Wednesday, January 04, 2012
xsf@muc.xmpp.org
January
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
         
XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

[01:19:38] *** jef has joined the room
[01:22:45] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[01:30:14] *** jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[01:30:40] *** jef shows as "online"
[01:41:30] *** jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[01:51:30] *** jef shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[01:55:59] *** jef shows as "online"
[02:41:25] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[03:05:18] *** jef has left the room
[03:55:11] *** jef has joined the room
[04:05:08] *** jef shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[04:21:30] *** jef shows as "online"
[04:21:33] *** kevin has joined the room
[04:25:22] *** kevin shows as "online"
[04:26:13] *** kevin shows as "xa" and his status message is "(Not avaliable as a result of being idle more than 15 mins)"
[04:28:52] *** jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[04:30:04] *** jef shows as "online"
[04:36:00] *** jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[04:43:56] *** jef shows as "online"
[04:47:31] *** kevin shows as "online"
[04:49:48] *** jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[04:50:12] *** jef shows as "online"
[04:59:40] *** jef has left the room
[06:01:25] *** kevin shows as "xa" and his status message is "(Not avaliable as a result of being idle more than 15 mins)"
[06:24:34] *** kevin shows as "online"
[06:40:11] *** kevin has left the room
[06:57:30] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:08:12] *** koski has joined the room
[08:16:59] *** koski shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[08:37:10] *** koski shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto Status (idle)"
[08:41:29] *** Kooda shows as "away"
[09:03:23] *** Kevin has joined the room
[09:05:38] *** luca tagliaferri has joined the room
[09:06:15] *** koski shows as "online"
[09:09:57] *** koski has left the room
[11:06:38] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:17:16] *** 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."
[11:17:16] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[11:18:34] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[11:54:38] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[12:00:34] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[12:22:33] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[12:38:27] *** kevin has joined the room
[13:05:13] *** kevin shows as "online"
[13:40:47] *** kevin has left the room
[13:59:12] *** Kevin shows as "online" and his status message is "I hope how very lucky you are to know since I'm so incredibly incredible"
[13:59:47] *** Kevin shows as "online" and his status message is "I hope how very lucky you are to know since I'm so incredibly incredible"
[13:59:55] *** Kevin shows as "xa" and his status message is "I hope how very lucky you are to know since I'm so incredibly incredible (Not avaliable as a result of being idle more than 15 mins)"
[14:06:14] *** kevin has joined the room
[14:06:19] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:20:12] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "AFK for a bit"
[14:34:46] *** kevin shows as "online" and his status message is "Selfish world&guyz :) I hate you all!"
[15:14:08] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[15:14:36] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[15:35:57] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[15:40:45] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[15:45:35] *** 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."
[15:50:41] *** kevin shows as "xa" and his status message is "(Not avaliable as a result of being idle more than 15 mins)"
[16:04:45] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[16:08:35] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[16:17:34] *** dwd has joined the room
[16:18:43] <dwd> My phone just nudged me about the meeting.
[16:19:02] <dwd> My initial thought was "But surely that's on Wednesday?!"
[16:20:15] <stpeter> :)
[16:23:35] <dwd> I wonder if anyone else remembered.
[16:23:47] <stpeter> it's in the calendar...
[16:23:53] <Kev> I'm too busy writing about PSA...
[16:23:54] <stpeter> perhaps few use that
[16:23:59] <dwd> stpeter, That's the same excuse my wife uses.
[16:24:05] <stpeter> Kev: there's a public service announcement?
[16:24:14] <Kev> No, Presence State Annotations, silly.
[16:24:18] <dwd> stpeter, Ah, he's not mentioned this one to you yet?
[16:24:20] *stpeter is slammed today with IESG work
[16:24:30] <stpeter> Kev: ah yes, I forgot about that
[16:24:37] *** kevin shows as "online"
[16:24:40] <dwd> stpeter, We felt that since I aready had Dialback-Without-Dialback, you ought to have this one. :-)
[16:24:50] <stpeter> aw shucks
[16:25:48] <kevin> Wew..very tired...I have to go us next month.I have a very hard exam(
[16:28:41] *** kevin has left the room
[16:29:05] <stpeter> it's confusing to have "Kev" and "kevin" here :)
[16:29:14] <Kev> Yes, I noticed that.
[16:29:24] <Kev> It's confusing enough just me being here.
[16:29:24] <stpeter> I don't see Ashley online
[16:29:47] <stpeter> nor Florian
[16:29:51] <dwd> No, nor me. Actually I don't see any directors about.
