Wednesday, September 21, 2011
xsf@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
   
             
XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

[06:33:04] *** Tobias has joined the room
[06:33:42] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[06:53:09] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[07:11:51] *** koski has joined the room
[07:11:51] *** koski has left the room
[09:00:38] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[09:01:07] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "codin'"
[09:19:34] *** 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."
[09:46:17] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[10:22:39] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[10:44:38] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:06:00] *** 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."
[11:21:09] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[11:21:24] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[11:49:34] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:58:40] *** 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."
[12:27:18] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[12:35:37] *** 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."
[12:45:10] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[13:00:47] *** 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."
[13:02:55] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[13:21:22] *** 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."
[13:25:39] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[13:28:35] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[14:11:03] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:12:44] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[14:18:46] <Neustradamus> stpeter: XEP-0045 1.25 rc6 is released or not?
[14:19:12] *** Jehan has joined the room
[14:19:24] <Jehan> Hello.
[14:27:53] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[14:37:17] <Jehan> Hmmm... I am sad. I think I will miss again the meeting. :-(
[14:38:24] <Jehan> Damn timezones! I really wanted to come for today's meeting but I have to leave.
[14:39:32] <Jehan> Have a nice meeting, all!
[14:40:01] <stpeter> thanks, Jehan
[14:40:29] <Jehan> Yep stpeter. I was hoping I could participate to the discussion (if any) for my XEP proposal.
[14:41:14] <Jehan> But I am currently in Tokyo and a friend is leaving Japan tomorrow. So there is a goodbye party.
[14:41:38] <Jehan> Anyway bye.
[14:41:44] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[14:43:11] *** Jehan has left the room
[15:01:26] *** Kev has left the room
[15:01:39] *** Kev has joined the room
[15:01:41] *** Kev shows as "online"
[15:26:39] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[15:40:18] *** 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."
[15:48:00] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[15:48:26] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[15:49:40] *** bear shows as "online"
[16:03:05] <stpeter> T-2 minutes?
[16:03:22] <stpeter> brb
[16:08:13] *** Florian has joined the room
[16:08:13] *** Florian shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:08:22] <Florian> hi everyone
[16:09:27] <Florian> Board Meeting time, right?
[16:10:27] <stpeter> that's my understanding :)
[16:10:41] <Florian> Will, Nyco and Jack missing?
[16:10:54] <stpeter> jack is online, let me invite him
[16:11:09] <Florian> just realized, Swift can't invite to MUC?
[16:11:26] <stpeter> Kev said he's working on Swift's MUC support :)
[16:11:30] <Florian> :)
[16:12:04] <stpeter> he wants the ability to kick people, at least
[16:12:05] <Kev> I'll do invites once Tobias's FT support is integrated.
[16:12:14] <Kev> Don't want to create too many merge conflicts for him.
[16:12:28] <Florian> :)
[16:12:49] <Florian> Agenda: http://typewith.me/xsf
[16:14:22] *** jack has joined the room
[16:14:33] <jack> hello all
[16:14:36] <Kev> I like the way you've filled in who's going to be turning up beforehand :D
[16:14:40] <stpeter> sometimes direct IM works better than room invites
[16:14:50] <Florian> haha, it was there from the last meeting :)
[16:15:07] <Florian> Saved June 29, 2011
[16:15:09] <Florian> :)
[16:15:22] <Florian> any other topics?
[16:16:15] <stpeter> I don't have any other topics
[16:17:25] <bear> Server Certification - cool topic
[16:17:27] <stpeter> the big question is, are we serious about server certification and if so how do we make it happen?
[16:17:55] <Florian> yup
[16:18:46] <bear> before we can even consider that, we have to have a test suite in place
[16:18:58] <stpeter> as I said, probably I can raise some money for this (e.g., to help pay for travel to get the right people in one place), but I think the bigger challenge is to organize and motivate the work
[16:18:59] <Florian> well, I think we should have a spec
[16:19:13] <Florian> i.e. what needs to be tested, what needs to be supported for different certifications
[16:19:54] <bear> also we would need to discuss if we do levels of certification
[16:20:00] <Florian> right
[16:20:04] <Kev> Perhaps it might be interesting to find some organisation that wants to test server compliance or interop, and find out what their requirements are. Try to build something for them first, and go from there?
