Wednesday, June 22, 2011
xsf@muc.xmpp.org
June
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
     
             
XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

[00:15:25] *** Kev shows as "away"
[02:20:51] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[05:44:34] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:16:28] *** Kev shows as "away"
[06:17:14] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:39:34] *** Kev shows as "away"
[06:40:00] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:55:01] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[07:06:45] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[07:11:02] *** koski has joined the room
[07:11:13] *** koski has left the room
[07:29:39] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[07:43:52] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[08:12:18] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:12:20] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:24:19] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[08:27:21] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[08:30:57] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[08:55:01] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[09:05:47] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[09:14:27] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[09:16:58] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[09:43:45] *** Tobias has left the room
[09:46:58] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[10:24:38] *** Tobias has joined the room
[10:24:39] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[10:24:58] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[10:55:01] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:07:25] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[11:18:06] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:23:38] *** luca tagliaferri shows as "xa" and his status message is "time to eat"
[11:26:30] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[11:57:02] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[12:08:27] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[12:19:20] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[12:33:02] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[12:43:48] *** Tobias has left the room
[12:44:03] *** Tobias has joined the room
[12:44:04] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:11:02] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[13:21:01] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[13:33:08] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[13:33:51] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:38:32] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[13:41:11] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[13:41:32] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:41:33] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:54:58] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[14:43:45] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[14:46:59] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[14:48:47] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[14:55:53] *** Tobias has left the room
[15:04:39] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[15:06:32] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[15:27:32] *** bear has joined the room
[15:33:18] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[15:43:40] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[15:48:29] *** Tobias has joined the room
[15:48:31] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:52:43] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[15:57:48] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:06:08] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:07:07] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:19:40] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:27:47] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[16:29:09] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:39:48] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:40:53] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:42:05] <bear> I am trying like heck to get free of this debug session at work, but it's a problem that has now gone into it's second day so i'm not being hopeful it will clear up in 20 minutes
[16:42:15] <bear> i'll be lurking but probably not active
[16:44:58] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:46:02] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:47:24] *** Florian has joined the room
[16:47:32] <Florian> T-15
[16:50:40] <stpeter> hi Florian!
[16:50:48] <Florian> yhello :)
[16:51:06] <stpeter> was that a typo?
[16:51:24] <Florian> eh ... nope
[16:51:27] <stpeter> ok
[16:51:29] <stpeter> just checking
[16:51:31] <Florian> y'hello maybe :)
[16:51:47] <stpeter> some people say "hello" more like "yhello" :)
[16:51:54] <Florian> :)
[16:55:36] <Florian> gotta love package tracking :)
[16:55:50] <Florian> doesn't make it go faster ... but still cool to see where the stuff is :)
[16:57:12] <stpeter> agreed
[17:01:08] <Florian> do we have a typewith.me running somewhere?
[17:01:17] <Florian> or should I quickly create one?
[17:01:29] <stpeter> good idea
[17:01:37] <Florian> http://typewith.me/xsf
[17:03:21] <stpeter> heh, can you create permanent instances there?
[17:03:54] <Florian> looks like it
[17:05:12] <Florian> hmm, don't see Will online
[17:05:23] <stpeter> first question: does the Board have a quorum or is this just another friendly chat (as we had in the Council non-meeting earlier)?
[17:05:43] <Florian> bear is here
[17:05:55] <Florian> can't see jack nor Will nor nyco
[17:05:56] <Kev> I think he said a few minutes ago he wasn't really.
[17:05:56] <stpeter> I have not seen Nÿco in a long time
[17:06:20] <stpeter> and one of our Council members missed three XSF votes so maybe isn't an XSF member anymore
[17:06:38] *stpeter wonders about migrating all XSF activities to the IETF ... :P
[17:06:47] <Florian> heh
[17:07:06] <Florian> I guess for a decision like that, we'd need a quorate board :p
[17:07:19] <stpeter> um, yeah ;-)
[17:07:19] <Kev> Oh, I thought it just happened automagically.
[17:07:59] <Kev> (Section 2.6 of the bylaws)
[17:08:32] <stpeter> Kev: I thought you were talking about transitioning the XSF to the IETF
[17:08:38] <Kev> Oh, right.
[17:08:40] <Florian> :)
[17:08:49] <Florian> but yeah, for the 3 consecutive misses, Kev's right
[17:08:52] <Kev> I think a members vote would probably be more appropraite than Board for that :)
[17:08:54] <stpeter> well:
[17:08:56] <stpeter> Section 2.6 Automatic Termination. Members may have their membership status automatically terminated and their names removed by the Secretary of the Corporation from all membership records of the Corporation if they fail to participate in three (3) consecutive meetings of the Members of the Corporation, held electronically or otherwise.
[17:09:06] <stpeter> that doesn't say "will" or "must", it says "may"
[17:09:50] <Kev> Right, but 2.5 says may as well.
[17:09:55] <stpeter> I'm not defending the person who hasn't voted, just noting that I think the people who wrote the bylaws built in some wiggle room (although I'm not sure that's a good idea)
[17:10:12] <Kev> And I don't think that we're saying that membership can vote to remove a member, but the member chose not to be removed :)
[17:10:24] <stpeter> heh true
[17:10:38] <Kev> If it's intended that there's wiggle-room, I think we should change the bylaws to be explicit about who gets to do the wiggling.
[17:11:00] <Kev> I note that when Bear failed to vote for three in a row, he was removed - was there a Board discussion about that?
[17:11:15] <Florian> not afaik
[17:11:19] <Kev> We should probably do whatever's consistent, and then make sure Bylaws are made to match.
[17:11:37] <stpeter> I think the bylaws should say "will be removed"
[17:11:48] <Florian> yeah
[17:11:52] <stpeter> that way, there's no question about special treatment
[17:12:02] <Florian> well, that was one point I wanted talk about today
[17:12:16] <Florian> requesting a change of the bylaws following the voting discussion on members
[17:12:33] <Florian> and even decrease that number to 2
[17:12:59] <Kev> I went through the votes because of that discussion, and found that a number of people would have been removed on the basis of 2, including two of Council and one of Board.
[17:13:10] <Kev> (Not that this is strictly a problem for Board, who don't need to be members)
[17:13:40] <Florian> *isn't ?
[17:13:51] <stpeter> Dave Cridland (IIRC) proposed that Council members would not need to be XSF members
[17:14:04] <Kev> Given the current seeming apathy from Council and Board (neither of which had quorum today), maybe that's appropriate.
[17:14:11] <Kev> stpeter: Yes, but didn't get much support for that, IIRC.
[17:14:31] <Florian> I think it has a benefit of having them being members too
[17:14:32] <stpeter> Kev: cue apathetic music here
[17:14:47] <bear> please don't construe my lack of activity as apathy
[17:15:03] <Florian> and I'm actually more leaning towards requiring both to be members (Council + Board)
[17:15:05] <stpeter> bear: we understand that everyone is über-busy
[17:15:15] <stpeter>
[17:15:25] <stpeter>
[17:15:31] <Kev> bear: You are at least here and said you'd be busy for this case. This isn't true of everyone, either on Council or Board for today.
[17:15:31] <stpeter> didn't realize I could send an empty message
[17:15:56] <bear> sorry - that came off as really cranky (which is a side effect of my current work related grief)
[17:15:58] <bear> apologies
[17:16:07] <stpeter> bear: no apology required!
[17:16:13] <bear> and I'm +1 to board/council being members
[17:16:32] <Florian> should we add that to the todo for the next meeting too?
[17:16:40] <Florian> :)
[17:16:46] <Kev> Florian: You mean the next Members meeting?
[17:16:51] <bear> the kick I got out of xsf by missing 3 meetings was what was needed - I would say we could drop it to 2 missed in a row
[17:16:57] <Florian> Board needs to propose it first
[17:17:11] <stpeter> I do wonder about how to proceed -- e.g., we could shut down the XSF as a legal entity or modify the bylaws such that we basically turn it into an open-source (open-spec) project .... the legal superstructure is not truly necessary to do our core work
[17:17:32] <stpeter> all this voting stuff is just overhead
[17:17:53] <bear> being a legal entity allows for what benefits?
[17:18:03] <Florian> sponsorship?
[17:18:16] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[17:18:30] <stpeter> IANAL, but we do have 501(c)(3) status
[17:18:37] <stpeter> naturally, with that status comes responsibilities
[17:18:47] <stpeter> and we need to have membership, a board, etc.
[17:19:01] <Florian> I think there's a benefit of having the structure
[17:19:08] <stpeter> I'm just thinking out loud at this time
[17:19:22] <stpeter> Florian: there are benefits and costs, yes
[17:19:23] <Florian> it /should/ make people care about it :)
[17:19:35] <bear> I think part of the issue is, except for the council, the membership doesn't really have to do anything
[17:19:46] <stpeter> bear: indeed
[17:19:50] <Florian> true
[17:19:51] <Kev> Except vote.
[17:20:16] <stpeter> we tried a bit with the various teams, but that's just more structure to a large extent
[17:20:30] <Kev> Although the iteam works moderately well.
[17:20:35] <stpeter> if we were a business, we'd be due for a reorg :)
[17:20:42] <stpeter> Kev: it does, yes
[17:20:42] <Florian> :)
[17:20:51] <stpeter> although in fact the iteam isn't even all XSF members
[17:20:55] <stpeter> e.g., Jerry
[17:21:05] <stpeter> just folks who come together because they care about keeping things running
[17:21:33] <Florian> I think a first step would be to start restricting membership to people who are active
[17:21:50] <stpeter> bear: thanks for participating in this conversation despite your work hell
[17:21:58] <Florian> i.e. decreasing the misses to 2 and enforcing the 3 misses we have atm
[17:22:05] <stpeter> Florian: so we'd have, what, 10 members? ;-)
[17:22:15] <Kev> Well, is that a bad thing?
[17:22:19] <stpeter> no!
[17:22:20] <stpeter> not at all
[17:22:21] <Kev> And we have more than 10 active people, I think.
[17:22:24] <Florian> I don't think it is :)
[17:22:32] <Florian> Kev: indeed
[17:22:43] <stpeter> but then we'd basically get rid of voting for the Council and the Board
[17:22:51] <stpeter> all members vote on everything
[17:23:04] <stpeter> if you have a quorum, decisions can be made
[17:23:18] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[17:23:20] <bear> it may be that having a council and board are what is causing folks to not interact
[17:23:30] <stpeter> bear: yes, maybe!
[17:23:31] <bear> tho the board is required I think for legal reasons
[17:23:40] <Florian> hmm
[17:23:42] <stpeter> "oh we'll leave it up to the 'leadership'"
[17:23:59] <bear> it would be an interesting thing to try for the next "season"
[17:24:01] <stpeter> bear: yes it is
[17:24:07] <Kev> I would vaguely resist disbanding Council.
[17:24:14] <Kev> By which I mean I think it'd be a terrible idea :)
[17:24:31] <stpeter> I think we need to get rid of the Executive Director position ;-)
[17:24:34] <Kev> There are enough people involved that ever spec would be vetod for one reason or another.
[17:24:38] <Kev> *every
[17:25:08] <bear> yes, that is a concern I would have - seeing how the jingle codec discussion has happened
[17:25:14] <Florian> or people voting just yes because they just vote
[17:25:18] <Florian> without ever reading the specs
[17:26:00] <Kev> Florian: That's not actually so bad.
[17:26:04] <bear> maybe the first step is to tighten the membership voting requirement
[17:26:06] <Kev> Since Council votes are vetos.
[17:26:13] <bear> and see how much of a shake out that has
[17:26:14] <Kev> It's only the 'No's that matter.
[17:26:32] <stpeter> but if there is no Council then there are no vetoes
[17:26:38] <Florian> right
[17:26:42] <stpeter> it would be true rough consensus :)
[17:26:46] <stpeter> not unanimity
[17:26:56] <Kev> Consensus meaning unanimity, of course :)
[17:26:57] <bear> the ietf can teach us something in that area
[17:27:06] <stpeter> heck, maybe we can even work some running code into the mix ;-)
[17:27:07] <Kev> bear: The IETF has a Council equivalent.
[17:27:17] <stpeter> Kev: true
[17:27:20] <Florian> I think a first step would be to enforce the bylaws and possibly reducing that limit
[17:27:24] <stpeter> as I'm well aware :)
[17:27:27] <Florian> and then see how membership reacts
[17:27:30] <Florian> and then go from there
[17:27:31] <bear> yes, but I thought consensus was not the same as majority vote
[17:27:35] <stpeter> bear: it's not
[17:27:38] <Kev> Florian: Yes.
[17:27:45] <Kev> bear: It's not, consensus means everyone is in agreement :)
[17:27:58] <Kev> "Rough consensus" is something of a misnomer.
[17:27:59] <bear> I always disliked that word: agreement
[17:28:16] <stpeter> Kev: sometimes consensus is rough, sometimes it is smooth
[17:28:26] <bear> and then their is the W3C
[17:28:30] *bear runs
[17:28:32] <stpeter> in the IETF, consensus does *not* mean that everyone is in agreement
[17:28:39] <stpeter> hehe
[17:29:14] <stpeter> bear: I'd prefer to go in the direction of an open-spec project than in the direction of an industry consortium with corporate members (not individual contributors)
[17:29:31] <bear> totally agree
[17:29:54] <bear> one of the good things about the XSF is the lack of corporate dominance
[17:29:58] <stpeter> one model might be the WHATWG (partial shudder)
[17:30:08] <stpeter> bear: right, it's just us geeks (ideally)
[17:30:40] <stpeter> granted, I get paid by a big company and they tell me what to think and do, but at least we have the appearance of independence ;-)
[17:30:46] <bear> :)
[17:30:59] <Florian> lol
[17:31:21] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[17:31:28] <stpeter> Kev: imagine that we had only ~12 active committers
[17:31:34] <stpeter> which sounds about right
[17:31:39] <stpeter> others could contribute patches
[17:31:48] <stpeter> but only the committers could vote
[17:31:57] <stpeter> that's your Council equivalent
[17:32:05] <bear> your talking about something like the Apache model
[17:32:12] <stpeter> something like it, yeah
[17:32:22] <stpeter> although Apache members can't be removed
[17:32:43] <bear> that could mean two types of membership
[17:32:45] <stpeter> one of the challenges in any such model is determining who is a committer / decider
[17:32:47] <bear> voting and non
[17:33:15] <stpeter> e.g., IESG is selected via the NomCom in an arcane process that's necessary because the IETF doesn't have the concept of membership
[17:33:46] <Kev> stpeter: I'm not convinced we should go for huge overhauls right now. I think going with the simple one of changing bylaws to remove completely inactive people would be a start.
[17:33:47] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "mange"
[17:33:50] <stpeter> the current structure of the XSF was established 10 years ago and might not fit today's reality
[17:34:12] <stpeter> and the bylaws were written by those evil jabber.com people
[17:34:15] <Kev> Or, well, we could look at the ways the XSF is currently failing, and see if bylaws changen could help.
[17:34:18] <Florian> Kev: +1
[17:34:29] <Kev> I'm not sure that fewer members automatically means better review of specs, for example.
[17:34:29] <stpeter> I definitely agree on enforcing the bylaws
[17:34:37] <stpeter> Kev: right
[17:34:52] <Kev> Fewer members *would* mean that people in positions of responsibility who were inactive would be removed and thus make space for potentially more active people.
[17:35:03] <Florian> yeah
[17:35:31] <Kev> This *might* address some issues.
[17:35:33] <Florian> so let's start enforcing that?
[17:35:41] <Kev> (It may well not)
[17:35:42] <Florian> I mean, bylaw 2.6 exists
[17:35:52] <stpeter> personally I don't think there's anything bad about being active and then inactive -- people's priorities change, not everyone is wedded to XMPP for life like I am, etc. :)
[17:36:11] <Kev> stpeter: No, I don't think there's anything wrong with being inactive - only when it's blocking progress.
[17:36:11] <Florian> :)
[17:36:17] <stpeter> Kev: correct
[17:36:21] <Florian> Kev: right
[17:36:35] <bear> being inactive is ok, being non-communicative *and* inactive - that's the problem
[17:36:55] *bear considers voting to be communicating
[17:36:59] <Kev> The problem with inactivity is when you end up with people who are completely uninterested because they've been inactive voting on things, etc.
[17:37:24] <Florian> right
[17:37:51] <stpeter> given that you have 2+ weeks to vote, there's really no excuse for missing more than 1 meeting in a row
[17:37:58] <stpeter> I know I've missed one meeting in my time :)
[17:37:59] <bear> I need to switch back to work - i'm +1 to the tone of the conversation so far and +1 to tightening up member voting bylaw items
[17:38:03] <stpeter> in fact I might have missed two
[17:38:11] <stpeter> bear: thanks for participating
[17:38:24] <Florian> bear: thanks for your time :)
[17:38:54] *bear knows he owes kev some serious gsoc time and will be in contact about that soon
[17:38:56] <Florian> so who needs to enforce Section 2.6?
[17:38:58] *bear re-lurks
[17:39:08] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "I am away from my desk. Leave a message."
[17:39:10] <Florian> is it Baord? Secretary? Members?
[17:39:11] <stpeter> Florian: the Secretary
[17:39:18] <Florian> right
[17:39:29] <stpeter> well, the Secretary just automatically removes members who haven't voted
[17:39:36] <Kev> bear: I've just assumed you've pulled out of that.
[17:39:42] <Kev> And have been acting autonomously.
[17:39:44] <stpeter> I used to do that, now Alex does
[17:39:59] <stpeter> however
[17:40:07] <stpeter> in this case I will send a message to the members@ list
[17:40:18] <stpeter> with my executive director hat on
[17:40:22] <Kev> Have you checked that the person *has* missed three votes? :)
[17:40:34] <stpeter> I shall certainly double-check first
[17:40:37] <Kev> I was told they have, but haven't checked (I only checked two votes backwards, I think)
[17:40:45] <Florian> it might be good to also send a list of people who have been removed to the members@ list and the member removed
[17:40:56] <stpeter> indeed
[17:41:11] <Florian> i.e. so that we don't have the situation like with bear who found out months later that he wasn't a member
[17:41:57] <Florian> I think that sounds like a good thing to do :)
[17:42:18] <stpeter> Florian: good point
[17:43:31] <Kev> This is clearly not good :)
[17:43:55] *stpeter notices that there is no link to http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/ from http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/
[17:44:28] <Florian> Kev: why not?
[17:44:40] <Kev> It is clearly not good that members are removed without realising.
[17:44:47] <Florian> ah right :)
[17:44:48] <Florian> yea
[17:46:15] *** Vanaryon has joined the room
[17:46:33] *** Vanaryon has left the room
[17:48:15] <Florian> on a different note: Board meeting next wednesday then?
[17:48:48] <stpeter> aren't they supposed to be every two weeks?
[17:49:04] <Florian> well, we didn't have a full one this week?
[17:49:11] <stpeter> well true
[17:49:30] <stpeter> I'm sure that if we send a few interesting email messages, there will be plenty of demand for a meeting :)
[17:49:42] <Florian> :)
[17:52:30] <stpeter> it's difficult to maintain energy and commitment for an initiative like XMPP over a span of years
[17:53:05] <Florian> yeah
[17:53:14] <stpeter> and the technology is getting to be a bit mature, which means that excitement is elsewhere (social networking, websockets, etc.)
[17:53:15] <Florian> but I think there's good times too :)
[17:53:29] <Florian> like the Summits
[17:53:32] <stpeter> so in part I think we need to adjust to a new reality
[17:53:33] <Kev> I'm still excited!
[17:53:36] <stpeter> I am too!
[17:53:44] <stpeter> but fewer people are still excited
[17:53:45] <Florian> +1
[17:53:48] <stpeter> which is fine, really
[17:53:57] <stpeter> but we need to think about how to structure things now
[17:54:02] <stpeter> so this has been a good conversation
[17:54:22] <stpeter> but we don't have answers yet
[17:55:28] <stpeter> among other things, I'm going to make a list of people who really are active (not necessarily in writing specs, could be iteam or website or other efforts) -- I doubt that list has more than 20 people on it
[17:55:29] <Florian> but we've got a start
[17:55:54] <Kev> You mean active on more than standards@?
[17:56:07] <Kev> Because contributing to standards@ is valuable too.
[17:56:17] <Kev> (Although of course doesn't require membership, much like the IETF)
[17:56:31] <stpeter> Kev: not sure, I might make a few lists
[17:56:38] <Kev> :)
[17:56:57] <stpeter> and there are people who are active in one area (e.g., jingle, bosh) but not others
[17:57:22] <stpeter> I know a lot of people *care*, but that's not the same as doing things
[17:57:36] <Kev> 'Tis true.
[17:57:37] <Florian> another way to motivate people a bit is money :)
[17:57:46] <stpeter> always
[17:57:57] <Kev> Florian: Not necessarily.
[17:58:01] <stpeter> but sometimes you motivate the wrong people that way
[17:58:09] <Florian> true :/
[17:58:12] <stpeter> and you de-motivate people who don't get any money
[17:58:16] <stpeter> or you can
[17:58:30] <stpeter> that's a difficult path, but not impossible
[17:58:55] <stpeter> well this has been useful, but I'm going to heat up some lunch now
[17:59:01] <Kev> Enjoy.
[17:59:07] <Florian> bon appetit :)
[17:59:10] <stpeter> thanks, guys
[17:59:25] <stpeter> I'm not disappearing, just going AFK for a few minutes
[18:00:57] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[18:02:24] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:06:31] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:20:17] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:21:01] *** Kev shows as "online"
[18:33:21] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:34:39] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "running an errand, bbiab"
[19:03:02] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[19:11:23] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[19:18:23] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:51:58] <bear> great - it just keeps coming today - one of leo's servers evidently got an injection attack earlier today
[19:52:05] <bear> I know what i'm doing tonight :/
[19:52:31] <Florian> ouch :/
[19:52:41] <Florian> bear: if there's anything I can help with, drop me a line
[19:53:02] <bear> thanks
[19:53:18] <bear> right now i'm just doing an audit for entry points and making sure everything is up to date
[19:53:22] <stpeter> sigh
[19:53:29] <stpeter> sorry to hear it, bear
[19:53:35] <stpeter> the 'net is an ugly place sometimes
[19:53:47] <bear> sadly, even tho I'm the only person maintaining it, I have found a couple places out of sync
[19:53:55] <bear> yea, php and mysql are evil
[19:54:04] <stpeter> nod
[19:54:04] *bear of course blames the tools ;)
[19:54:14] <stpeter> unfortunately, they are also quite convenient ;-)
[19:54:18] <bear> yea
[19:54:37] *bear goes back to the grind
[19:54:41] *stpeter reads draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists for tomorrow's IESG meeting and considers adding DKIM support to his mail server
[19:55:21] <stpeter> (and maybe to atlas, too, but one experiment at a time...)
[20:07:11] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:37:59] *** Florian shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[20:39:20] *** Kooda shows as "away" and his status message is "dodo"
[20:45:06] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[20:45:10] *** Kev shows as "away"
[20:50:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:57:49] *** Florian shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[21:00:38] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:01:44] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:01:59] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:02:56] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "bbiaf"
[21:05:36] *** Florian shows as "online"
[21:07:58] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:17:01] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:35:46] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:36:01] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:39:41] *** Tobias has joined the room
[21:39:42] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[21:42:50] *** Florian shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[21:43:17] *** Florian shows as "online"
[21:48:54] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:52:59] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:52:59] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[22:14:27] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:52:06] *** Florian shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:55:49] *** stpeter has left the room
[23:11:49] *** Florian shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[23:33:42] *** Tobias has left the room