[16:30:07] <stpeter> agreed
[16:30:13] <dwd> I mean, aside from me, and bear (who is online, but I suspect only in a connected kind of way).
[16:31:03] <dwd> I also don't see Ralph, and I was going to ask if there was any news on the stand/booth/lounge thing?
[16:31:14] <dwd> (And why I put a question mark there I don't know)
[16:31:21] <Kev> I've not heard from Ralph since I poked him about a Council meeting several weeks ago.
[16:31:37] <stpeter> ditto
[16:32:27] <dwd> The FOSDEM website still says acceptance notifications will be on the 22nd of last month, and proposals are under consideration.
[16:33:06] <stpeter> I haven't seen anything about it on the FOSDEM list
[16:34:32] <Kev> http://doomsong.co.uk/extensions/render/psa.html is the current protodraft of PSA, FWIW.
[16:35:04] <dwd> Florian says he's driving, and talkonaut doesn't want to log in.
[16:35:09] <dwd> Which is probably a good thing.
[16:35:09] <stpeter> heh
[16:35:13] <stpeter> um yeah
[16:35:47] <dwd> His driving is interesting enough without him trying to type, too.
[16:36:03] <stpeter> it's difficult to schedule meetings the first few days after such long holidays...
[16:36:19] <dwd> Yeah, I realise this is a little ambitious.
[16:36:44] <dwd> Trouble is, with FOSDEM, there's things to keep an eye on.
[16:36:54] <stpeter> indeed
[16:37:17] <Kev> Current state is that we know we have a room, but don't know about the stand yet, but have decided on Fri/Mon?
[16:37:34] <stpeter> righio
[16:37:39] <dwd> That's about the shape.
[16:37:48] <dwd> We've not actually considered talks at all.
[16:37:53] <Kev> Do we know that we managed to *request* a stand?
[16:38:09] <stpeter> however I need to follow up with the Cisco folks in Brussels about quite a few things, won't have time until tomorrow afternoon
[16:38:27] <dwd> I don't know for certain that it went off. I know we wrote the proposal, though.
[16:38:39] <Kev> Better than last year.
[16:41:40] <dwd> Right, well this meeting's obviously not going to happen, unless I declare a quorum of one
[16:41:54] <dwd> And that seems rather dictatorial.
[16:42:02] <stpeter> :)
[16:42:14] <Kev> Perhaps we should change the bylaws so that Council Chair and Executive Director can count insted of Board members.
[16:42:23] <Kev> It might increase the chances of reaching quorum from time to time.
[16:42:45] <dwd> I did wonder about making those positions ex-officio, but that doesn't help, I think.
[16:44:38] <Kev> I don't think that it necessarily follows that it doesn't.
[16:45:01] <dwd> Ex-officio members don't vote and don't count for quorum, I think.
[16:45:09] <Kev> Typically, or in the bylaws?
[16:45:39] <Kev> I don't remember ex-officio rules in our bylaws, particularly, and ex-officio doesn't necessarily imply less-than-normal membership elsewhere, I think.
[16:45:40] <dwd> Plus if Exec Director and Council CHair were formally counted, and could vote, then they'd be voting members not selected directly by the members, which - I think - would be wrong.
[16:46:04] <stpeter> agreed
[16:46:05] <Kev> Well, Council Chair would be directly selected, ED admittedly wouldn't.
[16:46:08] <stpeter> brb
[16:46:19] <Kev> Naturally not if it changed mid-term.
[16:46:41] <Kev> Well, ok, depends how you mean 'directly'.
[16:46:49] <dwd> Kev, No, Council members are directly selected, but the Council chair is selected by the Council, so in principle that's indirect.
[16:46:56] <Kev> Each Council member is directly selected and has the potential to become Chair.
[16:47:07] <Kev> Right.
[16:48:15] <Kev> How's the xmppverify project going, btw?
[16:48:26] <dwd> I've not looked.
[16:51:45] <stpeter> it's not going
[16:52:11] <dwd> We've a list of fosdem@xmpp.org, correct?
[16:52:13] <stpeter> I still need to post to the members@ list about the various teams and sigs
[16:52:28] <dwd> I was just drafting something along those lines for the FOSDEM/Interop ones.
[16:52:36] <dwd> Hence my query.
[16:52:38] <stpeter> we have summit@
[16:52:41] <stpeter> I can create fosdem@
[16:52:46] <stpeter> for the fosdem team
[16:52:47] <stpeter> if desired
[16:52:48] <dwd> No, summit@ is fine.
[16:53:02] <stpeter> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo is shorter than it used to be :)
[16:53:18] <dwd> I don't think they need a second list, and I'm sure that anyone generally interested in the summit will be interested in FOSDEM.