[16:20:28] <stpeter> Florian: how is that different from http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0302.html and the more detailed features listed in RFC 6120 etc?
[16:20:45] <jack> PDF has a series of test suites that people can run
[16:20:49] <jack> i wonder how those are done
[16:21:15] <jack> it might be useful to look at what other test suites do before embarking on our own
[16:21:18] <bear> I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the IETF someone has done certifying
[16:21:35] <Florian> yeah
[16:21:43] <stpeter> "Certify" might be a strong term
[16:22:05] <bear> compliance suite?
[16:22:09] <stpeter> (semi-)automated interop testing is probably the right place to start
[16:22:14] <bear> *nods*
[16:22:14] <Florian> yeah
[16:22:29] <Florian> something along the lines of the W3C Validator
[16:22:46] <stpeter> right
[16:22:49] <stpeter> that's what I have in mind
[16:23:10] <Florian> looking at XEP-302 ... maybe even add federation to that?
[16:23:23] <bear> then xsf would need to host the service and allow people to point it at their servers
[16:23:38] <Florian> right
[16:23:47] <stpeter> Florian: you might be right that we need a more focused spec that describes the s2s scope more precisly
[16:23:54] <Kev> I think there's much more value in having sometheng people can run themselves off the 'Net.
[16:23:59] <Florian> stpeter: yeah
[16:24:29] <Kev> 'Net-based ones are great for devs testing their own systems, but less so for some organisation wanting to validate a bunch of services internally.
[16:24:33] <Florian> hmm, another question is .... do we "certify" server software or server deployments?
[16:24:33] <Kev> So both modes would be ideal.
[16:24:48] <bear> having a validation service we then could also start advertising the scores/results of people who run against it
[16:25:00] <Florian> bear: indeed
[16:25:17] <bear> the source for a validation service would allow for in-house use by vendors
[16:26:12] <Florian> right
[16:26:23] <Florian> I think there's two ways of seeing this ...
[16:26:37] <stpeter> bear: makes sense
[16:26:59] <Florian> one is to test compliance of a running server (does federation work, valid certs installed....) and the other one is more internal, i.e. does PubSub work the way it's supposed to
[16:27:17] <stpeter> I think that most serious XMPP server developers have such test suites internally, the challenge is working on something common for the greater good
[16:27:21] <Florian> for the first one, a W3C online tool would be awesome (target: sysadmins)
[16:27:31] *** Will has joined the room
[16:27:31] *** Will shows as "online" and his status message is "Isode, Hampton"
[16:27:37] <Kev> stpeter: Knowing your own stuff works, is different from knowing someone else's works, though.
[16:27:39] <Florian> the other one, the target is the server vendors
[16:27:43] <Will> shit - we changed the time didn't we
[16:28:07] <Florian> Hi Will :)
[16:28:22] <stpeter> Will: yeah
[16:28:30] <Will> :-(
[16:28:34] <stpeter> Will: but at least Jack's able to join us at this time :)
[16:28:59] *** jack has left the room
[16:29:00] <Will> so, what have I missed?
[16:29:04] *** jack has joined the room
[16:29:16] <Florian> so what do you guys think of maybe splitting this up into 2 things ... a test suite for developers, and a test site for deployments/sysadmins
[16:29:27] <bear> talking about server certification/validation and running it as a system for people to point at their servers
[16:29:29] <Florian> Will: Server Certification
[16:29:49] <Tobias> this is planned to be purely functionality based testing, right?
[16:30:02] <bear> if the tool is written to have suites of tests and to output to a file, then the web service part becomes just an html display of that output
[16:30:21] <bear> and the file is available for downloading
[16:30:35] <stpeter> yeah
[16:30:41] <stpeter> Tobias: yes!
