Wednesday, October 18, 2017
council@muc.xmpp.org
October
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
31
         
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

[00:01:43] *** pep. shows as "online"
[00:07:25] *** daniel shows as "online"
[00:14:41] *** Zash shows as "online"
[00:14:45] *** Zash shows as "online"
[00:29:30] *** Tobias has joined the room
[01:06:13] *** jere has left the room
[01:06:19] *** jere has joined the room
[01:47:22] *** daniel has left the room
[01:52:19] *** daniel shows as "online"
[01:52:24] *** daniel shows as "online"
[02:05:14] *** ralphm has left the room
[02:05:18] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[02:43:16] *** daniel has left the room
[03:50:00] *** SamWhited has left the room
[03:59:14] *** jere has left the room
[04:29:56] *** Kev shows as "online"
[04:59:26] *** Kev shows as "away"
[05:16:54] *** Syndace has left the room
[05:17:00] *** Syndace has joined the room
[06:10:09] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[06:10:49] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[06:10:52] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[06:12:09] *** daniel has left the room
[06:12:15] *** daniel has joined the room
[06:58:13] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[06:58:53] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:06:17] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:08:34] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[07:08:35] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[07:12:31] *** Tobias has left the room
[07:19:17] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[07:22:25] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[07:37:05] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[07:41:23] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[07:43:46] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[07:44:38] *** ralphm has left the room
[07:47:24] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[07:47:58] *** daniel shows as "online"
[07:49:06] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[07:50:16] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[08:01:03] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[08:02:08] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:08:52] *** ralphm has left the room
[08:17:54] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[08:20:13] *** ralphm has left the room
[08:22:24] *** Tobias has left the room
[08:22:35] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[08:22:37] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[08:28:58] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[08:29:24] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[08:30:03] *** jonasw has left the room
[08:49:35] *** Zash has left the room
[08:53:51] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[09:03:41] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:11:48] *** Kev shows as "away"
[09:14:22] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:20:40] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[09:22:19] *** Kev shows as "away"
[09:33:43] *** ralphm has left the room
[09:36:29] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[09:39:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[09:44:46] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[09:50:29] *** Kev shows as "away"
[10:01:22] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[10:07:11] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:17:11] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:23:32] *** Zash shows as "online"
[10:25:46] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[10:30:13] *** Kev has left the room
[10:42:34] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[10:45:23] *** Kev shows as "away"
[10:46:58] *** jere has joined the room
[10:52:32] *** ralphm has left the room
[10:54:48] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[11:01:39] *** daniel has left the room
[11:07:47] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[11:09:27] *** ralphm has left the room
[11:13:11] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[11:14:37] *** Syndace has left the room
[11:14:43] *** Syndace has joined the room
[11:17:25] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:20:16] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:20:49] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[11:23:43] *** daniel has left the room
[11:24:53] *** ralphm has left the room
[11:33:50] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[11:37:43] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:47:43] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[11:49:38] *** Tobias has left the room
[11:51:15] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[11:56:24] *** ralphm has left the room
[11:56:57] *** daniel has joined the room
[11:57:51] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[11:58:22] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:03:05] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:12:15] *** ralphm has left the room
[12:13:05] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:15:23] *** jere has left the room
[12:16:02] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:17:01] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[12:22:03] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:29:01] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[12:32:03] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:33:24] *** Kev has left the room
[12:35:57] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[12:42:42] *** jere has joined the room
[12:48:17] *** pep. has left the room
[12:49:09] *** jere has left the room
[12:49:16] *** jere has joined the room
[12:55:29] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[12:55:29] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[12:55:31] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[12:55:34] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[12:56:36] *** pep. shows as "online"
[13:01:41] *** Kev has joined the room
[13:01:42] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:02:22] *** daniel has left the room
[13:02:29] *** daniel has joined the room
[13:11:00] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[13:19:43] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:20:02] *** daniel shows as "online"
[13:39:57] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:42:56] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:47:33] *** ralphm has left the room
[13:53:34] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[13:53:46] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[13:55:08] *** daniel has left the room
[13:55:28] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[13:55:31] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[14:02:58] *** daniel shows as "online"
[14:06:31] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:06:32] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:09:17] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:09:30] *** jere has left the room
[14:10:33] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:20:29] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:23:59] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[14:25:32] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[14:30:29] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:35:07] *** ralphm has left the room
[14:50:40] <Ge0rG> is it that day of the week again?