[16:53:29] *stpeter nods
[16:54:51] <Kev> Oh, on the contrary, I'm interested in the summit but FOSDEM bores me silly :)
[16:55:04] <stpeter> :)
[16:55:06] <Kev> I'd just as soon have all three days somewhere else.
[16:55:11] <Kev> Ideally Cardiff.
[16:55:13] <stpeter> :)
[16:55:14] <Kev> London at a push.
[16:55:23] <dwd> Bridgend?
[16:55:44] <Kev> Sure, we could do the XSF meal at the Ashoka.
[16:55:52] <stpeter> that'd be fine with me
[16:56:01] <stpeter> I'm not wedded to FOSDEM or Brussels
[16:56:08] <dwd> stpeter, You realise the train journey almost exceeds the flight time?
[16:56:09] <Kev> I think Bridgend generally lacks the culture of other places. Any other places.
[16:56:11] <stpeter> it's just happened to be convenient in the past
[16:56:35] <Kev> Cardiff's nice, London's find and is easy for everyone to get to.
[16:56:40] <Kev> s/find/fine/
[16:57:24] <stpeter> I think it would be fun to hold an XMPP meetup in Denver at the same time as http://www.greatamericanbeerfestival.com/ :)
[16:57:44] <stpeter> or make it more general than just XMPP -- The Great American App Festival sounds like a catchy name...
[16:58:51] <dwd> DO we call it the "XSF Summit", or the "XMPP Summit"?
[16:59:05] <Kev> Traditionally, the XMPP Summit, I believe.
[16:59:06] <dwd> Ah, "XMPP Summit".
[16:59:07] <stpeter> XMPP Summit
[17:01:18] <dwd> A few things to note about the upcoming XMPP Summit, happening at the same time as FOSDEM 2012.

1) The XSF has a formal "Work Team", open to any members, to lead the self-organization of our FOSDEM 2012 experience. Members should feel overwhelmingly encouraged to join, and help.

Mailing list is at summit@xmpp.org (this list also covers other Summit-ty things).

2) The XSF has also formed a formal "Special Interest Group", open to all, to discuss Interop testing at the XMPP Summit, and in particular the Friday before FOSDEM 2012.

Mailing list is at interop@xmpp.org

3) Finally, the XSF has a dev room at FOSDEM 2012, and has several slots available for interesting XMPP-related talks. In general, these talks are best used to target audiences wider than the core XMPP community. Talks are welcome from all.

Thanks,

Dave. (As XSF Chair)
[17:01:33] <dwd> Sending to both members@ and standards@, comments?
[17:02:23] <Kev> Not really.
[17:04:04] <stpeter> fire away
[17:05:02] <dwd> Added summit@ and interop@, for no good reason.
[17:05:21] <dwd> Well, makes people aware if they've already joined the lists and forgotten about them.
[17:05:25] *stpeter nods
[17:05:26] <stpeter> thanks
[17:05:35] <Kev> Unless someone's unsubbed me, I'm on both lists.
[17:05:51] <dwd> You'll soon find out.
[17:06:00] <Kev> Although I only see that mail on members. I wonder if gmail is doing odd squashing.
[17:06:23] <dwd> It'd be impressive, since they've different subject lines, but they do have the same message id.
[17:06:39] <Kev> from: Dave Cridland dave@cridland.net
reply-to: XSF Members <members@xmpp.org>
to: XSF Members <members@xmpp.org>,
XMPP Standards <standards@xmpp.org>,
XMPP Summit <summit@xmpp.org>,
XMPP Interop <interop@xmpp.org>
date: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:03 PM
subject: [Members] XMPP Summit and FOSDEM 2012
[17:06:53] <Kev> Says gmail.
[17:06:57] <dwd> Well, I'm *pretty* sure you're on standards@, so...
[17:07:26] <Kev> I have been in the past, at least.
[17:08:06] <stpeter> dwd: are there minutes for the Board meeting at which we decided to close the CommTeam and TechReview Team?
[17:09:04] <dwd> stpeter, Think so.
[17:09:26] <dwd> Ah, yes, but only went to Board list.
[17:09:39] <stpeter> ah
[17:09:49] <Kev> Using the members list for Board business is going well, then.
[17:10:07] <stpeter> :P
[17:16:53] <dwd> Our esteemed chair also forwarded them using the wrong account, which didn't help much either.
[17:17:06] <stpeter> heh
[17:17:19] *** luca tagliaferri has left the room
[17:18:18] *** Florian has joined the room
[17:18:18] *** Florian shows as "online" and his status message is "Anyone in the US have an iOS device?"