[16:30:41] *** dwd has joined the room
[16:30:45] <stpeter> Tobias: no scalability testing
[16:31:06] <Tobias> stpeter, yeah..there are enough tools for that ;)
[16:31:22] *** Will shows as "dnd" and his status message is "Busy"
[16:31:32] *** Will shows as "dnd" and his status message is "In one of those meeting thingies"
[16:31:53] <Florian> right
[16:31:54] <stpeter> Tobias: well, we've always avoided scalability testing because there are more variables, set up matters a lot, etc.
[16:32:15] <Tobias> stpeter, i know/just getting to know :)
[16:32:17] <stpeter> and we're supposed to know something about the protocol :)
[16:32:36] <Florian> hehe
[16:33:37] <stpeter> sorry, interruption here, bbiaf
[16:34:26] <bear> seems that we need to 1) gather up tests that could be in said suite 2) start working on python/lua code to test said items and 3) rinse/repeat
[16:34:50] <Florian> yup
[16:34:58] <dwd> Who's doing the work?
[16:35:02] <bear> I mention python/lua code as those are common enough languages that have modern xmpp support libs
[16:35:08] <Florian> so you guys don't think there should be 2 seperate projects?
[16:35:25] <bear> this is something i've always been interested in - I would love to have a chance to work on this
[16:35:28] <Florian> one for deployments a la W3C and one for the actual code?
[16:35:42] <bear> I think we should start small and simple and iterate
[16:36:01] <dwd> Florian, I think a "Verified by XSF" thing for a particular service seems sensible.
[16:36:15] <bear> a project like this could get mired down in politics and/or apathy if the goal is too broad
[16:36:35] <Florian> right
[16:36:53] <stpeter> back
[16:36:54] *bear likes "Verified by XSF"
[16:37:34] <stpeter> bear: totally agreed on politics or apathy
[16:37:44] <Will> as long as we make sure that people don't read "verified" as "approved"
[16:37:49] <stpeter> indeed
[16:37:59] <bear> heck, the first steps would be a spreadsheet of what to test with a column pointing to source snippets on how to test for that
[16:38:37] <stpeter> Florian: I think bear is right that the validator would just be a public interface to the verifier
[16:38:55] <stpeter> (if that makes sense)
[16:38:55] <bear> it's how the Atom folks did their service
[16:39:12] <bear> a test suite that can be driven by a fancier web interface
[16:39:53] <stpeter> yeah
[16:39:55] <Florian> yup
[16:40:27] <bear> probably a good start would be to get a wiki page of what to test and then just announce it to the list and start iterating on that
[16:40:35] *stpeter glances at the "Programming in Lua" book on his desk
[16:40:36] <Florian> +1
[16:40:56] <stpeter> WFM
[16:40:56] <bear> having it as a lua and python lib would be a great success
[16:41:05] <Florian> yeah
[16:41:23] <stpeter> I'm language agnostic really, just want to use something that will draw in or keep contributors
[16:41:24] <Florian> might be something for the hackfest in February?
[16:41:31] <stpeter> Florian: that's the idea, yes
[16:41:51] <stpeter> Florian: and I could probably get funding to pay for travel costs of the top contributors :)
[16:42:24] <Florian> :)
[16:42:32] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[16:42:35] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:42:58] <bear> I will ask Mozilla to see if they will sponsor me on this
[16:43:06] *stpeter logs into wiki.xmpp.org
[16:43:13] <bear> http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Verify
[16:43:36] <Will> succinct
[16:43:48] <bear> I liked the short/simple one for Interop
[16:43:53] <stpeter> heh
[16:43:54] <bear> so went with that flavour
[16:44:32] <bear> I had a good set of talks with the moz folks who are working on backend systems last week
[16:44:42] <stpeter> BTW we have an interop@xmpp.org list if we want to use it http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/interop
[16:44:53] <bear> I think that mailing list would be perfect
[16:44:58] <Florian> +1
[16:45:07] <Will> this is terribly rude but i have to go in a minute or two, have we decided and is there anything more to discuss?
