lance shows as "online"
[00:18:53] *** Lance shows as "online"
[00:43:58] *** Lance has left the room
[01:03:42] *** m&m has joined the room
[01:31:57] *** stpeter has joined the room
[01:31:58] *** stpeter has left the room
[01:33:42] *** m&m has left the room
[01:52:55] *** stpeter has joined the room
[01:53:25] *** tato has joined the room
[01:55:27] *** stpeter has left the room
[01:55:27] *** stpeter has joined the room
[02:17:57] *** Lance has joined the room
[02:17:57] *** Lance shows as "online"
[02:58:55] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[02:58:57] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[03:03:22] *** Tobias has left the room
[03:11:29] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[03:13:19] *** stpeter has left the room
[03:13:19] *** stpeter has joined the room
[04:21:25] *** stpeter has left the room
[05:00:43] *** bear has left the room
[05:00:55] *** bear has joined the room
[05:00:56] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[05:12:59] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[05:23:34] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[07:04:13] *** Kev has joined the room
[07:04:14] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:11:58] *** bear has left the room
[07:18:08] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[07:34:51] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[07:34:59] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[07:51:29] *** Tobias has left the room
[08:09:21] *** tato has left the room
[08:18:54] *** ralphm has left the room
[08:19:48] *** ralphm has joined the room
[08:21:15] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:21:16] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:24:31] *** Tobias has left the room
[08:24:34] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:24:35] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:29:04] *** Lance has joined the room
[08:29:04] *** Lance shows as "online"
[09:37:13] *** Lance has left the room
[09:40:26] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[09:40:42] *** tato has joined the room
[10:05:38] *** Kev shows as "away"
[10:07:57] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:13:48] *** tato has left the room
[10:40:39] *** Kev shows as "away"
[10:55:42] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:55:53] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[11:10:44] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[11:20:44] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[11:43:56] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:09:19] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[12:10:26] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:20:55] *** stpeter has joined the room
[12:22:40] *** stpeter has left the room
[12:43:54] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[13:13:40] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:30:54] *** m&m has joined the room
[13:36:03] *** Zash has joined the room
[13:36:03] *** Zash shows as "dnd"
[13:54:39] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:54:45] *** stpeter has left the room
[13:54:45] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:56:00] *** stpeter has left the room
[14:10:09] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:20:47] *** Peter Waher has joined the room
[14:48:20] *** jabberjocke has left the room
[14:48:20] *** jabberjocke has joined the room
[14:48:20] *** jabberjocke shows as "online"
[14:48:20] *** jabberjocke has left the room
[14:50:46] *** Zash has joined the room
[14:50:48] *** Zash shows as "online"
[14:59:02] <Tobias> are there any outstanding votes from me?
[15:09:05] *** Kev shows as "online"
[15:10:50] <Kev> Not for another 2 minutes :)
[15:10:59] <Tobias> great
[15:13:08] <m&m> ding
[15:13:15] <Tobias> dong
[15:13:18] <Tobias> the witch is dead
[15:13:21] <m&m> the witch is dead
[15:13:22] <m&m> dammit
[15:13:25] <Kev> Which old witch?
[15:13:33] <Kev> 1) Roll call!
[15:13:38] <MattJ> Present
[15:13:41] <m&m> presente
[15:13:42] <Tobias> here
[15:13:49] <Kev> Le Ralph?
[15:13:50] <ralphm> here
[15:13:54] <Kev> Marvellous.
[15:13:55] <m&m> yay!
[15:13:59] <Kev> 2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html
Advance to Draft?
[15:14:01] <Kanchil> Kev: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html:
XEP-0297: Stanza Forwarding
[15:14:10] <m&m> +1 from me
[15:14:13] <MattJ> +1
[15:14:19] <Tobias> +1
[15:14:23] <ralphm> +1
[15:14:27] <Kev> I'll double check before sending +1 to list.