[14:51:18] <SamWhited> Indeed it is.
[14:53:25] <Link Mauve> Yep, and I’m not ill anymore!
[14:53:46] *** pep. shows as "online"
[14:56:10] <Tobias> 1) Roll call
[14:56:32] <Link Mauve> o/
[14:57:52] <Tobias> daniel, SamWhited, Dave
[14:58:20] *** dwd has joined the room
[14:58:29] *dwd waves
[14:59:05] <dwd> Sorry, on 4G with conversations and it was trying to join the MUC with an disconnected account.
[14:59:20] <SamWhited> Here
[14:59:23] <daniel> oh. yes i'm here
[14:59:31] <Tobias> yay...everybody here
[14:59:33] <daniel> forgot that it's wednesday again
[14:59:36] <Tobias> 2) Minute taker
[14:59:50] <Tobias> any volunteer?
[15:00:10] <dwd> I can't I'm afraid; on a tablet and it's not very easy to multitask.
[15:00:18] <SamWhited> daniel: it's Wednesday every week at this time
[15:00:20] <Ge0rG> shall I?
[15:00:24] <Tobias> Ge0rG, thanks
[15:01:58] *** jonasw has left the room
[15:02:05] *** jonasw has joined the room
[15:02:16] <Tobias> 3) Vote on accepting https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/528 " XEP-0071: make security considations much clearer #528 "
[15:02:41] <Link Mauve> +1, there are other things I want to add next but it already is a net improvement.
[15:02:45] <SamWhited> +1
[15:02:53] <Tobias> +1
[15:02:59] <dwd> +1
[15:03:03] <daniel> +1
[15:04:11] <Tobias> thanks
[15:04:28] <Tobias> 4) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: Body Markup Hints https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bmh.html
[15:04:34] <Tobias> I'll vote on list
[15:05:04] <dwd> I'd like to see how the discussion goes on this one.
[15:05:27] <Tobias> I'll interpret that as 'on list' :)
[15:05:47] <Link Mauve> I’ve already read it yesterday evening, and I’m very much -1 on it due to the concept of waiving any format support, forcing implementations to support multiple formats and making it impossible for a message to carry more than one (think MUC for example).
[15:05:51] <dwd> You can interpret it as not voting yet, indeed.
[15:05:53] <daniel> i'm not a huge fan of the XEP personally but technically it looks fine. so +1 from me
[15:06:23] <SamWhited> I'm very much waivering somewhere between Link Mauve and daniel's positions, so on list for me (though it might not matter if Link Mauve is -1)
[15:06:37] <Tobias> alright
[15:06:50] <Link Mauve> (My -1 might change, but not with the XEP as is.)
[15:06:57] <Ge0rG> Link Mauve: is "very much -1" a -1 vote?
[15:07:03] <Link Mauve> Yes. :)
[15:07:35] <dwd> I'd appreciate a debate on list about this, mind - I'd like to explore how we might change your mind.
[15:07:35] <Tobias> 5) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: Atomically Compare-And-Publish PubSub Items https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/cap.html
[15:07:44] <Tobias> I'm on list on this too
[15:07:57] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[15:08:02] <dwd> I've not had a chance to review this properly yet, so I'll vote on list later.
[15:08:04] <Link Mauve> dwd, sure, but it’s already been mostly summarised in the long XHTML-IM thread, which I also read last night.
[15:08:04] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[15:08:12] *** daniel has left the room
[15:08:16] <dwd> Bad luck. :-)
[15:08:22] *** daniel shows as "online"
[15:08:28] <Link Mauve> Tobias, on list too.