[16:45:10] <stpeter> don't want to spam standards@
[16:45:20] <stpeter> Will: I think we're done for now
[16:45:35] <bear> not rude at all Will - perfectly timed as I think we are close to being done officially
[16:45:52] <Florian> yup :)
[16:45:52] <bear> so +1 to a verification suite to be driven by XSF?
[16:45:54] <Will> well, it is kind of cheeky as i forgot to turn up on time :-)
[16:45:58] <Will> +1
[16:45:59] <stpeter> :)
[16:46:21] <stpeter> easy enough to set up a separate git repository once we have code
[16:46:36] <bear> cool
[16:46:49] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[16:47:02] <bear> I would love to take point on this along with anyone else
[16:47:28] <dwd> Is that possible? Surely you either take point, or you don't? Otherwise it's not a "point", as such...
[16:47:39] <Florian> I'd be happy to help
[16:47:39] <stpeter> bear: I might be able to interest some folks in Cisco to help
[16:47:58] *bear loves having folks like dwd in his life
[16:47:59] <stpeter> and I'll commit to putting time into this, too
[16:48:01] <Kev> dwd: That'd be to 'take blob', wouldn't it?
[16:48:15] <Kev> Or 'take disorganised heap' or such.
[16:48:32] <dwd> Kev, Or "take blunt".
[16:48:40] <Kev> Or that.
[16:48:40] <stpeter> maybe I could learn some lua (or re-learn some Python) along the way :)
[16:48:41] <Florian> lol
[16:48:41] <bear> well, I fubar'd GSoC this season so I want to redeem myself
[16:48:56] <dwd> Kev, But this is a "pointless" discussion.
[16:49:04] *dwd is particularly pleased with that one.
[16:49:09] <stpeter> :P
[16:49:14] <Florian> :p
[16:49:15] <bear> well done!
[16:49:44] *bear oozes his blob over dwd and kev in hopes of blunting any further puns
[16:50:09] *stpeter must be missing some context
[16:50:43] *** Will has left the room
[16:51:15] <bear> ok now :) - we have agreed on that
[16:51:26] <bear> any further items to discuss?
[16:51:39] <Florian> not from my end
[16:51:50] <stpeter> bear: once we have a basic wiki page describing the project, I can send a message to standards@xmpp.org and jdev@jabber.org (plus the members list)
[16:52:11] <bear> cool
[16:52:20] <Florian> awesome
[16:52:25] <bear> deadline of next board meeting to have wiki page done?
[16:52:35] <Florian> sounds good
[16:52:42] <bear> or do you want 2 meetings worth of time?
[16:52:47] <stpeter> sure
[16:53:08] <stpeter> I think a week is enough
[16:53:11] <bear> k
[16:53:16] <stpeter> at least for the basic description
[16:53:30] <bear> thanks
[16:54:04] <stpeter> bear: we also (still) have xmpp:interop@muc.xmpp.org
[16:54:10] <dwd> Is there a plan for verifying the verifier? Like, having leave to appeal to Council to review any discrepencies, or something?
[16:54:30] <bear> I think we would have to have the council certify it
[16:54:47] <Florian> indeed
[16:55:00] <bear> (this also will give the next council something very interesting to look forward to)
[16:55:31] <dwd> I think you'd need to have them on-hand to check results, especially in the case where the verifier complains and the implementor disputes it.
[16:55:44] <bear> +1
[16:55:49] <Florian> +1
[16:55:59] <bear> they would be the final authority - because that would also drive changes to the specs
[16:56:32] <dwd> bear, Well, I'm not sure - mostly, it'd probably find bugs in the verifier or its libraries.
[16:56:44] <stpeter> bear: yes, I think this will drive some fixes to the specs, better lists of testable features (along the lines of what's in RFC 6120), etc.
[16:56:53] <stpeter> dwd: true
[16:56:56] <bear> :) - I'm being optimistic that the verifier will be perfect!
[16:57:06] *bear coughs and returns to reality
[16:57:58] <stpeter> who's the room owner for interop@muc.xmpp.org?
[16:58:26] <Florian> good question
[16:58:32] <dwd> stpeter, Kev?
[16:58:45] <dwd> stpeter, He more or less ran the last Interop.
[16:58:50] *** jack has left the room
[16:58:50] *** jack has joined the room
[16:58:56] <Kev> Possibly me, I guess.
[16:59:01] <stpeter> yeah
[16:59:32] <Kev> Nope.
[17:03:37] *** bear has joined the room
[17:03:45] *** Kev has joined the room
[17:03:46] *** Kev shows as "online"
[17:03:54] *** bear has left the room
[17:04:04] *** bear has joined the room
[17:06:52] *** Florian has joined the room
[17:06:52] *** Florian shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[17:09:39] *** dwd has joined the room
[17:11:03] *** stpeter has joined the room
[17:11:26] <stpeter> bear: I've edited the minutes at http://typewith.me/xsf
[17:11:31] <stpeter> I think they're good to go now
[17:11:34] <bear> yep, been watching
[17:11:39] <stpeter> heh ok :)
[17:11:40] <bear> cool - i'll send them out now
[17:11:44] <stpeter> thanks!
[17:11:47] <stpeter> I'm psyched
[17:11:47] <bear> thanks
[17:12:00] <bear> me also - will be a nice fall/winter project
[17:12:50] <stpeter> heh ... winterop? ;-)
[17:13:58] <Florian> :D
[17:16:24] *stpeter goes back to reviewing Internet-Drafts for tomorrow's IESG telechat
[17:17:29] *bear goes back to herding Tegra250 boards
[17:17:59] <stpeter> :)
[17:18:12] <stpeter> you and I are heading in opposite directions :)
[17:18:30] <bear> yea, I'm in very barren lands it seems
[17:19:29] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:21:27] *** Kooda has joined the room
[17:38:01] <stpeter> Neustradamus: I fixed the "www.xmpp.org" stuff in the XEP Python scripts
[17:41:18] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[17:41:40] <Neustradamus> stpeter: ok :)
[17:42:03] <Neustradamus> for emails or proposal XEPs ?
[17:42:21] <stpeter> Neustradamus: I will soon be AFK for a few hours but I will be back later
[17:42:25] <Neustradamus> it is possible to modify the theme of xmpp.org and jabber.org ?
[17:42:27] <Neustradamus> In the theme folder / misc/nav-posts.php
<div class="pagination">
<span class="previous"><?php previous_posts_link(__('« Previous', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span>
<span class="next"><?php next_posts_link(__('Next »', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span>
</div>
change to
<div class="pagination">
<span class="previous"><?php previous_posts_link(__('« Next', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span>
<span class="next"><?php next_posts_link(__('Previous »', 'carrington-blog')) ?></span>
</div>
[17:42:37] <Neustradamus> stpeter: ok :)
[17:42:39] <stpeter> Neustradamus: for inbox proposals, last calls, and deferred specs
[17:42:49] <Neustradamus> :)
[17:42:54] <stpeter> Neustradamus: those were the only scripts that still had www
[17:43:24] <stpeter> Neustradamus: I think that might be fixed in a more recent version of the theme, so the first step is to upgrade
[17:45:30] <Neustradamus> an example of pages: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bind.html
[17:45:43] <Neustradamus> the redirection is not updated (not alone)
[17:46:20] <stpeter> some of those do not redirect for historical reasons -- we want to keep the old versions online
[17:46:37] <stpeter> ah, I see
[17:46:48] <Neustradamus> you see :)
[17:46:59] <stpeter> yeah, we can fix that in the lighttpd config
[17:47:31] <Neustradamus> not directly in the page ?
[17:47:37] <stpeter> about http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/ -- yes we keep those old versions around (or don't put the time into fixing them)
[17:47:40] <Neustradamus> I found new old addresses:
http://www.jabber.org/tmp/ (redirect to http://www.jabber.org/ ?)
http://www.jabber.org/muc-logs/ (http://logs.jabber.org/ now?)