[17:18:26] <stpeter> hi Florian!
[17:18:41] <Florian> hi
[17:18:43] <dwd> Florian, Hiya. Did you book dinner, BTW?
[17:18:47] <Florian> so sorry I'm late
[17:18:51] <Florian> traffic jam on the ring
[17:18:58] <Florian> eh, not yet. I can go there tomorrow
[17:19:02] <Florian> same place?
[17:19:09] <Florian> with coach as usual?
[17:19:19] <dwd> I think the same place, with a message bus.
[17:19:49] <dwd> It's a good restaurant, and a good price, as I recall.
[17:19:57] <Kev> Is this the same as two years ago?
[17:20:01] <Florian> yes
[17:20:02] <dwd> Yes.
[17:20:10] <Kev> Vaguely remember it being sensible at teh time.
[17:20:19] <dwd> Kev, I know, they don't do pizza, but even so it's quite good.
[17:20:21] <Florian> I'll possibly change the menu a bit like I did last year
[17:20:34] <Florian> but I recall dwd .. you really liked one of the options?
[17:20:56] <dwd> Florian, There was something with bacon, yes.
[17:21:10] <dwd> Florian, And carpaccio.
[17:21:38] <Florian> right, I'll get together with them tomorrow
[17:21:44] <Florian> should I also try to get the Hotel?
[17:21:52] <dwd> Florian, But I'm assuming we're not going to get sponsorship from Nokia this time?
[17:21:53] <Florian> either the Best Western or the Meridien?
[17:22:05] <Florian> no, so it might be that people will need to pay a bit
[17:22:10] <dwd> Florian, Which was last year's? Meridien?
[17:22:16] <Florian> I mean, normally the full menu is €26
[17:22:20] <Florian> + drinks
[17:22:25] <Florian> which is very reasonable
[17:22:29] <Florian> last year, Meridien
[17:22:44] <dwd> stpeter, Which hotel did you guys stay in?
[17:22:52] <stpeter> not a good one
[17:22:58] <stpeter> got booked into the wrong one
[17:22:59] <dwd> stpeter, Ah, OK.
[17:23:10] <dwd> stpeter, I thought it was a Cisco rate thing.
[17:23:15] <Florian> right
[17:23:22] <stpeter> it was quite a walk from the train station
[17:23:24] <Florian> but I recall our rate was quite good in the Meridien (5*)
[17:23:29] <stpeter> not *that* far
[17:23:29] <dwd> Florian, Meridien was good, yes.
[17:23:35] <stpeter> but had no wifi, right?
[17:23:39] <Florian> the Best Western (4*) was good as well
[17:23:59] <dwd> Florian, Which was that? The modern one near the chocolate shop?
[17:24:12] <Florian> it was the one where we had the summit in the basement
[17:24:16] <Florian> -2 underground
[17:24:20] <dwd> Florian, Oh, yes.
[17:24:25] <dwd> Florian, I didn't stay there.
[17:24:32] <dwd> (No Bacon!!!)
[17:24:34] <Florian> bit more affordable probably
[17:24:44] <Florian> but I'll get the rates tomorrow
[17:24:46] <dwd> Florian, See what we can get.
[17:24:55] <Florian> I'll look for 10 rooms
[17:25:08] <dwd> Florian, Isode is sending an alarming number this year.
[17:25:27] <Florian> 10 double rooms should be alright?
[17:25:33] <dwd> Florian, So there's, erm, potentially 5 rooms just for us.
[17:25:37] <Florian> ok
[17:25:41] <Florian> I'll go for 12 then
[17:25:46] <Florian> but those are single rooms?
[17:25:52] <Kev> 5 for Isode, 12 for Florian, anyone else going?
[17:25:57] <Florian> haha :D
[17:26:10] <dwd> FLorian's entourage takes a lot of room, you know.
[17:26:23] <Kev> Naturally.
[17:26:25] <Florian> it's a big entourage ;)
[17:26:34] <Florian> and I take care of my peeps :)
[17:26:36] <dwd> Kev, It's the groupies I feel sorry for.
[17:27:04] <Florian> right ... so those are action items for me tomorrow
[17:27:12] <Florian> anything else I missed? T-Shirts?
[17:27:14] <dwd> Florian, But yes, shop around. I don't feel any of us *need* 5 star.
[17:27:18] <Florian> Realtime Lounge
[17:27:23] <dwd> Yeah, we need to consider t-shirts.
[17:27:33] <dwd> Florian, And we don't know anything on the stand front.