[15:09:00] <daniel> On list
[15:09:08] <SamWhited> +1
[15:09:22] <SamWhited> There are a few things I don't love about this one, but I think having the operation is useful and it's a good start.
[15:09:55] <Tobias> ok
[15:10:59] <Tobias> 6) Vote on accepting ProtoXEP: Jinge Encrypted Transports - OMEMO https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jet-omemo.html
[15:11:09] <Tobias> also on list here, as I haven't read it yet
[15:11:31] <Link Mauve> On list too, for the same reason.
[15:11:32] <dwd> Jinge encrypted?
[15:11:42] <daniel> on list
[15:11:49] <Link Mauve> dwd, just a typo here. :)
[15:11:51] <SamWhited> on list
[15:12:28] <dwd> I think I'm +1 on this, given Paul's implemented it so the real errors are probably in spec not fundamental.
[15:12:51] <Tobias> ok
[15:14:59] <Tobias> The rest I think is pending external events or further discussion. Will ping respective people afterwards.
[15:15:05] <Tobias> 7) Date of next
[15:15:10] <Tobias> same time next week
[15:15:32] <SamWhited> What about obsoleting XHTML-IM? I know that's the controversial one, but it seems like the discussion has moved on to "what to do next"
[15:15:41] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[15:15:54] <SamWhited> So I don't see any reason to hold off obsoleting it and indicating that we want to do formatting-nextgen
[15:16:00] <jonasw> I mentioned one
[15:16:06] <jonasw> but you might disregard it of course
[15:16:31] <daniel> i haven't had time to read through the thread
[15:16:39] <Tobias> SamWhited, we just started the discussion a week ago, i suggest waiting for next week to vote on obsoleting it
[15:16:39] <Link Mauve> SamWhited, jonasw’s email was very detailed about why we shouldn’t do that without a path forward.
[15:16:42] <jonasw>
I am still not keen on obsoleting XHTML-IM before we have an actual
alternative ready. I don’t think that this will achieve anything good.
Instead, I think that one of two things will happen:

(a) Clients continue to implement XHTML-IM because it is the only actual
way to convey markup right now (this is what I’ll do until there’s a
replacement).

(b) The ecosystem will fracture in islands of different, underspecified,
plain-text markups put in <body/>.

I don’t think either is particularly good. I also wonder what it would look
like to have the only markup protocol with actual deployment being obsoleted
:-) (*hint towards the general direction of the Experimental vs. Draft
discussion*).
[15:16:50] <Tobias> like daniel, i haven't read all the mails in that thread yet
[15:16:54] <dwd> Yeah, I think people have raised objections largely predicated on "what else would we do", though. So I don't think there's community consensus just yet; this despite my feeling that we should deprecate it.
[15:16:57] <SamWhited> Let's discuss next week then
[15:17:13] <Link Mauve> Ack.
[15:17:21] <Tobias> so time for next, as usual
[15:17:27] <Tobias> 8) AOB
[15:17:27] <Link Mauve> Wfm.
[15:18:02] <dwd> AOB - I noticed the email from Klaus; we should probably consider that *before* someone demonstrates the problem...
[15:18:21] <dwd> Perhaps simply [re]confirming votes on list in this room would be enough?
[15:18:54] <Link Mauve> While making sure we are using our usual JID?
[15:18:54] <SamWhited> Sounds like premature optimization. I can't imagine that it ever becomes a problem, and even if it did it would be pretty easy for someone to see it and say "wait, I didn't send that"
[15:19:22] <Tobias> Reminder for daniel to to vote in the "[Council] 2017-09-27 XSF Council Minutes" thread on accepting "XEP-0060: Add pubsub#multi-items in Publish-Subscribe features #500"
[15:19:24] <Link Mauve> SamWhited, that was the answer I was going to make after this meeting, that we should be aware of the emails “we” send.
[15:19:32] <Tobias> +1 on what SamWhited said
[15:19:39] <Link Mauve> Basically monitor the mailing list.
[15:19:50] <Link Mauve> Oh, and only us can post to council@, correct?
[15:19:57] <dwd> That may well be sufficient, too.
[15:20:00] <jonasw> SamWhited, given that nobody reads all emails on list, I find that a not-so-good solution.
[15:20:03] <jonasw> GPG would be nice
[15:20:07] <Kev> Link Mauve: Yes, and thankfully email can't be forged ;)
[15:20:19] <dwd> Yes, but that means anyone using your email address.
[15:20:21] <Kev> jonasw: Council do, though, that's kinda the point.
[15:20:32] <jonasw> Kev, okay, if you say so :)
[15:20:37] <Link Mauve> Kev, do you mean the ML software isn’t checking my server is actually who it pretends to be? :(
[15:20:38] *** pep. shows as "online"
[15:20:55] <dwd> Good luck with finding a standard for that.
[15:21:06] <Link Mauve> jonasw, I make a point in reading everything, even if I don’t always answer.
[15:21:06] <Kev> dmarc will solve everything.
[15:21:26] <jonasw> Link Mauve, how would it? :)
[15:21:31] <jonasw> SPF would be an option, sure...
[15:21:37] <Kev> But yes, I think that's the worst bit of being on Council, the responsibility to process every single blasted mail.
[15:21:39] <jonasw> email is a mess.
[15:21:59] <jonasw> Kev, didn’t know that it was a requirement.
[15:22:39] <Tobias> another point for AOB, Ge0rG's very old PR https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/434, it still says "Needs list discussion". Ge0rG, is that still correct?
[15:23:03] <Ge0rG> Tobias: Hints was -1ed, so that PR is in limbo
[15:23:19] <Tobias> Limbo?
[15:23:54] <Link Mauve> Ge0rG, would it get unblocked by your suggestion of better semantic hints?
[15:24:01] <Ge0rG> Tobias: I'd like to hear if the council is +1 on the proposed wording change, to make the rules stricter
[15:24:28] <Kev> I'm still -1 on enforcing the rules, FWIW.
[15:24:50] <Ge0rG> Kev: what would make you change your mind?
[15:25:09] *** daniel has left the room
[15:25:13] <Kev> Ge0rG: Having the big picture clear and agreed first.
[15:25:32] <jonasw> I think by the way that we urgently and before advancing MAM&CSI need to have a discussion about the point georg brought up about message routing.
[15:25:37] <Ge0rG> Kev: so I should continue with my TLDR posts?
[15:25:44] <Link Mauve> I want to take part into that big whiteboard routing party, where do I sign?
[15:25:53] <Tobias> TLDR is always nice
[15:25:53] <Kev> Ge0rG: Absolutely. And I should read the one you sent the other day.
[15:26:03] <Ge0rG> Kev: that's not very motivating.
[15:26:23] <SamWhited> I agree, I like the idea of clarifying the rules, but I think it needs a bit whiteboarding party first. I don't have confidence that this is necessarily the correct set of rules.
[15:26:25] <Kev> I promise I'm going to, if that helps. But, busy week.
[15:26:36] <SamWhited> *big
[15:26:55] <jonasw> I’m all in for whiteboarding, if I can attend somehow :)
[15:27:21] <Tobias> ok..any further AOB topics?
[15:28:09] <Tobias> doesn't look like it
[15:28:13] *Tobias bangs the gavel
[15:28:16] <Tobias> thanks everybody
[15:28:21] <SamWhited> *whew* busy meeting; thanks all!
[15:28:25] <Tobias> thanks Ge0rG for taking notes
[15:28:32] <Link Mauve> Thanks all. :)
[15:28:36] <Tobias> please send them to standards@ and council@
[15:29:34] <Flow> Link Mauve, "waiving any format support"?
[15:30:52] <Tobias> btw: people interesting in serving on council, please add at https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board_and_Council_Elections_2017
[15:31:05] <jonasw> is nobody gonna re-apply?
[15:31:36] <Link Mauve> Flow, just like 0380, you are making an incomplete list of supported formats, clients are free to pick any of them (as long as there is disco, otherwise it’s outright impossible), and there is nothing required to be supported.
[15:31:54] <Tobias> jonasw, probably people are too busy and haven't added them yet
[15:31:58] <jonasw> disco doesn’t work, I should’ve added that
[15:32:07] <jonasw> (to my email on that protoxep)
[15:32:12] <Link Mauve> <body-markup-hint language="text/html"/> is totally fine, as an example.
[15:32:22] <jonasw> oh the pain
[15:32:47] <Flow> Link Mauve, I don't think the situation is comperable to xep380
[15:32:59] *Link Mauve shivers in horror, remembering Adium’s OTR <FONT>…
[15:33:14] <jonasw> that sounds so much like things libpurple would do.
[15:33:27] <Link Mauve> jonasw, Tobias, it isn’t the day before the deadline, nobody has even started working on their application. :p
[15:33:51] <Flow> So, the situation I'm is that I've data which is formated using CommonMark. And I want to send that data to an XMPP client. I don't want to make the effor to write a CommonMark to XHTML-IM-NEXT convert, so I just shove it into the <body/>
[15:34:16] <jonasw> I find that a super bad idea
[15:34:24] <jonasw> you shouldn’t be doing that in the first place
[15:34:26] <Flow> And all I want to achieve with BMH is to tell the receiving entity: Hey, there is CommonMark in the <body/>
[15:34:35] <Link Mauve> Flow, not making the effort of using a library to generate a common format that everyone understands is a very bad practice, imo.
[15:34:37] <Flow> jonasw, but I will do that, and others will also
[15:34:40] <jonasw> either you care about interop (and use a separat element + plaintext variant in <body/>), or you don’t
[15:35:14] <jonasw> tacking a "greenwashing" "oh and if you happen to support my unspecified format, this is it" tag doesn’t make things a whole lot better
[15:35:22] <Link Mauve> If you consider that CommonMark to be the plain-text alternative of the XHTML-IM version, you can put it in the body already, but please don’t assume the recipient will also need to support CommonMark.
[15:35:39] <Flow> I think <body/> is the highest level of interop
[15:35:47] <jonasw> putting markup in <body/> isn’t
[15:35:47] <Flow> So I do care very much
[15:35:47] <Link Mauve> Yes, I agree on that.
[15:35:56] <Link Mauve> jonasw, exactly.
[15:36:01] <Flow> Link Mauve, I don't assume that
[15:36:19] <Flow> but I give him a hint that it's CommonMark
[15:36:22] <jonasw> putting marked-up things in body could easily break accessibility tools
[15:36:50] <Flow> jonasw, …
[15:36:52] <Link Mauve> Flow, if my client doesn’t support CommonMark but reST, will you convert that for me?
[15:37:07] <jonasw> Flow, …?
[15:37:24] <jonasw> FWIW, I’ve heard "there are no accessible clients for jabber" more than once as a reason not to use it.
[15:37:29] <Flow> Link Mauve, If the data I have is already formated in CommonMark, possibly not
[15:37:32] <jonasw> while many of the hip messengers in fact are quite accessible.
[15:37:42] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[15:37:45] <Link Mauve> If you are talking to me and my friend there whose client only supports Creole, in a MUC, are you going to provide us two different messages?
[15:37:56] <Flow> I feel like the XEP would had more acceptance if there was no disco part
[15:38:07] <jonasw> the disco part is irrelevant, because it doesn’t work
[15:38:10] <Flow> Link Mauve, that's another aspect
[15:38:21] <jonasw> it doesn’t work in MUC, it doesn’t work in MIX, it doesn’t work in modern one-on-one chats due to carbons and MAM
[15:38:23] <Link Mauve> Flow, all that just because you couldn’t find a library to generate XHTML-IM from your CommonMark?
[15:39:22] <jonasw> (also, shouldn’t we move this discussion to xsf@?)
[15:39:52] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:41:11] <Kev> Ge0rG: Because I'd hate to demotivate you.
[15:41:12] <Link Mauve> (I’m some 2000+ lines up in that buffer, I have a lot of backlog to read before that discussion then. :x)
[15:41:15] <Link Mauve> (Damn being ill!)
[15:41:36] <jonasw> :(
[15:41:38] *** dwd shows as "online"
[15:42:30] <Ge0rG> Sorry, I just got a bunch of work calls. Now working up the AOBs.
[15:42:53] <Ge0rG> dwd: what's the context of "dwd> AOB - I noticed the email from Klaus; we should probably consider that *before* someone demonstrates the problem..."?
[15:43:06] <Kev> Ge0rG: Voting on list without sender verification.
[15:43:34] <Ge0rG> can I write that into the Minutes?
[15:44:12] <Kev> It was an AOB, yes.
[15:44:40] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[15:45:33] <SamWhited> I am writing up a reply to the thing Link Mauve suggested hadn't been addressed (jonasw's email), FYI. It will be on list shortly. I think I've addressed all these points individually, but maybe it wasn't clear.
[15:51:19] *** ralphm has left the room
[15:55:57] *** daniel shows as "online"
[15:58:08] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:12:05] <Ge0rG> I'm not sure if my mail to council@ went through, or if I need to fake somebody's email address.
[16:12:47] *** Kev shows as "away"
[16:15:29] *** Kev shows as "online"
[16:19:37] *** Flow has left the room
[16:20:42] *** Flow has joined the room
[16:39:18] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[16:52:30] *** daniel has left the room
[16:59:50] *** ralphm has left the room
[17:01:17] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:10:42] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:16:34] *** jere has joined the room
[17:17:01] *** ralphm has left the room
[17:20:39] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:35:03] *** daniel shows as "online"
[17:41:59] *** jere has left the room
[17:42:07] *** jere has joined the room
[17:46:04] *** Kev shows as "away"
[17:53:43] *** daniel has left the room
[17:58:40] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:01:31] *** daniel shows as "online"
[18:02:30] *** Kev shows as "online"
[18:17:45] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:17:48] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:20:48] *** dwd has left the room
[18:20:51] *** dwd shows as "online"
[18:22:08] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:30:24] *** dwd has left the room
[18:32:19] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:33:59] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:05:37] *** daniel has left the room
[19:14:21] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[19:17:01] *** SouL has left the room
[19:28:02] *** jere has left the room
[19:30:06] *** dwd has left the room
[19:30:14] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:39:24] *** dwd has left the room
[19:44:14] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:47:26] *** dwd has left the room
[19:47:28] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:56:57] *** ralphm has left the room
[19:57:24] *** dwd has left the room
[20:06:37] *** Holger shows as "online"
[20:06:37] *** Holger has left the room
[20:06:47] *** Holger shows as "online"
[20:08:00] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[20:08:44] *** dwd shows as "online"
[20:11:54] *** Holger has left the room
[20:15:49] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[20:25:53] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:35:06] *** Zash has left the room
[20:37:35] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:24:14] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[21:46:19] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[21:55:17] *** dwd has left the room
[21:55:20] *** dwd shows as "online"
[21:57:28] *** dwd has left the room
[21:57:31] *** dwd shows as "online"
[21:59:22] *** dwd has left the room
[21:59:25] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:03:17] *** dwd has left the room
[22:03:21] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:04:05] *** dwd has left the room
[22:04:09] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:06:03] *** dwd has left the room
[22:06:07] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:06:24] *** dwd has left the room
[22:12:02] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:12:04] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[22:12:24] *** dwd has left the room
[22:21:35] *** Kev shows as "online"
[22:36:46] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:37:57] *** SamWhited has left the room
[22:49:14] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:53:50] *** SamWhited has left the room
[22:53:58] *** SamWhited has joined the room