[17:48:02] <Neustradamus> ok
[17:48:11] <stpeter> no, easier to fix that in the server config -- I don't want to change every one of the old .html files
[17:48:14] <stpeter> bbiab
[17:48:34] <Neustradamus> ok
[17:49:39] <Neustradamus> I found a "very" old page:
http://www.jabber.org/service-policy/
Personal Eventing Protocol has been removed...
Can you add a XMPP URI for jabber@conference.jabber.org ?
Change the part with 5223 port...
Change "<http://logs.jabber.org/>;" to http://logs.jabber.org/
Change "JabberID" to "Jabber ID"
Change "policy will be posted at www.jabber.org and" to "policy will be posted at jabber.org and t" (remove www.)
In "How to Contact Us" part : there is a link to http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=21 (dead)
Update old xmpp.org links to new links

On http://www.jabber.org/about/
http://www.jabber.org/index.php/network/ to http://www.jabber.org/network/
http://www.jabber.org/index.php/download-a-client/ to http://www.jabber.org/download-a-client/
Update http://xmpp.org/services/ to http://xmpp.org/resources/public-services/
Update other xmpp.org links on other pages.

http://xmpp.org/extensions/all.shtml is dead ?
[17:51:59] <Neustradamus> Kev: http://logs.jabber.org/ it is possible to have same logs for all? old and new?
[17:57:18] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:01:18] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:01:46] <stpeter> Neustradamus: why does it matter that we have old links with index.php in them? they redirect just fine!
[18:01:58] <stpeter> that's why we set up redirects :)
[18:02:05] <stpeter> time for lunch here...
[18:02:45] <Neustradamus> stpeter: ok ok for logs
[18:04:05] <Neustradamus> stpeter: you can close http://tracker.xmpp.org/browse/ITEAM-12 ;)
[18:06:38] <Neustradamus> about logs, there are double... http://logs.jabber.org/ and http://logs.jabber.org/old/ there are same.
[18:07:11] <Neustradamus> and http://logs.jabber.org/new/ too :D
[18:11:32] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[18:27:10] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[18:27:14] <stpeter> ok
[18:27:27] <stpeter> now I really need to be away for a while
[18:27:51] <stpeter> Neustradamus: jabber.org is *not* an XSF service, so please post about that in the jabber@conference.jabber.org room
[18:27:53] <stpeter> bbl
[18:28:06] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "to the airport and back"
[18:32:57] <Neustradamus> stpeter: yes
[18:40:46] *** Astro has joined the room
[18:41:15] <Astro> hi
[18:41:26] <Astro> will all validator-relevant stuff be posted on interop@?
[18:49:48] *** dwd shows as "online"
[18:54:52] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:59:10] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:00:16] *** Astro shows as "away" and his status message is "User timed out"
[19:01:00] <bear> astro - most likely yes
[19:01:35] <bear> and please do poke us if you notice anything not on interop@
[19:10:17] *** Astro shows as "xa" and his status message is "User timed out"
[19:16:06] *** Astro shows as "online"
[19:16:24] <Astro> great
[19:16:41] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:16:52] <Astro> maybe the node.js xmpp-server is going to be ready for interop testing at next fosdem
[19:26:42] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[19:32:34] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:48:35] <bear> sweet!
[19:57:51] *** MiGri has joined the room
[20:06:09] *** 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."
[20:08:56] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:31:08] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:32:04] *** dwd shows as "online"
[20:33:16] *** Astro shows as "away" and his status message is "User timed out"
[20:37:48] *** Astro shows as "online"
[20:47:17] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[20:56:00] *** Astro shows as "away" and his status message is "User timed out"
[20:58:30] *** Astro shows as "online"
[21:03:39] *** 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."
[21:05:08] *** Astro shows as "away" and his status message is "User timed out"
[21:06:36] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:06:36] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:07:42] *** Astro shows as "online"
[21:31:34] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[21:32:30] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:40:18] *** Astro shows as "away" and his status message is "User timed out"
[21:42:30] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[21:45:24] *** Astro shows as "online"
[22:18:44] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:35:14] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:38:58] *** Astro shows as "away" and his status message is "User timed out"
[22:44:00] *** Astro shows as "online"
[22:45:14] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"