[15:14:33] <Kev> I think that was the only voting action this week.
[15:14:41] <Kev> So unless I missed one...
[15:14:45] <Kev> 3) Date of next meeting
[15:15:05] <m&m> SBTSBC WFM
[15:15:09] <Tobias> wfm
[15:15:09] <Kev> Excellent.
[15:15:10] <MattJ> ditto
[15:15:37] <ralphm> yay
[15:15:37] <Kev> ralphm?
[15:15:39] <Kev> OK.
[15:15:42] <Kev> 4) AOB.
[15:15:58] <MattJ> Yes, my outstanding votes need recording :)
[15:15:59] <m&m> I notice the Board and Council nominees are thin
[15:16:00] <Tobias> do we already have a new version of RTT to read/vote on or will a last call be reissued?
[15:16:09] <MattJ> I'm +1 on 220 and 288
[15:16:14] <Kev> The 301 authors have submitted another version to Peter to address m&m's comments, although not my last remaining comment (which I first raised ages ago).
[15:16:21] <Kev> Tobias: Was already typing :)
[15:17:01] <Kev> FWIW, my remaining comment (which didn't go to list because I was replying to a mail they didn't send to list, accidentally) was:
[15:17:01] <Kev> I'm sorry for being a nuisance yet again, but I have one remaining nit. At the end of 6.1 you have the ...MAY implicitly request... e.g. when...invisible/offline. Can you tighten this up just slightly to be clear that implicit discovery is only allowed when normal discovery isn't possible?

I suggest this tweak:

"While explicit discovery is strongly RECOMMENDED (see Determining Support), the sender client MAY implicitly request and discover the use of real-time text, by sending <rtt event='init'/> upon activation"
->
"While explicit discovery is REQUIRED (see Determining Support) where possible, it is not possible to use explicit discovery when the sender does not share a presence subscription with the the contact and knows only their bare JID (e.g. they have yet to receive stanzas from the contact). In this case, the sender client MAY implicitly request and discover the use of real-time text, by sending <rtt event='init'/> upon activation"

I think this keeps your ability to discover implicitly when explicit discovery isn't possible, but maintains that in all other cases you need to do explicit discovery.
[15:17:44] <ralphm> I'm +1 on 220 and 228 as well
[15:18:06] <Kev> I feel fairly strongly that we shouldn't be introducing another pseudo-discovery mess like 85 here. (85 became a mess because 115 didn't exist when it was published, and we needed to maintain backwards compatibility).
[15:18:26] <m&m> 115 and decloaking
[15:18:29] <ralphm> Kev: this came up before, and I agree
[15:18:31] <Kev> Having worked on a couple of 85 implementations I don't think that confusion is helpful.
[15:18:46] <Tobias> i think discovery should be used where possible...if they don't want expensive discos they can ship their clients with precalculated caps databases
[15:18:50] <MattJ> Makes sense to me
[15:18:50] <Kev> ralphm: It did, but the authors didn't really address it last time (and haven't this time), claiming they need to be compatible with -85.
[15:18:54] *** waqas has joined the room
[15:19:34] <Kev> m&m: I thought about saying they should be using decloaking, but I can also see the argument that decloaking hasn't actually gone anywhere.
[15:19:45] <ralphm> How is that even an issue? Clients that implement XEP-0085 will, eh, implement XEP-0085.
[15:20:06] <Kev> ralphm: Right, I don't think my proposed text means there's ever a case where you could do -85 but couldn't do -301.
[15:20:39] <Kev> I'd like to keep blocking until this is addressed, so I'm presenting it here so the rest of Council can talk me down if they disagree with me.
[15:20:43] <Kev> But it doesn't seem like they do :)
[15:20:56] <Zash> So, 280 (and 313) could move forward now? (If Kev +1es)
[15:21:09] <ralphm> Kev: I support your -1.