[17:27:43] <dwd> But I do have a pico-projector. Yay!
[17:28:03] <Florian> I'll have an N9 by that time :)
[17:28:39] <dwd> Florian, Oh? I did have an offer for getting them cheap. But I've decided it's not worth it - nicer to have maintained stuff.
[17:28:58] <Florian> interesting, how cheap? :)
[17:29:06] <dwd> Florian, To you...
[17:29:16] <dwd> Florian, Actually I can't remember.
[17:29:41] <dwd> Florian, But I figured it was cheaper to get a Lumia and reflash it.
[17:29:47] <Florian> well, I found them for £349 ... but then decided to bug people
[17:29:47] <dwd> Or at least simpler.
[17:30:05] <Florian> hehe ... not the same hardware though
[17:30:06] <Florian> anyways ...
[17:30:20] <Florian> what else is there to do for FOSDEM?
[17:30:25] <dwd> So, did you get anywhere on a dev challenge?
[17:30:28] <Florian> are the Cisco rooms booked?
[17:30:42] <dwd> Florian, stpeter said earlier he had some follow-up there.
[17:30:51] <Florian> dev challenge: haven't thought about it yet ...
[17:30:54] <Florian> will look for sponsors
[17:31:32] <dwd> Florian, Google, Samsung... Maybe ASUS/Acer?
[17:31:49] <dwd> Florian, Only Google would seem to have much contact with XMPP.
[17:32:06] <Kev> Find someone who'll sponsor an Android phone, and award it to the person doing the best Android UI for Swift :D
[17:32:53] <Florian> :)
[17:33:34] <Florian> I'll sjop around
[17:33:43] <Florian> else, would the XSF be able to award a prize?
[17:33:58] <Florian> that way we could also have a wider dev challenge goal
[17:34:04] <dwd> Florian, We'd need to find a sponsor to pay for it, still.
[17:34:14] <Kev> Why?
[17:34:31] <Kev> I thought the question was whether the XSF could buy something out of funds.
[17:34:40] <Florian> right
[17:34:46] <Kev> Not that the XSF has all that much money in the bank, I think.
[17:34:58] <Florian> and not that I'd want that
[17:35:17] <stpeter> ~$10k
[17:35:18] <Florian> but it's an option I'd like to know about
[17:35:41] <dwd> Well, to be honest, I don't see why we-XSF would want to do it.
[17:36:52] <Florian> well, if we want to motivate people to write XMPP code ...
[17:37:51] <dwd> Florian, The XSF want to motivate people to write detailed specifications for needed protocols, though, surely? But a XEP-writing challenge sounds a little uninteresting.
[17:38:22] <Florian> doesn't the XSF also want to promote XMPP adoption though?
[17:38:31] <dwd> Florian, Yes, true enough.
[17:39:07] <Florian> again, I don't really want to have the XSF pay for a prize
[17:39:08] <Florian> BUT
[17:39:22] <Florian> if it's that or no dev challenge ... I'd consider it
[17:39:23] <dwd> I think it's something that a sponsor would pay for, in any case.
[17:40:21] <Florian> ok, I'll go and look :)
[17:40:22] <Kev> I think it's something that seems nice in principle but actually doesn't get us much.
[17:40:31] <Florian> if anyone has any contacts at Apple, Google ...
[17:40:35] <Florian> drop me a line :D
[17:40:57] <Florian> Kev: true ... but question is ... was this because it was focused on Mobile?
[17:41:00] <Florian> or a specific area?
[17:41:06] <Kev> It's bcause it's not really practical.
[17:41:16] <Kev> "With two weeks' notice, write something cool and novel!".
[17:41:27] <Kev> Or
[17:41:34] <Kev> "Show us something cool you've already done"
[17:42:19] <Kev> Now, if we could give 12 months notice and say "Have the biggest contribution towards the open testing framework", that might be something.
[17:42:47] <Florian> well, we can do that as well
[17:43:02] <Florian> and then have the official "Launch" at the Summit
[17:43:03] <Kev> But we've got the close source vs. open source, cool vs. useful, etc. etc. etc. stuff going on.
[17:43:16] <Kev> It's all just a bit messy.
[17:43:49] <Kev> So if someone donates a phone to us, great, it's a bit cool and we can give it to someone for some arbitrary reason.
[17:44:04] <Kev> But I don't think it provides significant value to the XSF, or to the event.
[17:45:00] <Kev> (It probably does to the individual winning the device)
[17:45:19] <Florian> hmm, ok
[17:45:26] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[17:45:47] <Kev> Now, mind.
[17:45:47] <dwd> It'd be more fun if it did run for a year, and we showed off the exciting projects at the end, instead of only showing them in a small room in front of the Converted.
[17:46:00] <Kev> We could do an award for "Greatest contribution to XMPP" or something.
[17:46:06] <dwd> I wondered about that.
[17:46:07] <dwd> But:
[17:46:09] <Kev> Which is only slightly pointless as it'd be Peter each and every bloody year.
[17:46:19] <Florian> heh
[17:46:26] <Florian> yeah
[17:46:26] <dwd> Right. Failing that, you win.
[17:46:42] <dwd> It becomes a dangerous thing of back-slapping.
[17:46:53] <Kev> It'll be ED, Council or Board, at least.
[17:46:58] <Kev> Probably.
[17:47:05] <dwd> Maybe "Best newcomer"?
[17:47:07] <Kev> Yes.
[17:47:12] <Kev> (Yes to previous backslapping)
[17:47:21] *dwd slaps Kev's back.
[17:47:33] <Kev> I was thinking about something like like, although I've not yet articulated the idea sufficiently.
[17:47:42] <Kev> I'd like "Best new XMPP project", but that's not right.
[17:48:11] <Kev> (Because mostly we'd rather have stable projects than lots of two-month projects existing and falling off)
[17:48:16] <Kev> (Royal we)
[17:48:25] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[17:48:37] <dwd> You're CHair of the Council, ROyal we is appropriate, yes.
[17:49:36] <Kev> Then there's "XMPP Client of the year" or "XMPP Server of the year", neither of which are viable.
[17:49:58] <dwd> That'd be just a tad contentious.
[17:50:04] <Kev> Right. Not viable.
[17:50:12] <Kev> Swift's the best client, anyway.
[17:50:20] <Kev> Swift's probably the best server, too, if it means I get goodies.
[17:50:29] <Florian> :D
[17:50:30] <Kev> Oh, and Swiften's the best library.
[17:50:39] <Kev> etc.
[17:50:40] <dwd> Best logo?
[17:50:51] <Kev> Ah, yes, Psi should win something :)
[17:50:56] <dwd> :-P
[17:51:45] <Kev> So, my upshot is that if Florian can easily find someone to donate something cool, then yay, we can find a way to donate it to someone and raise a small amount of noise.
[17:52:04] <Florian> right
[17:52:04] <Kev> That the overall XSF gain isn't significant, though, so not to put too much effort into it.
[17:52:15] <dwd> So anyway, this sounds like we're looking at, if anything, a year-long dev challenge, or at best a "Come to FOSDEM and Show Your Thang™ at the Realtime Lounge™ to win a prize!!!".
[17:52:25] <Kev> More interesting would be finding someone willing to sponsor prizes for progress to the validator, or similar XSF-interesting projects.
[17:52:47] <Florian> dwd: a lot of TM
[17:52:57] <Kev> In fact, I think Board could take on such a challenge with good reason, if they felt there was a chance of progress.
[17:53:28] <dwd> I'm somewhat swayed that encouraging people to show cool things at the stand is a worthy objective, but I'm not sure it's worth the XSF splashing out for.
[17:53:47] <Kev> Cool Stuff At The Stand™ is interesting, I'll grant.
[17:54:10] <dwd> Mostly because it achieves the objective of ensnaring developer mindshare.
[17:54:18] <Kev> And provides an unscientific but satisfying judging criterion.
[17:54:26] <dwd> Right.
[17:54:27] <Kev> (Perceived popularity from passers-by)
[17:55:03] <Kev> Although then we have the problem of everyone who's ever written an XMPP client thinking their client is new and interesting and much better than everyone else's so it deserves airtime on the stand.
[17:55:26] <Kev> And I don't think demoing a client that's slightly more usable than other clients, in slightly different ways, is exactly the point of a realytimeyloungey.
[17:55:50] <dwd> Agreed, but too much stuff to show would be a problem I'd enjoy solving.
[17:55:57] <Kev> (I'm not even proposing we demo Swift at the stand)
[17:56:08] <dwd> RIght, I need to wander off for a bit, to hav efood with the family.
[17:56:12] <Kev> (Well, not as a boring XMPP client, there *are* fun applications of it...)
[17:56:18] <Kev> Enjoy.
[17:56:44] <Kev> See, four people attending the Board meeting, that's good going out of a Board of five people.
[17:56:58] <Kev> A slight shame that only 2 of the attendees were Board...
[17:58:02] <stpeter> :P
[17:58:26] *stpeter notes that he's reviewing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-include/ and hasn't been paying close attention
[17:59:02] <Kev> More attention than 3/5 of Board.
[18:01:15] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:01:22] <Florian> so what needs to be done for the realtime lounge?
[18:01:33] <Florian> are we waiting for a reply from FOSDEM?
[18:01:49] <Kev> I don't know, I'm aware it's planned, but not what.
[18:01:51] <Kev> I think so, yes.
[18:02:46] <Florian> ok
[18:03:02] <Florian> btw, Kev: when is Swift getting history?
[18:03:40] <Kev> Not 2.0, sadly.
[18:04:00] <Florian> damn :(
[18:04:08] <Florian> it's the thing that I miss most in it
[18:04:22] <Kev> Understood.
[18:08:20] <stpeter> BTW, what are all the Isode folks interested in working on / discussing in Brussels? any interop testing on offer?
[18:08:45] <Kev> You'd need to speak to our VP of XMPP about that!
[18:09:18] <Kev> I would have thought that we'd participate in any interop testing that was happening, at least.
[18:10:08] <stpeter> well, as you know, interop testing requires some organizational efforts :)
[18:10:15] <stpeter> BOSH testing was semi-productive last time
[18:11:09] <Florian> it was
[18:11:14] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:11:35] *** Kooda shows as "away"
[18:26:37] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[18:33:39] *** dwd shows as "online"
[18:33:54] <dwd> Il Vice-Presidente would be interested in doing interop on BOSH again.
[18:35:00] <dwd> And in general terms, whatever we can interop test, we're willing to be involved in - I can run up CAs and whatever as required, too.
[18:41:51] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:43:29] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:43:43] *ralphm waves
[18:44:18] <ralphm> Florian:I'm not sure why we haven't heard back from FOSDEM, but I checked and haven't gotten a reply
[18:44:40] <ralphm> Also, I think we messed up with sending out a call for participation for the devroom
[18:44:57] <ralphm> as in, not having done that
[18:51:50] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:52:34] <stpeter> hey ralphm
[19:04:25] <stpeter> time for lunch, bbiaf
[19:04:32] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "lunch"
[19:16:39] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[19:28:22] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:29:51] *** Kooda shows as "xa"
[19:35:05] *** Florian has left the room
[19:43:52] *** 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."
[19:50:08] *** kevin has joined the room
[19:57:28] <Neustradamus> It will be possible to choice a license for the XMPP logo ? because MIT is for software...
[19:59:00] <stpeter> we use MIT for documents, why not images?
[19:59:19] <ralphm> Neustradamus: please actually read the license stpeter has pointed to in the emails.
[19:59:22] <ralphm> http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-ipr-policy/#legal
[20:00:06] <Neustradamus> already done but it is not very clear :/
[20:00:14] <ralphm> as stpeter has mentioned, it was modified to not be about code
[20:01:33] <Neustradamus> ok.
[20:01:38] <stpeter> I don't have time to look at it today, but I will do so again tomorrow
[20:01:48] <ralphm> it does mention 'Specification'
[20:01:58] <ralphm> so maybe we could work on that
[20:02:21] <ralphm> other than that, what you can do with it seems really clear
[20:02:52] <stpeter> as you might recall, we once used a Creative Commons license but that conflicted with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is why we moved to MIT
[20:03:13] <Neustradamus> ok
[20:04:32] <Neustradamus> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debian-OpenLogo.svg I see.
[20:06:43] <Neustradamus> We can see for add a part about the logo http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-ipr-policy/#legal ;)
[20:07:08] <stpeter> Neustradamus: interesting about the Debian logo
[20:07:18] <stpeter> Neustradamus: that might work
[20:07:34] <stpeter> Neustradamus: as I said, I won't have time to really think about this until tomorrow
[20:08:04] <Neustradamus> yes no problem ;)
[20:09:04] <Neustradamus> can you see tomorrow for the xmpp.org theme in the same time ?
[20:10:16] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[20:11:42] <Neustradamus> about the FOSDEM, have you seen with Goffi ( Salut à Toi project) ?
[20:11:43] <stpeter> yes, I will look at this stuff tomorrow or Friday
[20:13:15] <ralphm> stpeter: just provide the postscript for the logo and license that with MIT. Done. :-)
[20:14:45] <stpeter> heh nice :)
[20:15:51] <Neustradamus> http://www.debian.org/logos/ there is a nice page, good example for XSF maybe ;)
[20:17:42] <ralphm> so it appears Debian has its own issues, w.r.t. trademarks
[20:17:55] *stpeter nods to ralphm
[20:18:36] *** 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."
