Wednesday, June 29, 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

[00:48:30] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[03:19:08] *** stpeter has joined the room
[03:22:54] *** stpeter has left the room
[04:31:25] *** bear has left the room
[04:31:25] *** bear has joined the room
[05:47:15] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[05:49:12] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[05:50:06] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[06:33:58] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[06:42:18] *** Kev has joined the room
[06:42:19] *** Kev shows as "online"
[06:51:13] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[06:59:29] *** Tobias has joined the room
[06:59:31] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[07:08:18] *** 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."
[07:09:03] *** koski has joined the room
[07:09:45] *** koski has left the room
[07:33:38] *** Tobias has left the room
[07:40:50] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[07:49:10] *** 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."
[08:06:58] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[08:30:54] *** Tobias has joined the room
[08:30:56] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:17:29] *** 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."
[09:22:47] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[09:33:06] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[09:46:53] *** 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."
[09:53:12] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[09:53:12] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[10:00:37] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "mange"
[10:19:44] *** Tobias has joined the room
[10:19:45] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[10:24:58] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[10:37:16] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[10:46:12] *** 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."
[10:59:07] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:10:08] *** 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."
[11:20:35] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:32:38] *** 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."
[11:52:11] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[12:11:26] *** 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."
[12:29:53] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[12:50:34] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:51:40] *** 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."
[13:17:24] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[13:28:11] *** 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."
[13:53:41] *** Tobias has left the room
[14:32:37] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[14:45:32] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:50:06] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[15:00:37] *** 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."
[15:16:50] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[15:17:13] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:10:53] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[16:22:47] *** Tobias has joined the room
[16:22:47] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:27:02] *bear sighs
[16:27:18] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[16:27:35] <bear> another "i'll be lurking" day for me
[16:28:55] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:31:22] <stpeter> 's ok
[16:31:26] <stpeter> bbiab
[16:46:41] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[16:47:21] *** jack has joined the room
[16:47:47] *** Florian has joined the room
[16:47:57] <Florian> T-15
[16:48:06] <Florian> and hello @ all
[16:48:47] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:48:53] <stpeter> hi Florian!
[16:54:41] <Florian> http://typewith.me/xsf
[17:02:57] <stpeter> it seems that Jack, Florian, and bear are here
[17:03:13] <Florian> right
[17:03:25] <Florian> Will and Nyco missing
[17:03:29] <stpeter> or at least in the room :)
[17:03:34] <Florian> but we have quorum
[17:04:23] <stpeter> if you're all awake :)
[17:04:50] <jack> i'm here (and awake!)
[17:05:06] <Florian> :)
[17:05:25] <Florian> Agenda over at: http://typewith.me/xsf
[17:06:25] <Florian> so, should we start?
[17:06:59] <jack> +1
[17:07:33] <Florian> ok ... so XMPP Validator
[17:07:45] <Florian> the idea here would be that the XSF would pay fo one
[17:07:47] <Florian> *for
[17:07:52] <Florian> to be developed
[17:08:02] <Florian> question is: do we want to do this
[17:09:03] <stpeter> it would be a good thing to have developed -- the question is if we can interest people in working on it, and whether we can build a sustainable project team
[17:09:42] <Florian> can we ask the Council for a list of things we'd want to have it test?
[17:09:44] <jack> i think it would get done for free if we just wrote a spec for what it was
[17:10:00] <Florian> great :)
[17:10:14] <Florian> Kev: could the Council come up with a spec?
[17:10:23] <jack> i'm not opposed to paying for its development, but i think the real issue is nailing down what it does and how
[17:10:34] <stpeter> jack: yes, that is step one for sure
[17:10:39] <Kev> Florian: RFC6120?
[17:10:43] <Florian> definitely
[17:10:54] *stpeter laughs at Kev's comment
[17:10:58] <Kev> Your spec is ready: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6120.txt
[17:11:04] <Florian> lol
[17:11:30] <stpeter> I think Jack means a requirements document for the software
[17:11:56] <jack> are we testing clients? servers? components? all of the above? is it web based? are the tests written in javascript? is the harness an app anyone can run or a web service?
[17:12:02] <jack> none of those answers are in any RFC
[17:12:15] <stpeter> right
[17:12:19] <Florian> I think it should be a webservice
[17:12:27] <Florian> checking clients / servers at first?