[15:21:12] <m&m> Zash: in theory
[15:21:22] <m&m> Kev: hold the line
[15:21:42] <Kev> Zash: I think they can go to LC, if the authors request it, yes.
[15:21:47] <Kev> ralphm / m&m: Ta.
[15:22:00] <MattJ> 313 isn't quite ready yet, I have a new version I need to push
[15:22:18] <Kev> OK. I note Ralph and Matt's votes from earlier, will minute.
[15:22:19] <MattJ> But then it'll be ready
[15:22:20] <ralphm> Kev: that kind of moves this to 'Rejected', right?
[15:22:24] <Kev> Anything else for AOB?
[15:22:35] <Tobias> could we have the votes on our votes page?
[15:22:44] <m&m> I notice the Board and Council nominee list is thin
[15:22:58] <Kev> ralphm: If we're following the letter of XEP-0001 (which we never do), it would, yes. But I'm happy with the usual "We'll just keep it in Proposed until all feedback is addressed".
[15:23:15] <Kev> ralphm: What are your thoughts?
[15:23:38] <MattJ> Does XEP-0001 need updating to reflect this process then?
[15:23:41] <ralphm> Kev: practically, how could a spec ever move to rejected?
[15:23:44] <Kev> m&m: Yes, seems so. I'll apply to Council again. I'm aware of people being poked for Board behind the scenes.
[15:23:46] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:23:47] *** stpeter has left the room
[15:23:53] <Tobias> referring to this page http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/twelfth-council/
[15:23:55] <Kanchil> Tobias: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/twelfth-council/:
Twelfth Council – The XMPP Standards Foundation
[15:24:01] <Kev> ralphm: Only if we decided during LC that it wasn't ever going to be appropriate to move to Draft, I think.
[15:24:13] <ralphm> hm
[15:24:17] <Kev> Tobias: I think Peter usually maintains that page. I'm sure he'd appreciate a volunteer, if you are :)
[15:24:44] <Tobias> sure...but i have no clue who voted what :)
[15:24:47] <Kev> MattJ: I think probably updating XEP-0001 to match reality is desirable. Although given the imminent departure of Board, it might be best to wait for next term.
[15:24:54] <Kev> Tobias: The minutes :)
[15:25:35] <Zash> m&m: Know of any issues with 280?
[15:25:39] <Kev> Tobias: If you want to take this on, I'd suggest poking Peter.
[15:25:53] <ralphm> I was planning on running for Council
[15:26:33] *** stpeter has joined the room
[15:26:35] <MattJ> Zash, m&m: might hate me for this, but it doesn't use hints
[15:26:51] <stpeter> (sorry, I got delayed and I'm also on a conference call)
[15:27:00] <ralphm> hey stpeter
[15:27:07] <Kev> Hi Peter.
[15:27:16] <m&m> Zash: I think fippo and cridland (in a previous life) worked out most of the technical hurdles, and the latest draft reflects this
[15:27:23] <m&m> I can live without hints (-:
[15:27:25] <Kev> I'm not sure where we are meeting-wise, now. I think we've dealt with all official business and can close?
[15:27:33] <Tobias> we're at AOB
[15:27:43] <Kev> AOB was the last item, yes.
[15:27:48] <Kev> It's not clear that we're actually still in it :)
[15:27:51] <m&m> so, if you're going to run, get your page up!
[15:28:12] <Kev> m&m: Done.
[15:28:20] <Kev> Although I should update it to not be a copy of the last eight years :)
[15:28:21] *m&m jots a note to pester Lance about putting up an actual page
[15:28:30] <Kev> OK, I think we're done with AOB and are just chatting here?
[15:28:32] <m&m> Kev: you could go the bot route (-:
[15:28:36] <m&m> /nod
[15:28:39] <Kev> So, last call for AOB :)
[15:28:40] <MattJ> m&m, I heard you may not be in Portland... say it ain't so
[15:28:51] <m&m> I will not be in Portland )-:
[15:28:56] <m&m> not physically
[15:29:00] <ralphm> I'd like to chat a bit about Porland, outside this meeting
[15:29:02] <m&m> if there's a remote option, I'll join that
[15:29:05] <Kev> OK, let's close up then.