[20:18:54] <Neustradamus> yes.
[20:19:05] <ralphm> I don't think we could or want to trademark 'XMPP', and the license for the swirl seems to be a regular MIT license
[20:19:26] <Neustradamus> about the Jabber logo, how is it ?
[20:19:33] <ralphm> falling under 'and associated documentation files'
[20:20:17] <ralphm> Neustradamus: I believe the Jabber logo is also designed for the XSF
[20:20:24] <ralphm> then Jabber Software Foundation
[20:20:40] <Kev> "Jabber" Is trademarked, though.
[20:20:49] <ralphm> and the same applies, except that 'Jabber' does a have trademark
[20:20:57] <ralphm> currently owned by Cisco
[20:21:03] <ralphm> and licensed through the XSF
[20:21:18] <Neustradamus> yes but the Jabber Software Foundation is now XMPP Standards Foundation, and Jabber Inc. is now a part of Cisco.
[20:21:37] <ralphm> Neustradamus: you can use the Logo freely
[20:22:02] <ralphm> Neustradamus: for anything with 'Jabber' in it, formally you'd need a license.
[20:22:51] <ralphm> http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/jabber-trademark/
[20:26:05] <Neustradamus> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jabber_logo_simple.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jabber-bulb.svg (http://www.jabber.org/images/jsf-logo.vectorized.eps)
http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/jabber-trademark/ (logo or image is missing :D)
[20:28:39] <ralphm> heh vectorized. I create that one at some point
[20:28:49] <ralphm> by tracing a large png
[20:37:51] *** dwd shows as "online"
[20:42:53] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:45:15] <stpeter> well, there is fair use of various jabber stuff, see the trademark licensing policy
[20:45:45] <ralphm> stpeter: sure, that's why I linked to it
[20:45:59] <ralphm> those provisions are also an implicit license
[20:46:09] <Kev> Explicit, in fact :p
[20:46:17] <ralphm> so in all cases, a license is required
[20:46:25] <ralphm> even though it is automatic or whatever
[20:47:59] <stpeter> IPR stuff makes my head hurt
[20:48:09] <stpeter> not as bad as internationalization stuff, though
[20:48:40] *stpeter moves on to reviewing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd/
[20:50:37] <ralphm> good move
[20:52:09] <stpeter> necessary move, anyway
[20:52:52] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[21:02:33] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:10:16] *** kevin has left the room
[21:14:16] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[21:14:16] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[21:14:45] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[21:14:46] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[21:20:07] *** dwd shows as "online"
[21:20:53] *** 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."
[21:21:40] *dwd catches up.
[21:21:58] <dwd> ralphm, So basically FOSDEM are running behind a bit on the stands, we think?
[21:22:03] <ralphm> dwd: yes
[21:22:32] <ralphm> dwd: it is also stated on their website that they are still in review
[21:23:02] <dwd> ralphm, Yeah, but it also states they'll be sending out acceptance on the 22nd of December, so...
[21:23:04] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[21:23:51] <ralphm> I know
[21:23:54] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[21:29:44] <ralphm> yaloki: ralphm: no, they're done but we need to announce them

[21:29:49] <ralphm> dwd: so there
[21:30:35] <ralphm> yaloki: ralphm: let's say "this week"
yaloki: ralphm: but yes, you have your stand
[21:30:46] <dwd> \o/
[21:30:54] <dwd> ralphm, Tell him thanks.
[21:31:04] <ralphm> does 'awesome' cover that?
[21:32:01] <dwd> ralphm, Kinda. Tell him an official thanks from the XSF, and that we appreciate all the hard work. (Well as official as his "you have your stand" is).
[21:34:30] <ralphm> 'np yw'
[21:34:31] <ralphm> hehe
[21:40:37] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:40:37] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:41:50] <Neustradamus> Note : Update of the year on XEPs... (2011 becomes 2012).
[21:44:35] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:48:19] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:53:17] *** 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."
[21:55:20] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:07:02] <ralphm> It is likely that the XEPs haven't changed (yet) this year
[22:07:10] <ralphm> also, the notice is not actually required
[22:08:44] <dwd> Not requiredm but it is advisable.
[22:09:26] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[22:12:35] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[22:13:47] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:15:41] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:24:33] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:27:00] *** Kooda has left the room
[22:34:32] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:38:14] *** Kooda has joined the room
[22:40:28] *** Kooda shows as "away"
[22:50:34] *** ralphm has left the room
[22:55:46] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:58:45] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[23:18:45] *** stpeter shows as "xa" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[23:20:10] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[23:30:39] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:40:39] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[23:49:08] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."