[17:12:30] <jack> ideally it would be delclarative
[17:12:37] <jack> or at least mostly so
[17:12:50] <Kev> jack: Right - but Florian asked for a spec for it to test against, and surely the RFCs initially, followed by the XEPs are the canonical definition of what needs to be tested.
[17:13:11] <stpeter> sure, for the protocol
[17:13:43] <stpeter> it's been ages since I wrote any kind of requirements document...
[17:14:11] <Kev> Florian: A webservice is fine as long as it's a webservice one can run themselves, I think.
[17:14:21] <Florian> hmmm
[17:14:45] <jack> so the intention is to have it be runnable by arbitrary developers
[17:14:47] <Kev> I don't really care what form it takes, or what language it's in, or anything like that. He who puts the effort in can choose that stuff, just so long as people can grab it and run it.
[17:15:06] <Kev> jack: That was my assumption, but I grant that it is *my* assumption.
[17:15:06] <stpeter> Florian: as I said, I can probably raise some money to help with this effort, but we might use that to do something like hold a hackfest for the validator team at FOSDEM
[17:15:19] *** Florian shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[17:15:23] <Florian> interesting idea
[17:15:58] <Kev> If there's money in it, I'd have thought an interesting way of spending it might be to have someone produce the bullet-point form of 6120 conformance.
[17:16:01] <stpeter> e.g. we pay travel and hotel for project contributors
[17:16:17] <Florian> stpeter: I like the idea
[17:16:19] <Kev> That's not something I'd be willing to do on my own time, though, because it sounds massing.
[17:16:22] <Kev> massive, too.
[17:16:25] <stpeter> Kev, could you explain what you mean by bullet-point form?
[17:16:45] *** Florian shows as "online"
[17:16:45] <Kev> stpeter: A test plan, I think I mean.
[17:16:50] <stpeter> ah
[17:16:59] *** Kooda shows as "xa" and his status message is "mange"
[17:17:03] <Kev> Writing the validator then becomes 'simply' codifying that, which is much less open-ended.
[17:17:25] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#conformance might be a start toward that
[17:17:32] <Kev> Yes.
[17:18:16] <stpeter> to Jack's point, I think it would be good to test either servers or clients to start with, whichever is simpler
[17:18:26] <Kev> Servers are easier to test.
[17:18:30] <stpeter> (dialback testing could be interesting)
[17:18:35] <Florian> yeah
[17:18:38] <Florian> as well as certificates
[17:18:40] <stpeter> Kev: other than dialback, yes
[17:18:47] <Kev> stpeter: Dialback too, no?
[17:19:15] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[17:19:22] <stpeter> oh yes we'd need to test everything eventually, the question is what do we build in to start
[17:19:40] <Kev> Test it offers SCRAM? :)
[17:19:45] <stpeter> yay
[17:20:35] <stpeter> another advantage to server testing is that presumably some server vendors could become interested in this project
[17:20:46] <stpeter> even companies like Microsoft and IBM have s2s code
[17:20:49] <Florian> yeah
[17:20:51] <Kev> Indeed.
[17:20:56] <stpeter> plus it's good to encourage more federation
[17:21:16] <Florian> indeed
[17:21:29] *stpeter scrolls up to look at Jack's questions
[17:23:31] <Florian> so, who's willing to write up a project spec?
[17:23:47] <stpeter> I'm out of the loop on testing methodologies, but what does it mean to write the tests in javascript?
[17:23:57] <stpeter> phone call, attention reduced
[17:24:28] <jack> i didn't mean anything by naming javascript, but i am of hte opinion that hte tests should be easily writable by most people
[17:24:39] <jack> not necessarily all tests, but the majority of them
[17:24:50] <stpeter> +1 to easily writable
[17:25:13] <Florian> +1
[17:25:17] <jack> i think when fritzy and i discussed this in '09 we were talking about something like Expect
[17:25:33] <jack> ie, send this xml, response must match this XPath
[17:25:45] <Florian> that sounds interesting
[17:26:26] <jack> and the schema obviously :)
[17:29:50] <Kev> I think that's one of many sensible approaches.