[15:29:08] <Kev> Thanks all!
[15:29:11] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[15:29:12] <ralphm> Thanks!
[15:29:15] <ralphm> So, Summit #14
[15:29:22] <Tobias> thanks
[15:29:32] <ralphm> There's been some talk, the number of people signing up is rather low.
[15:29:44] <ralphm> Still, I do think it is worth it to meet up.
[15:30:22] <Kev> Yeah, I'm afraid we don't really have the cycles to lose anyone for a week at the moment, else I'd be inclined to attend.
[15:30:37] <ralphm> Not all talk with a large group like usual, but at least partially do some actual work.
[15:30:49] <Zash> m&m: Didn't someone mention that 280 + MUC was an issue? And using hints instead of the 280-only <private> would be nice.
[15:31:21] <m&m> Zash: I'm a moron … I see 280 and thought 288
[15:31:27] <m&m> I need to go back over 280
[15:32:07] <m&m> MUC private messages can be an issue
[15:32:28] <Zash> For MAM too
[15:33:13] <m&m> Why is the server applying carbons to things that don't come immediately from an active endpoint?
[15:33:27] <ralphm> (Summit) For example, our web site needs love, spec pages, splitting up XEP-0060. Maybe something like tutorials for publish-subscribe and other topics.
[15:34:03] <Kev> ralphm: On the pubsub topic, did you see Remko's blog post? I thought that was pretty neat.
[15:34:29] <Kev> Oh, damn, there was something I wanted to discuss in AOB. Nevermind, can do it out of band.
[15:34:29] *stpeter is deep in explanations of XMPP and is not paying attention here
[15:34:49] <m&m> (-:
[15:34:51] <ralphm> Kev: yeah, stuff like that is great.
[15:34:56] <Kev> stpeter: Feel free to report back once you know about it :D
[15:35:20] <ralphm> Kev: I was looking at http://www.rabbitmq.com/getstarted.html
[15:35:22] <Kanchil> ralphm: http://www.rabbitmq.com/getstarted.html:
RabbitMQ - Getting started with RabbitMQ
[15:36:13] <ralphm> Kev: and also, I am sensing that we should have an offering for people using XMPP as part of their application, without starting out with a full-fledged XMPP server.
[15:36:24] <Zash> m&m: Hm? A PM from a remote MUC looks exactly like a chat message from a s2s connection.
[15:36:38] <ralphm> Kev: of course the existing software to support this use case is lacking, so maybe we should try come up with what's needed for something like that
[15:37:09] <Kev> ralphm: Hmm. I'm not sure what the value of only having part of a server is. Or did I misunderstand?
[15:38:10] <ralphm> Kev: use case is something like Facebook. They started out with ejabberd, needed to replace most of the guts of the thing (like the session manager) and finally started rebuilding it from scratch.
[15:38:32] <ralphm> Kev: I did this for just publish-subscribe at Mediamatic
[15:38:50] *m&m goes back to his day job
[15:39:04] <ralphm> Kev: and I am sure that many people trying to use XMPP as part of their application get stuck on this
[15:39:17] <m&m> Zash: I'm not understanding your terseness then
[15:40:02] *m&m really does go back to his day job now
[15:40:04] <Kev> Facebook is a somewhat special case, because they were mapping an existing IM implementation onto XMPP at the boundary, most people don't have large internal IM systems. So the Mediamatic case is probably more interesting.
[15:40:18] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:40:38] <Kev> So, in what way was what you did there different to e.g. running up M-Link* and only using the pubsub bits.
