XMPP Council - 2014-01-08

Right, 1 minute. Time to grab a water.

Done

Water has been fetched :)

1) Roll call.

I am here.

Breakfast grabbed

I think, therefore I am here

here

Tobias / Lance: piiing.

here

heh

here

woot

MattJ: do you live on Pacific Time?

No-one sent anything more for the agenda, so I guess we're just on the two items.

stpeter, I'm calling it jetlag

2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-dtls.html Accept?

But I haven't travelled anywhere since the last summit

i'm +1 for accept

+1 also

+1, but it will likely need some more work as the sdp stuff for it gets hammered out

i'm +1 for accepting this. it needs more work, but that is because the datachannels are still somewhat in flux

I need to give it a better glance before not objecting, but I'm anticipating it being fine to publish.

I'll post on list once I've done so.

3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0152.html

I think, if i read xep1 correctly, we don't need to vote on an LC for this, and it's automatically given one because of the Council change.

stpeter (if you're paying attention, but I see you're on a call so maybe not), that sound about right?

yes

Fab.

just finished the call

The new Editor-Team can sort that out, then :)

heh

(Assuming Board are about to ratify that)

4) Date of next.

:)

I'm sure it's on the agenda.

I need to write up a charter for the Editor Team

event logging and dynamic forms?

The reason I used to have to move it from 16:00 to 16:10 isn't an issue any more, so we could move back to 16:00, if people like.

Or we can keep it as the current 20mins, which is usually fine but sometimes tight.

Peter Waher: I think the objections periods for those have ended, so I think they can be published now

+1 on 16:00

(y)

so that we can start board at 16:30

+1 on the time change too

+1 for 16:10

16:00 works for me.

er

WFM

I've updated them and answered to all objections. Should be fine.

I would prefer to have a short gap before the board meeting, anyway. There's often a few minutes of interesting chatter after the council.

I didn't mean that!

+1 for 16:00

+1 16:00

MattJ: I call Jetlag.

Meetings before breakfast

Ok, so 16:00 next Wed, then?

wfm

wfm

wfm

wfm

5) Any other business?

Kev, Yeah.

I immediately regret asking :)

:)

Kev, In a discussion I had recently, the subject of the late and lamented tech review work team was mentioned.

Kev, Would the Council like an effort to reinstantiate that?

you agree to publish the event logging and dynamic forms XEPs, latest revisions?

Peter Waher: My understanding was that those had passed Council. I can double-check later.

they're not published yet

Peter Waher: See the ongoing discussion about the XEP Editor being overworked.

Dave Cridland: I'm not desperate to start a new work team unless there's actually a bunch of people who would want to be on it.

Kev: agreed

Dave Cridland: If it's one person who wants to do some reviews, I don't see any problem with an informal arrangement.

If there /are/ a group of people who want to be reviewing stuff ~formally, then I'm not strictly opposed to reinstating it.

Kev: in that case, the team is basically standards@ subscribers

It's a fine idea to have one.

ralphm: That's a nice idea, but I'm pretty sure most of standards@ subscribers aren't reviewing stuff muc.

Heh, Freudian slip. *much*

Dave Cridland: Do you think there's general interest in a formal team for doing reviews?

Kev: I think we are in agreement

ralphm: An excellent place to be.

I don't know. I am vaguely under the impression there's a certain degree of interest members in doing *something*, and capitalizing on that might yield a work team.

It might even be better to ask (to volunteer) specific people for specific documents

What does a review team add over the council?

MattJ: The Council is a last resort.

But even the formation of such a team would involve effort, so I'm wondering if the Council see that as a laudable goal or not.

MattJ: It would be much better for document authors to have feedback earlier than "No, we're not letting this go to Draft".

MattJ, More eyeballs.

Dave Cridland: I'm not opposed. If it happened and worked it would be a Fine Thing. I'd be inclined to start by asking if there are actually people who want to participate in such a thing, rather than trying to formalise the flagpole and then see if anyone salutes.

Kev, Meaning COuncil needn't always be the Bad Guys.

There is that, although it's not really my concern in this.

Kev, It's not entirely clear to me if we already have the work team, with nobody actually doing anything with it. That is, the formal aspects might actually be done already.

But, for Experimental XEPs, for example. Council generally let stuff through that is fine to start, but they know is a long way off Draft quality. A review team could help with the interim.

But anyway, I'm good with the advice I have from Council.

Dave Cridland: I don't much care about the formality. If there are people wanting to do this, it'd be great for it to happen.

Anyone with anything else for anything else?

i just noted that peter requested 0279 as another agenda item

http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2013-December/003809.html

Oh, oops.

Re-ordering a little, then

3b) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0279.html LC?

+1

+1 LC

+1

i'm fine with LC

I don't mind a Last Call. I still wonder on this XEP and whether it's useful compared to STUN, but that's an LC comment.

though it does have a typo in example 2

5) Any other business? :)

none here

OK, I think we're done then.

Thanks all :)

i think I (with my authors hat) want some pending votes on colibri as well, but i'll check the archives and post to the list

fippo: Didn't I send mine?

I vaguely remember ticking off that TODO.

kev: you said "OK."

Sorry, Isode patch review habit.

OK = +1.

I read "hobbit"

You always responded "Oh Kay" to mine.

☑

MattJ: Having patch review hobbits might be interesting.

Kev: you have shires around, right?

Something like that.