[17:29:54] <stpeter> ok off the phone
[17:30:02] <Kev> I'd go with whichever one someone was willing to code :)
[17:30:06] <stpeter> right
[17:30:13] <stpeter> it's all about the code
[17:30:18] <stpeter> forget about all these specs :)
[17:30:56] <Kev> If it were easy to write tests in this framework, I *suspect* server vendors would start to chip in code themselves.
[17:30:59] <Kev> Or client vendors.
[17:31:10] <Florian> yeah
[17:31:14] <Kev> As they want to prove they're acting correctly and someone else isn't.
[17:31:17] <stpeter> Florian: I propose that we start to work on a short requirements page at the wiki
[17:31:24] <Florian> sounds good
[17:31:51] *stpeter notices that he needs to retire http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Radar
[17:32:29] <Florian> ok, so Wiki page, and then we'll go from there
[17:32:33] <Florian> next item?
[17:33:06] <stpeter> yep
[17:33:08] <Florian> Bylaw enforcement
[17:33:16] <Florian> we talked about this last week ...
[17:33:45] <Florian> looks like we haven't been enforcing Bylaw 2.6? ...
[17:34:23] <stpeter> we'd need to ask Alex about that, but in general we have been as far as I know
[17:34:39] <stpeter> that is:

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.
[17:34:51] <Florian> ah... we should add a notification to the members and members list
[17:35:14] <jack> it definitely was enforced before. i got terminated in 05 or something
[17:36:00] <Florian> right
[17:36:28] <stpeter> heh
[17:38:12] <stpeter> the problem here is that one of our Council members missed 3 consecutive votes
[17:38:21] <stpeter> that happened long long ago with DJ Adams, too
[17:38:42] <stpeter> DJ resigned, but missing 3 membership votes was not the primary reason he resigned
[17:38:59] <jack> it almost hapepned with Ian right?
[17:39:18] <stpeter> the bylaws do say "may have their membership status automatically terminated" instead of "shall" or "must"
[17:39:33] <stpeter> jack: quite possibly -- I don't remember that episode as clearly
[17:39:40] *** 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."
[17:40:02] <jack> is it fritzy?
[17:40:10] <jack> i imagine if it was mamiller, stpeter would go kick him
[17:40:17] <stpeter> Ralph
[17:40:29] <jack> weird. he emailed me just the other day
[17:40:34] <stpeter> oh sure
[17:40:44] <stpeter> he's been voting on most Council items
[17:40:49] <stpeter> just missed 3 XSF votes
[17:41:02] <jack> what a dork!
[17:41:19] <stpeter> yeah :)
[17:41:28] <jack> i seem to recall getting personal emails from alex if i hadn't voted by a few days before closing
[17:41:36] <jack> i always vote early now
[17:41:48] <stpeter> and since Council members need to be XSF members, if you're not an XSF member then you can't be a Council member
[17:41:54] <jack> well, is the issue that hte council will be hamstrung without him?
[17:41:55] <stpeter> but it's not the end of the world
[17:42:13] <stpeter> the Council would just continue on with its other members
[17:42:20] <stpeter> I think :)
[17:42:25] <jack> is the board even allowed to contradict the bylaws? :)
[17:42:42] <stpeter> well, there is wiggle room in the bylaws
[17:42:49] <stpeter> which is a separate problem, perhaps
[17:42:55] <stpeter> maybe that needs to be tightened
[17:44:04] <jack> perhaps we should terminate his XSF membership, admonish him a little, give him dispensation to serve on the council until his term is up, but contigent on him not missing any more votes
[17:44:17] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[17:44:18] <stpeter> heh
[17:44:21] <Kev> I don't think the wriggle room is for that.
[17:44:37] <Kev> I think the wriggle room is the ambiguity as to whether the ejection from membership is automatic.
[17:44:57] <Kev> The Council must be Members thing is fairly unambigous.
[17:45:11] <jack> Automatic termination seems pretty clear as well.
[17:45:25] <Kev> I thought so, Peter doesn't :)
[17:46:03] <jack> peter: what's your argument?
[17:46:13] <Kev> That it uses 'may' instead of 'will'.
[17:46:14] <stpeter> may vs. shall
[17:46:27] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
[17:46:57] <stpeter> if you look at the other subsections there, it's pretty clear that 'may' is used for stuff that's optional, whereas 'must' and 'shall' are used for things that are not optional
[17:47:05] <stpeter> you may resign, you may be removed, etc.