[15:40:44] <Kev> [* Replace with server of choice]
[15:42:40] <stpeter> heh, the topic of XMPP compliance testing has arisen on this conference call :-)
[15:42:46] <ralphm> Kev: actually, I have exposed a model of a publish-subscribe node as an internal API, not unlike what web frameworks do for building web sites
[15:43:14] <ralphm> Kev: and then used that to glue it on top of the (HTTP API) of the website
[15:43:20] *** m&m shows as "online"
[15:44:11] <Kev> I don't think this is the ideal medium for discussing this, sadly. What you describe sounds naively like putting a relevant API over the top of XMPP, rather than needing to cut bits out of servers.
[15:44:16] <ralphm> Kev: it also uses the s2s implementation in Wokkel, but you could also run it as a server-side component and have a (bare) server do that part.
[15:45:13] <ralphm> Kev: that might be true.
[15:46:29] *** tato has joined the room
[15:47:05] <Kev> I guess one option would be to register xmppformiddleware.com, and do much like the RabbitMQ thing, with how to do basic stuff in different languages. I would suggest that doing this through the XSF would result in too much need for fairness. e.g. if I was working on it, I'd pick Swiften for C++, and ignore Gloox, Stroke for Java and ignore Smack, etc.
[15:47:35] <Kev> I think it would be very unhelpful to have 37 different 'how to do it in Python' examples, for each of the libraries.
[15:48:40] <ralphm> Kev: oh, it doesn't really need to be an XSF thing at all
[15:48:41] <Kev> But I think it'd be a really interesting project to do outside the XSF.
[15:48:53] <ralphm> Kev: but a nice topic for the Summit
[15:49:02] <Kev> And I'd be willing and/or keen to work on such things with people (but not alone).
[15:50:05] <ralphm> Kev: also, make sure that you block out Summit #15 (Brussels) in your agenda. :-D
[15:50:07] *** tato shows as "online"
[15:50:17] <Kev> Point.
[15:50:30] <ralphm> (and those of your minions)
[15:50:45] <Kev> Haha. I have no minions, sadly. We're all Kurt's minions.
[15:51:05] <ralphm> Kev: all Kurt's minions then. Whatever makes you guys show up.
[15:51:43] <Kev> Do we have days for the summit yet?
[15:52:06] <ralphm> Kev: not yet
[15:52:12] <Kev> OK.
[15:53:21] *** Peter Waher has left the room
[15:53:57] <ralphm> I do know there is http://cfgmgmtcamp.eu on Monday and Tuesday. Not sure if that's a problem.
[15:53:58] <Kanchil> ralphm: http://cfgmgmtcamp.eu:
Config Management Camp 2014, Gent
[15:54:34] <m&m> I thought the rough consensus was to do the summit before, not after?
[15:55:01] <m&m> because people are worn out after FOSDEM (-:
[15:55:05] <ralphm> yeah
[15:55:36] <ralphm> 30/31 seems fine to me
[15:56:58] <Kev> m&m: And because they can head home on the Sunday of FOSDEM, cutting a day off the trip :)
[15:57:23] <ralphm> Kev: well yeah, *those* people
[15:57:46] <Kev> I see the Sunday of FOSDEM as being by far the least productive of the four days, personally.
[15:57:49] <m&m> You mean the LOSERS! (-:
[15:58:10] <m&m> and miss out on a prime opportunity for more beer
[15:58:19] <stpeter> yay, finished with my conf call
[15:58:38] *** Lance has joined the room
[15:58:39] *** Lance shows as "online"
[15:58:52] <Kev> m&m: I'm aware my desire to be at home is much stronger than most people's (and my desire for beer much less strong), yes.
[15:58:58] <ralphm> Kev: it is what you make of it. I've done some productive stuff by grabbing one or two other people into a hacker room and then do some speccing, in previous years
[15:59:33] <Kev> I don't claim it can't be productive, but I find it all exhausting, and I'd rather concentrate my energy on the other days :)
[16:00:22] <ralphm> Kev: I say you need more training.