[17:47:45] <jack> ok. then the question is what would the board like to do here?
[17:47:52] <stpeter> for example, Section 8.1 says:

If a Council member resigns his or her membership in the Corporation, is removed from membership in the Corporation, or is terminated from membership in the Corporation, he or she shall thereby relinquish all rights and responsibilities as a member of the Council.

[17:48:04] <Kev> Although I note
[17:48:13] <Kev> "Section 2.5 Removal by Members. A Member may be involuntarily removed from membership by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Members of the Corporation."
[17:48:23] <stpeter> you may resign or be removed, but if you do then you shall relinquish all rights blah blah
[17:48:27] <Kev> So by the same logic, that would suggest that an affirmative vote of 2/3 members to eject someone isn't binding.
[17:48:37] <Florian> hmm
[17:48:43] <jack> i guess i agree with peter about the may thing
[17:48:53] *stpeter loves parsing legalese
[17:48:55] <jack> which means the board could vote ti keep/remove ralph
[17:49:02] <Kev> "The membership has voted to eject you"
'Sorry, it says May and I don't want to'
"Oh, ok then"
[17:49:06] <stpeter> I think 2.5 "the membership may choose to remove a member..."
[17:49:17] <stpeter> ^means
[17:49:34] <stpeter> I'll grant that I have not reviewed the entire bylaws in many years
[17:50:30] <Kev> There seem to be other cases that explicitly say "may, but need not" too.
[17:50:42] <stpeter> Jack, BTW we had a wideranging discussion in this room last week, see http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/xsf/110622/ for the archives -- it makes for interesting reading
[17:50:43] <jack> So we can choose to remove or keep Ralph, and I assume we're only having this conversation because most people want ot keep him on the council
[17:50:45] <Kev> So whatever happens, I think some amount of clarification might be good.
[17:51:09] <stpeter> Kev: I think we need either some clarification or a revolution
[17:51:49] <jack> clarification is easyish if you know what you want. what do we want?
[17:51:57] <Kev> jack: I think the question is "Do you get special dispensation for failing to comply because you've been generally helpful", although the question is also "Is Board in a position to give such dispensation".
[17:52:15] <Florian> I don't think the board is
[17:52:24] <jack> it's the ED's choice I think.
[17:52:30] <Florian> yeah
[17:52:49] <jack> the bylaws give the organization leeway to keep/remove him in this case, and the ED is authorized to make that call
[17:52:59] <Kev> I don't think his Councilness is relevant, Council will carry one way or the other, it's because it could be considered a mean thing to do to Ralph when he's done a great deal over the years.
[17:53:00] <stpeter> the clearest thing to do is to enforce the bylaws without exception
[17:53:07] <Florian> the thing that came out of the discussion last week, we should enforce them and avoid situations where people get special treatment
[17:53:09] <jack> really teh board should not get involved with the day to day details :)
[17:53:13] <stpeter> heh
[17:53:13] <stpeter> ok
[17:53:40] <Florian> stpeter: right
[17:53:46] <jack> ralph can still participate if he's not on the council
[17:53:46] <stpeter> I'll have a chat with Ralph, but it seems best for Ralph's membership to lapse for the next 2 weeks or so
[17:53:48] <stpeter> phone again
[17:53:52] <jack> he just can't vote
[17:54:39] <jack> i feel like there should be some repercussions for the not voting thing
[17:54:46] <Florian> +1
[17:56:19] <jack> do the bylaws have any l anguage about reinstatement if you've been terminated?
[17:56:38] <jack> if not, then i think we can do whatever we want assuming he reapplies and is voted in
[17:56:56] <stpeter> I'll be on the phone for a while here
[17:56:58] <Kev> jack: You're back in, and so's Bear.
[17:57:03] <Kev> So I'm assuming it's fine to reapply.
[17:57:20] <jack> So he gets 2 weeks of not being on the council
[17:57:38] <Kev> Only 2 weeks?
[17:57:49] <jack> well, i don't know when the election is
[17:57:53] <jack> so i guessed :)
[17:58:07] <Kev> Wouldn't it be until the next membership vote (3 months I guess, given you're having this discussion because of the just-past last election).
[17:58:17] <jack> ah, yes
[17:58:19] <jack> so 3 months.
[17:58:32] <jack> can the council survive with ralphm's input but not his vote for 3 months?
[17:59:01] <Kev> I would have thought so.
[17:59:20] <Kev> Council doesn't do any real work anyway, right? That's all done by people contributing on the lists.
[17:59:33] <stpeter> Kev: not quite :P
[17:59:50] <jack> From my own experience, lapsing was embarassing enough to be just punishment
[17:59:52] <Kev> Equally, given the circumstance, I'm sure that if Ralph had comments to make, Council will make sure to listen.
[17:59:56] <jack> and i don't htink i've ever missed a vote since
[18:00:29] <jack> so if I were ED, i suppose i'd terminate hiim and let him reapply. ralphm can learn not to miss three votes in a row
[18:00:58] <jack> and next week we can decide what to do about the bylaw modifications to give us more or less leeway on this issue.
[18:01:04] <jack> or next meeting
[18:01:57] <jack> I have got to run to lunch with the wife (we're at an hour already). I'll check the room when I get back and respond via email to anything else.
[18:02:04] *** jack shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:03:41] <stpeter> ok
[18:03:52] <stpeter> sorry, family distractions here...
[18:06:35] <Florian> ok
[18:08:49] <Florian> I'm just wondering ... should we move this bylaw discussion to the mailinglist?
[18:13:52] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:17:22] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:17:30] <stpeter> about fixing the bylaws?
[18:17:36] <stpeter> (off the phone)
[18:17:47] <Florian> yeah
[18:18:22] <stpeter> sure, doesn't hurt -- although I'd prefer to discuss some of the bigger issues, too
[18:20:22] <Florian> right
[18:21:52] <stpeter> however, I really need to finish reviewing a whole stack of documents for my meeting tomorrow and I've made zero progress on that so far today :(
[18:22:55] *** jack shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:23:06] <Florian> right ... so let's move this to the list
[18:23:14] <Florian> and see when we can have another meeting
[18:23:14] <stpeter> yes
[18:23:25] <Florian> cools
[18:23:30] <Florian> thx all :)
[18:28:14] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:53:50] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[18:57:05] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[19:02:33] *** 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."
[19:13:27] *** jack shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:13:50] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:14:22] *** jack has left the room
[19:21:40] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[19:26:29] *** stpeter has left the room
[19:30:21] *** 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."
[19:50:44] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[19:55:52] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[19:56:34] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[20:04:21] *** 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."
[20:14:16] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:27:11] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[20:31:50] *** Kev shows as "away"
[20:36:53] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:40:13] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[20:42:56] *** 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."
[20:55:13] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:03:09] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:03:16] *** Kev has left the room
[21:11:47] *** Kooda has left the room
[21:29:17] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:29:17] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:29:42] *** stpeter has joined the room
[21:30:33] <bear> stpeter - do we know for sure how much of google+ is xmpp related?
[21:30:42] <bear> some of it is "obvious"
[21:31:22] <bear> but i'm wondering how loudly we should be banging the drum about it being xmpp backed (or if we should at all)
[21:31:53] <Tobias> normal IM + group video chat...that all, right?
[21:32:54] <bear> yea, but it also feels like MUC, SIP, video, presence....
[21:33:59] <Tobias> don't know..haven't tested/analyzed it myself...just know what others wrote
[21:34:00] <Tobias> :P
[21:35:04] <Tobias> http://juberti.blogspot.com/2011/06/announcing-google-hangouts.html <-- at the bottom it doesn't mention SIP...but that doesn't mean it's not there
[21:35:30] <Tobias> Standards-based: XMPP, Jingle, RTP, ICE, STUN, SRTP
Fully encrypted (HTTPS + SRTP)
[21:36:37] <bear> cool
[21:36:55] <bear> i'm beating the drum internally at moz about more xmpp support - so this really helps
[21:37:34] <Tobias> nice
[22:12:24] *** Florian shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:12:51] *** Florian shows as "online"
[22:28:30] *** Tobias has left the room
[22:36:36] *** Florian shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:37:25] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[22:40:04] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[22:52:09] *** stpeter has left the room
[22:56:29] *** Florian shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[22:57:07] *** Florian shows as "online"
[23:07:31] *** Florian shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[23:12:30] *** Florian shows as "online"