[16:00:32] <Kev> Possibly.
[16:00:54] <Kev> stpeter: The remaining item that I forgot to put into AOB is how we're going to move Reachability forwards.
[16:01:07] <Kev> Or upwards, or whatever direction the process goes in.
[16:01:27] <stpeter> yes
[16:01:37] *Kev pokes Emil again.
[16:01:37] <stpeter> is the meeting still going here or is this post-meeting chat?
[16:01:42] <Kev> Post-meeting chat.
[16:01:49] <m&m> it's the after-meeting
[16:01:49] <stpeter> ok
[16:01:52] <Kev> Good grief, do you think we've been going for 50 minutes? :)
[16:02:05] <stpeter> I doubted it!
[16:02:47] <Kev> Who are the people who're building things with the XEP, and how do we get them to confirm/deny that it's doing its job?
[16:03:26] <stpeter> I think I'll ping all the folks who provided feedback on the CUSAX spec
[16:03:51] <Kev> Thanks.
[16:04:04] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "In a meeting!"
[16:06:23] <stpeter> I might have a non-CUSAX use case, too
[16:06:36] *stpeter pokes the developers he's been working with on the side
[16:06:47] <Kev> This feels like it should be part of a vcard spec, rather than independent, but I'm not going to be Mr. Unpopular and do anything because of that. The world is what it is.
[16:07:33] <stpeter> sometimes you have more dynamic information that would not go into your vCard
[16:08:21] <stpeter> e.g., you walk into a conference room and based on near-field communication or simple old reading you discover the 'tel:' or 'sip:' URI for a video endpoint
[16:08:32] <Kev> Marvellous, I feel better about it now, thanks.
[16:08:39] <stpeter> once you walk out of the room, you don't want to update your vCard
[16:09:01] <Kev> I hadn't quite clicked it was an as-you-walk thing, when it talked about moving buildings.
[16:09:26] <Kev> Yeah, that makes sense.
[16:09:47] <stpeter> but I am not sure that people are building this into products yet, although I wish they would!
[16:10:15] <stpeter> ideally that stuff would be automated
[16:10:38] <stpeter> so I walk into a conference room and my XMPP client can push my temporary contact location to you
[16:10:50] <Kev> All makes sense, ta.
[16:11:23] <stpeter> if I have a more stable contact address (e.g., my configured SIP URI) then yes, that makes sense to put in my vCard for sure
[16:11:45] <stpeter> if that's not clear then it needs to be
[16:11:53] <Zash> Multiple vCards or vCard items in their own PEP nodes?
[16:13:45] <stpeter> Zash: why would I want to have multiple vCards? sounds confusing...
[16:14:13] *stpeter curses at his inbox
[16:14:23] <Kev> stpeter: I'd suggest putting (e.g. changing their addresses as they walk from one room to another) to the bit in section 2 about dynamicness.
[16:14:36] <stpeter> Kev: yes
[16:14:43] <ralphm> stpeter: Persona. E.g. I have multiple google plus accounts (personal and company)
[16:14:44] <Zash> stpeter: Simplified access control, namespace/spec reuse, separation based on TTL
[16:14:48] <Kev> Spell it out for stupid people like me :)
[16:15:13] <ralphm> Zash: you arguably don't need multiple items for restricted access
[16:15:36] <ralphm> (you can serve up different content)
[16:15:49] <Zash> ralphm: Do we have anything for only sharing parts of vCards based on who's receiving it?
[16:16:30] <Zash> The OneSocialWeb people were working on something to address that, but I don't think it ever got submitted
[16:16:31] <stpeter> ralphm: BTW the folks I was chatting with earlier are going to use pubsub for most of their use cases
[16:16:33] <ralphm> Zash: you don't need additional protocol for the subscribing/retrieval part
[16:16:57] <ralphm> stpeter: cool
[16:18:11] <Zash> ralphm, but things like not giving out my private phone numbers to people not in my contact list or limiting it to a specific roster group
[16:18:52] <ralphm> Zash: you could do this as part of the implementation. Depending who asks, subscribes, you give a different view on the same data.
[16:19:32] <Kev> ralphm: We have no way of defining that though, I think.
[16:19:43] <ralphm> Zash: you might want to specify how to make a service do that.
[16:19:48] <Kev> So you could patch your server to do these things, but it's specific to your deployment.
[16:19:55] <ralphm> Zash: like with node configs
[16:20:05] <Zash> ralphm: Yeah
[16:20:16] <ralphm> my point was that you don't need additional protocol, per se
[16:20:29] <ralphm> My steak is calling. Back in a bit.
[16:20:36] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "I'm eating, so leave me a message."
[16:20:37] <Kev> Mmmm. Steak.
[16:20:40] <stpeter> heh
[16:31:51] *** Zash shows as "away"
[16:34:47] *** Zash shows as "online"
[16:35:45] <stpeter> at some point I'll need to scroll up and see what all the discussion was about, but first I'm trying to finalize some summit details
[16:36:52] *** m&m shows as "online"
[16:36:55] *** Tobias has joined the room
[16:36:58] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:40:03] <stpeter> hmm, last year we spent quite a bit on room / catering at the Summit, I'm sure I can get that down a bit this time
[16:44:47] *** Zash shows as "away"
[16:44:55] *** Zash shows as "online"
[16:46:21] <Tobias> at both meetings?
[16:46:36] <stpeter> no, just in Portland
[16:46:45] <Tobias> ahh..k
[16:46:47] <stpeter> the meeting rooms are free for me at the Cisco office in Diegem ;-)
[16:47:11] <Tobias> stpeter, maybe cisco also runs a catering business which needs to produce profits :D
[16:47:19] <stpeter> heh
[16:47:27] <stpeter> pizza boxes? ;-)
[16:47:36] <Kev> Mmmmm, pizza.
[17:02:21] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "In a meeting!"
[17:26:19] *** tato shows as "away"
[17:44:00] *** ralphm shows as "dnd" and his status message is "Coding"
[17:46:05] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[17:54:58] *** m&m shows as "online"
[17:59:10] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:10:19] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:18:53] *** Lance has left the room
[18:26:41] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:30:20] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:31:12] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:32:20] *** Lance has joined the room
[18:32:21] *** Lance shows as "online"
[18:50:25] *** Kev shows as "online"
[18:54:03] *** tato shows as "online"
[18:57:18] *** Lance has left the room
[19:00:42] *** Kev shows as "away"
[19:01:26] *** m&m shows as "online"
[19:02:42] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:03:41] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a video meeting"
[19:04:52] *** m&m shows as "online"
[19:16:55] *** tato has left the room
[19:17:59] *** tato has joined the room
[19:34:08] *** tato has left the room
[19:35:17] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:42:34] *** Zash shows as "online"
[19:42:37] *** Zash shows as "online"
[19:44:30] *** jabberjocke has joined the room
[19:44:30] *** jabberjocke shows as "online"
[19:46:26] *** m&m shows as "online"
[19:55:36] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[20:04:12] *** Lance has joined the room
[20:04:13] *** Lance shows as "online"
[20:08:10] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:17:54] *** m&m shows as "dnd" and his status message is "In a meeting!"
[20:44:17] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:51:37] *** Lance has left the room
[20:51:41] *** Lance has joined the room
[20:51:42] *** Lance shows as "online"
[20:52:04] *** m&m shows as "online"
[21:26:10] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[21:30:32] *** Zash has left the room
[21:43:18] *** m&m shows as "online"
[21:58:22] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:01:04] *** m&m shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[22:06:20] *** Tobias has left the room
[22:33:44] *** tato has joined the room
[22:58:24] *** stpeter has left the room
[23:03:20] *** m&m has left the room
[23:16:57] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZ"