Wednesday, November 20, 2013
xsf@muc.xmpp.org
November
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

[00:14:04] *** stpeter has left the room
[00:16:36] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[00:21:42] *** dwd shows as "online"
[00:27:39] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[00:35:27] *** tato has left the room
[00:37:39] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[00:50:16] *** tato has joined the room
[01:05:15] *** Lance has joined the room
[01:05:16] *** Lance shows as "online"
[01:16:04] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[01:16:20] *** Lance shows as "online"
[01:16:49] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[01:17:57] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[01:19:32] *** tato has left the room
[01:21:14] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[01:21:19] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[01:41:44] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[02:19:18] *** stpeter has joined the room
[02:21:57] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[02:24:55] *** stpeter has left the room
[02:24:55] *** stpeter has joined the room
[02:30:36] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[02:33:13] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[02:46:34] *** MattJ shows as "away"
[05:18:12] *** stpeter has left the room
[05:19:48] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[06:07:56] *** SouL has left the room
[06:08:16] *** bear has joined the room
[06:08:19] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[06:49:44] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[07:03:00] *** bear has left the room
[07:12:56] *** bear has joined the room
[07:13:01] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[07:17:19] *** SouL has joined the room
[07:18:38] *** SouL shows as "online"
[07:20:12] *** Edwin Mons shows as "online"
[07:27:14] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[07:31:29] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[07:33:59] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[07:34:37] *** Alex has joined the room
[07:41:59] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[07:43:03] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:45:54] *** Edwin Mons shows as "online"
[07:48:32] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[07:49:29] *** dwd shows as "online"
[07:50:22] *** Alex shows as "online"
[07:51:15] *** Alex has left the room
[07:53:25] *** Alex has joined the room
[07:55:27] <fippo> I think that is Jers first post ever on a @xmpp.org list, isn't it?
[08:01:17] <Alex> fippo: which one?
[08:02:06] <Alex> standards list?
[08:02:34] <fippo> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2013-November/028280.html
[08:11:45] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[08:16:31] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[08:19:35] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[08:25:43] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[08:25:45] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[08:26:32] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[08:28:55] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[08:40:30] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[08:40:45] *** dwd shows as "online"
[08:46:45] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[08:48:11] *** Alex shows as "online"
[08:52:52] <dwd> Yeah, I think any previous have been before the Great XSF Renaming.
[09:00:21] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:01:24] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:03:36] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:06:05] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:06:07] *** Alex shows as "online"
[09:06:28] *** Alex has left the room
[09:13:37] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:15:41] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[09:16:06] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[09:22:29] *** Ashley Ward shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:22:53] *** Ashley Ward shows as "online"
[09:23:26] *** Lloyd has joined the room
[09:24:01] *** Lance has joined the room
[09:24:02] *** Lance shows as "online"
[09:37:56] *** bear has left the room
[09:40:12] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:40:25] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:41:23] *** Ashley Ward shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:41:44] *** Ashley Ward shows as "online"
[10:01:20] <dwd> ralphm, It's the 15th of December we get a go/no-go for the FOSDEM Lounge, right? Do they normally hit that date or is there sometimes some slippage?
[10:01:31] <ralphm> yes
[10:01:33] <ralphm> no
[10:01:43] <dwd> Bedankt.
[10:01:45] <ralphm> :-D
[10:02:01] <ralphm> Maybe I could poke them a bit about it
[10:03:00] <dwd> It'd be useful to know as soon as, since we can begin planning more concretely, but I'd prefer not to annoy them.
[10:10:30] *** Lloyd has left the room
[10:10:30] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[10:10:37] *** Lloyd has joined the room
[10:10:42] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[10:11:05] <dwd> Lloyd, Ashley Ward - Nice that your server broadcasts how it was shutdown.
[10:11:56] *** Lloyd has left the room
[10:11:56] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[10:12:03] *** Lloyd has joined the room
[10:12:03] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[10:12:10] <Ashley Ward> If it does then I assume that's what Prosody does by default!
[10:12:25] <dwd> Ashley Ward, Yeah, seems so. Two restarts, eh?
[10:12:56] <Ashley Ward> Yeah. Lloyds been updating the TSL stuff on it in readiness for the 4th Jan
[10:13:01] <Ashley Ward> TSL = TLS
[10:13:36] <dwd> Right, yes. I think mine's about ready now. I've been trying to get otalk.im deployed, but it's not yet working for me.
[10:17:29] <Ashley Ward> Be interested to hear how you get on with that.
[10:17:38] <dwd> SLowly.
[10:18:02] <dwd> I'm really not experienced enough with Node and modern webapp stuff to figure out what's broken about it.
[10:19:01] <Ashley Ward> Hehe. Tell me about it - I've only barely figured out how all this node stuff works. I understand it okay as long as nothing goes too badly wrong!
[10:19:39] <dwd> I spent literally hours downloading extension after extension.
[10:23:52] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[10:24:14] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[10:24:22] *** Edwin Mons shows as "online"
[10:24:56] <ralphm> Edwin Mons did the same for our machine the other day. He experienced issues with both disabling SSL and compression.
[10:27:10] <Edwin Mons> Well, prosody failed to do any TLS if I disabled compression.
[10:27:33] <ralphm> that counts as 'experiencing issues'
[10:27:35] <ralphm> :-D
[10:27:41] <Edwin Mons> It does.
[10:27:56] <Edwin Mons> That might be due to the hackish nature of our setup, though. I had to do a bit of library mapping to get luasec to use the openssl from ports.
[10:28:18] <Edwin Mons> Instead of the system openssl.
[10:28:22] <Edwin Mons> (FreeBSD based)
[10:28:50] <dwd> FreeBSD? But you don't have a beard...
[10:33:31] *** Kev shows as "away"
[10:35:13] *** Kev shows as "online"
[10:35:41] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:36:00] <Edwin Mons> dwd: in spirit only ;)
[10:36:11] <Edwin Mons> Nor does Kurt, for that matter ;)
[10:36:16] <ralphm> dwd: I have a beard
[10:36:20] <ralphm> and we co-admin
[10:36:43] <Edwin Mons> dwd: although I really do need to shave. It's not a full beard yet.
[10:45:42] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:50:03] *Alex started memberbot
[10:52:50] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:54:54] *** Edwin Mons has left the room
[10:55:25] <dwd> Heh. Lisa Dusseault's applicaiton doesn't mention that she was the one who coined the term "stanza".
[10:55:32] *** Edwin Mons has joined the room
[10:56:59] <dwd> Voted. :-)
[10:57:26] <Edwin Mons> dwd: fix it for her, it's a wiki after all :P
[10:57:57] <fippo> dwd: she also denies coming from IRC ;-)
[10:58:16] <dwd> Nobody admits to any involvement there, though, right?
[10:58:28] <Edwin Mons> Voted as well. A shame dwd beat me to it ;)
[10:58:53] <Alex> isn't there a comment function in the Wiki?
[10:59:08] <dwd> Discussion page, at least - I've added a note there.
[10:59:14] <Edwin Mons> The talk page. But who looks there.
[10:59:15] <Alex> ya
[10:59:31] <Edwin Mons> Discussion, yes.
[11:00:37] <dwd> Both the new applicants look good. I also realise I know nearly every reapplicant personally, too.
[11:00:57] <Kev> OK, "Yes" isn't a valid response to the memberbot.
[11:01:10] <Kev> That seems a little bit overly restrictive.
[11:01:16] <dwd> Gosh. I hadn't actually noticed.
[11:01:36] <Edwin Mons> Just noticed Diana didn't reapply.
[11:01:51] <Kev> I also get the feeling Florian's heart wasn't really in this.
[11:02:50] <Edwin Mons> You'd think with all the time he had to spend on SFO, he'd have had ample time to create a beautiful page there.
[11:03:26] <dwd> That one might be my fault.
[11:03:59] <dwd> [17:26:45] David Cridland: Just put up a blank page, nobody reads them anyway.
[17:30:00] Florian Jensen: lol
[17:30:02] Florian Jensen: I'll try that

[11:04:53] <Kev> In fact, I'm not convinced that his application is legal.
[11:05:02] <dwd> Oh?
[11:05:12] <Kev> We have to provide affiliation information.
[11:05:52] <dwd> That is actually a good point.
[11:07:24] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "lunch time"
[11:08:54] <dwd> Oh. Actually I can just add it into his application; assuming I'm right in thinking he's now working for Uber?
[11:09:42] <dwd> But no, we should just contact him, actually.
[11:09:48] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[11:09:48] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[11:09:57] <Edwin Mons> I think editing someone's application is not really the best of ideas...
[11:10:19] <Kev> I'm opposed to people editing other people's applications.
[11:10:25] <dwd> Edwin Mons, It doesn't seem quite right, does it?
[11:11:15] <Edwin Mons> dwd: that's one way of putting it.
[11:14:19] <Kev> On the other hand, it's too late to edit applications at this point.
[11:14:33] <Kev> Does Florian get disqualified on a technicality? That would be ... amusing?
[11:16:43] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:17:16] *** dwd shows as "online"
[11:22:27] <dwd> So the only way he could be disqualified would be to argue that his written application is not in such a form as has been adopted by the Board.
[11:22:54] <dwd> I think, anyway. So we'd need to decide on what form actually has been adopted by the Board.
[11:25:42] <Kev> Which is listed on http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q3_2013, no?
[11:26:08] <dwd> OK, when was that adopted by the Board?
[11:26:12] <Edwin Mons> The list of required elements is quite clear.
[11:26:41] <Kev> dwd: You tell me, you're on the Board :)
[11:27:10] <dwd> Edwin Mons, As far as I can tell, the Board agreed a few years ago to require a full name, which is *not* listed there. Can't yet find if they require anything else.
[11:29:09] <dwd> I suspect the Board could, and should, issue an edict^W^W^Wadopt a resolution that an application must include full name, email, jid, and employment details. I'm struggling to find if the Board ever has done so in the past, though.
[11:29:35] *** Ashley Ward shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[11:30:00] <dwd> Also, reading the bylaws, I'm surprised to note that companies can be members too.
[11:31:38] *** SouL has left the room
[11:32:40] *** Ashley Ward shows as "online"
[11:40:25] <Alex> for reapplliers we never were that strict about this information. I guess because we assume that the info did not change and we got it with the 1st application
[11:40:59] *** Alex shows as "online"
[11:41:28] *** Kev shows as "away"
[11:42:20] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:43:10] *** dwd shows as "online"
[11:43:34] <dwd> Right, something else for the Board to deal with, then.
[11:43:52] <Alex> yes
[11:49:47] *** Ashley Ward shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[11:50:10] <dwd> Alex, You were Chair when that Solarius guy stood without a real name - do you know if the Board "adopted such a form" about member applications then? I thought it did, but I can't find anything.
[11:54:57] <Edwin Mons> I think it did, but the members didn't accept it and voted him down.
[11:55:29] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:55:43] <dwd> Oh, so maybe we just didn't vote him in and left it.
[11:56:41] <Alex> it was a long discussion at that time, but I can't remember exactly what the conclusion was. But we accepted his application and at Fosdem verified his idendity when he showed up. That was a strange guy
[11:57:31] *** Ashley Ward shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[11:57:50] <Edwin Mons> I remember Christ had to share a room with him.
[11:57:55] <dwd> I've read through the members@ thread, and also the next Board minutes, and can't find any conclusion. Certainly no Board resolution.
[12:08:30] *** Jef has joined the room
[12:11:06] *** Ashley Ward shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[12:18:53] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:20:04] *** Ashley Ward shows as "online"
[12:21:19] *** Kev shows as "online"
[12:23:20] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:23:43] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:24:08] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:29:11] *** Jef shows as "online"
[12:30:45] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:30:45] *** Jef has left the room
[12:32:29] *** ralphm has left the room
[12:40:10] *** Kev shows as "away"
[12:50:30] *** Lloyd shows as "online"
[12:52:51] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:01:47] <Edwin Mons> Good thing we have voting-by-proxy, because the meeting is at Sinterklaasavond.
[13:04:19] <dwd> Mmmmmm... mini-cookies....
[13:04:43] <Alex> wow 6 voters in the first 60 minutes, looks like we can achieve a good turnout this quarter ;-)
[13:04:57] <dwd> If we can keep up the momentum...
[13:07:26] *** stpeter has joined the room
[13:07:45] *** Lloyd shows as "online"
[13:13:42] *** Kev shows as "away"
[13:13:50] *** stpeter has left the room
[13:16:37] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:18:27] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[13:20:42] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:25:32] <Kev> http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q3_2013 might need an update.
[13:28:24] *** dwd shows as "online"
[13:30:41] <dwd> For the meeting dates, you mean?
[13:31:42] <Kev> r
[13:43:27] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:45:38] *** Alex shows as "online"
[13:49:01] <Alex> updated
[13:50:21] <Kev> Murky buckets.
[13:54:14] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[13:54:22] <Lloyd> Has memberbot dropped offline for anyone else?
[13:54:35] <dwd> Lloyd, Online for me.
[13:54:38] <Edwin Mons> Online here.
[13:55:01] <Kev> Lloyd: Check no-one's been fiddling with your server ;)
[13:55:04] <dwd> And responding.
[13:55:22] <dwd> Lloyd, Right, could be some dodgy sysadmin breaking things.
[13:56:28] <Lloyd> :P Changes were made last night, gave it a kick earlier for another reason
[13:57:12] <dwd> I quite like Brian Carpenter's note to ietf-disgust saying that the main advantage of all these multistakeholder meeting groups has been to mire all attempts by governments to put international treaties over the internet.
[13:57:41] <fippo> ietf-disgust... ;-)
[13:58:04] <dwd> Not, sadly, my gag. I forget who uses that; one of the ADs I think.
[13:58:16] <dwd> *possibly* Adrian Farrell.
[14:10:24] <Lloyd> update: think it was adium being a pita, using xmpp-ftw to vote intead :)
[14:11:45] <MattJ> Heh
[14:41:20] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:44:24] *** jabberjocke has joined the room
[14:44:24] *** jabberjocke shows as "online"
[14:46:51] *** jabberjocke has left the room
[14:46:58] *** jabberjocke has joined the room
[14:46:58] *** jabberjocke shows as "online"
[14:51:20] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:52:35] *** Simon has joined the room
[14:52:35] *** Simon shows as "online"
[14:57:21] *** Simon shows as "online"
[15:01:20] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:02:24] *** Simon shows as "online"
[15:05:48] *** Alex shows as "online"
[15:07:26] *** Simon shows as "online"
[15:09:56] *** dwd shows as "online"
[15:12:30] *** Simon shows as "online"
[15:13:30] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a video meeting"
[15:16:59] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:16:59] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:17:32] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:18:44] *** Simon shows as "online"
[15:18:44] *** Simon shows as "online"
[15:19:27] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:19:27] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:21:27] *** Simon has left the room
[15:22:21] *** Alex has left the room
[15:23:56] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[15:24:36] *** Alex shows as "online"
[15:28:25] *** Alex has left the room
[15:29:51] *** jabberjocke has left the room
[15:40:56] <Kev> /Now/ memberbot isn't responding for me.
[15:41:03] <Kev> I've already voted, but it should still talk to me shouldn't it?
[15:41:48] <Kev> Ah, there it is. Just lagging a few minutes.
[15:42:32] <Edwin Mons> Same over here.
[15:48:25] <MattJ> It's simulating a real human
[15:48:35] <MattJ> or it's actually Alex simulating a bot
[15:48:51] <Edwin Mons> So you're saying there is no memberbot, just Alex?
[15:49:05] <dwd> Or that Alex is a bot faking being a human faking a bot?
[15:49:08] <Kev> Or there's no Alex, only the bot.
[15:49:24] <Edwin Mons> Hmm. I'm pretty sure I met someone who claimed to be Alex a few times.
[15:49:37] <dwd> Edwin Mons, Just shows how good that bot is.
[15:50:12] <Edwin Mons> Fair point. He/it sure passed the Turing test when I talked to him/it.
[15:50:24] <Edwin Mons> (Alex, not the memberbot)
[15:51:26] *** Lance has joined the room
[15:51:27] *** Lance shows as "online"
[15:51:36] <Lloyd> kev: it was quite slow earlier
[15:52:50] <dwd> Lloyd, ALex, or the memberbot?
[15:53:06] <Lloyd> :) memberbot
[15:53:47] <dwd> Kev, You're Councilling today, aren't you?
[15:53:51] <MattJ> and since membership voting and meetings actually *happen*, it must be stpeter simulating them both
[15:54:00] <Kev> dwd: Yes, 16:10Z
[15:54:20] <Lloyd> MattJ :D
[15:55:28] <Kev> dwd: Pam?
[15:56:00] <dwd> Kev, Just so I could wander into the room and nod politely.
[16:00:41] <ralphm> dwd: like Kev does for Board?
[16:00:55] <Kev> I was very good!
[16:01:06] *** Zash has joined the room
[16:01:07] *** Zash shows as "online"
[16:01:37] <ralphm> Kev: one occasion is not a pattern, but can be a good start :-P
[16:04:19] <Kev> You might be overly optimistic if you want a pattern :p
[16:05:20] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:06:46] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:07:28] *** dwd shows as "online"
[16:07:37] *** Simon has joined the room
[16:07:37] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:09:01] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:09:07] *** bear has joined the room
[16:09:08] *** bear shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:10:07] *** bear shows as "online"
[16:14:05] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:19:08] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:24:12] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:28:02] <bear> 5 minutes (or so) to the board meeting
[16:29:15] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:31:12] <bear> current agenda:
- Board Chair election
- FOSDEM preparation update
- IoT Liason update from Peter
- Membership application question from Dave
- Next meeting time
[16:32:35] <Simon> I sent through a couple of things regarding security
[16:32:38] <dwd> Simon had some stuff, didn't he? Or am I confused?
[16:32:44] <dwd> Right. Not too confused.
[16:34:13] *** Alex has joined the room
[16:34:19] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:34:21] *ralphm waves
[16:34:55] <stpeter> howdy
[16:35:03] <bear> oh poo
[16:35:07] <Alex> good
[16:35:14] *Edwin Mons nods
[16:35:24] <Alex> I missed the last meeting, I huess treasurer and secretary is not yet elected?
[16:35:32] <Alex> huess==guess
[16:35:33] <dwd> No, we haven't yet reelected you.
[16:35:35] <bear> had that in my notes and forgot to add that line
[16:36:29] <bear> how are we on attendence today - me, dave, ralph, simon
[16:36:34] *dwd waves
[16:36:36] <bear> has someone poked Laura
[16:36:45] <dwd> Laura sent apologies to the list.
[16:36:54] *bear realizes he does not have her in his contacts
[16:37:11] <dwd> Lloyd, I assume she's still caught in whatever she was called into?
[16:37:17] <dwd> bear, She's not online anyway.
[16:37:22] <Kev> By 'the list' is this members@ or board@?
[16:37:30] <ralphm> yes
[16:37:38] <stpeter> in the past I've encouraged the Board to consider the various "positions" (secretary, treasurer-always-unfilled, and executive director) in January after they've interacted a bit with those currently serving in those roles
[16:37:39] <Edwin Mons> Glad that's cleared….
[16:37:43] <stpeter> perhaps it makes sense to formalize that
[16:37:47] <dwd> Kev, I can't remember where she sent her "I might not make it".
[16:38:07] <ralphm> stpeter: I can see the logic in that, yeah
[16:38:23] <ralphm> dwd: on the board list
[16:38:39] <stpeter> (because sometimes we have new Board members and they don't know who all the people are)
[16:38:43] <dwd> stpeter, But not Chair?
[16:38:44] <bear> her missing the meeting note went to the board list
[16:39:07] <stpeter> dwd: the Board selects its own chair and needs to do that straightaway, methinks
[16:39:22] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:39:26] <bear> ok, we have quorom, shall we start?
[16:39:33] <ralphm> bear: please
[16:39:36] <Simon> +1
[16:39:39] <dwd> stpeter, Yes, I'm inclined to agree, but it's technically a position just like secretary etc.
[16:39:41] <stpeter> the Secretary, Treasurer, and Executive Director are appointed or serve at the pleasure of the Board
[16:39:47] *bear bangs the gavel
[16:39:47] <stpeter> IMHO
[16:39:48] <stpeter> anyway
[16:39:51] <stpeter> off you go :-)
[16:40:03] *bear adds the current discussion to the agenda so we can get back to it
[16:40:29] <bear> any items that anyone want to add to the agenda?
[16:40:40] <bear> (I know about the item that I missed from Simon)
[16:41:04] <bear> ok, none given
[16:41:13] <Alex> ya, the current discussion about election schedules
[16:41:27] <bear> Alex - noted
[16:41:46] *bear adjusts his pause-o-timer
[16:42:01] <bear> any others?
[16:42:12] <ralphm> nope
[16:42:40] <bear> first item: nominations for Board Chair so we can vote on them
[16:42:46] <Kev> I think you were going to discuss github for submissions, at some point.
[16:43:36] <bear> yes, but I need to get the git mirror in place before letting the membership know it's a change (well, that's what I was thinking)
[16:44:06] <bear> Nominations for Chair - do we have anyone who wants to nominate someone?
[16:44:13] <Lloyd> dwd: yeah sorry just caught up, she hasn't arrived back yet so I assume so.
[16:44:25] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:44:37] *bear notes that he does not mind continuing in the role
[16:45:15] <dwd> I'm happy to do it, but happy to let you continue if you want.
[16:45:43] <bear> ok, Dave has offered what can only be described as a passive aggressive nomination ;)
[16:45:53] <dwd> :-)
[16:45:54] <ralphm> I nominate bear
[16:46:03] <bear> ok
[16:46:38] <bear> simon?
[16:46:45] <dwd> I read bear as nominating himself anyway. :-)
[16:47:01] *ralphm nods
[16:47:05] <bear> I was leading the charge for passive aggressive nominations
[16:47:40] <Alex> so either fight now, or vote ;-)
[16:47:45] <bear> :)
[16:47:51] <Simon> What's Kev's role these days? Would he be eligible for nomination?
[16:47:59] <Edwin Mons> He's not on the board...
[16:48:07] <bear> kev is a member of the council, not the board
[16:48:10] <dwd> Edwin Mons, The chair need not be on the Board.
[16:48:18] <Edwin Mons> dwd: ah :)
[16:48:23] <dwd> At least, I see nothing at all in the bylaws that would indicate that.
[16:48:23] <Alex> and voted by board members
[16:48:46] <Alex> or elected
[16:49:00] <ralphm> Simon: did you want to nominate Kev?
[16:49:15] <dwd> The Board selects its chair, but the chair needn't be a Board member themselves. It's on a par with the other positions the XSF has, like Secretary, Treasurer, etc.
[16:49:28] <Simon> It would help if we outlined the responsibilites of the chair. What's their role?
[16:49:28] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:49:35] <bear> running the meetings
[16:49:39] <Simon> /duties?
[16:49:42] <Simon> k
[16:49:43] <ralphm> Simon: this is outlined in the by laws
[16:50:01] <dwd> That and, interesting, the Chair has the casting vote in the case of a tie.
[16:50:05] <bear> it's purely administrative - there are some bylaw specific duties that being charted as a org requires
[16:50:32] <bear> in all the time i've been aware of the board, I don't think we've ever had a tie
[16:50:46] <Kev> That's because we try to pick odd numbers for both Board and Council, I think.
[16:50:50] <Kev> (Less important for Council)
[16:50:53] *bear nods
[16:51:26] *** Lance has joined the room
[16:51:26] *** Lance shows as "online"
[16:51:32] <stpeter> dwd: the Board has traditionally selected a Chair from among the Board members, but you're right that it's not required by the bylaws
[16:51:42] <dwd> Oh, I lie - it's the Executive Director that has the casting vote.
[16:51:57] <Kev> That sounds more familiar.
[16:52:27] <bear> ok, the point still remains, does simon wish to nominate someone (or do ralph and dave wish to nominate anyone else)
[16:52:59] <Simon> I nominate Kev.
[16:53:21] <bear> k
[16:53:36] <bear> any others?
[16:53:43] <ralphm> nope
[16:53:55] <bear> dave?
[16:54:18] <dwd> No - without anyone else willing to nominate me, I'll withdraw, as well.
[16:54:31] *** Simon shows as "online"
[16:54:55] <bear> you don't have to withdraw IMO
[16:54:59] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:55:34] <dwd> No, I don't I don't have to. :-)
[16:55:47] <dwd> I know I don't have to, I mean.
[16:56:00] <ralphm> ok, so we have two candidates: bear and kev
[16:56:15] <bear> ok, so we now have two people, Kev and Bear
[16:56:23] <bear> shall we vote?
[16:56:26] <ralphm> yep
[16:56:31] <dwd> Erm, wait.
[16:56:35] *bear waits
[16:56:44] <dwd> It'd be handy to know if Kev accepts the nomination, first.
[16:56:54] <Kev> Sure, what's the worst that can happen? :)
[16:57:14] <dwd> You get twice as many minutes to write up?
[16:57:15] <Kev> (I don't like people being on both Board and Council, but I don't think this counts as Chair gets no power)
[16:57:16] <ralphm> Kev: that we vote for you and for all the other roles, too?
[16:57:37] <bear> ok, Kev has accepted - ready to vote now?
[16:57:42] <dwd> Yup.
[16:57:50] <bear> simon, ralph - ready?
[16:57:53] <Simon> yep
[16:57:54] <ralphm> yeah
[16:58:03] <bear> sound off then please
[16:58:08] <ralphm> +1 for bear
[16:58:17] <Simon> +1 for Kev
[16:58:38] *bear is going to laugh if this ties
[16:59:01] <bear> +1 for bear
[16:59:11] <dwd> I was wondering about the wisdom of tying it, and therefore letting either Peter pick, or else making Laura do it instead.
[16:59:28] <bear> i would say that we send it to laura if it tied
[16:59:35] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:00:03] <bear> but I would also just remove myself and let kev do it - he has a very capable meeting running style
[17:00:05] <ralphm> dwd: about the minutes, technically it is the Secretary's duty
[17:00:20] <stpeter> I don't think it's appropriate for me to express a preference, given that the Board is the one determining whether I continue to serve as Executive Director with all its many perquisites of power
[17:00:43] <ralphm> stpeter: tough luck, should have written the by laws better :-D
[17:00:45] <bear> any opinion is always appreciated
[17:01:15] <dwd> I'll vote for bear. On balance, I think having Kev as Chair of both Board and Council would probably not be ideal.
[17:01:18] <bear> the current board "season" has already proved to be very divergent from past ones
[17:01:21] <ralphm> I want to note that I have to leave in a few minutes
[17:01:23] <Kev> Safe :)
[17:01:52] <ralphm> dwd: agreed
[17:02:15] <bear> ok, I see 1 for Kev and 3 for bear - that is done, i'll continue as Board Chair
[17:02:46] <ralphm> woot
[17:02:50] <bear> next agenda item: meeting time - shall we continue with bi weekly for next week and i'll post to the list for anyone to object?
[17:03:00] <ralphm> +1
[17:03:02] <bear> s/next week/next meeting/
[17:03:14] <bear> simon, dave?
[17:03:24] <dwd> I think we agreed on a meeting this time next week anyway.
[17:03:30] <ralphm> indeed
[17:03:34] <Simon> +1 for next week
[17:03:36] <bear> k
[17:03:48] <dwd> But as for ongoing, I'd like to hear from Laura on whether there's likely to be too many clashes for her at this time.
[17:03:56] <bear> meeting nextg week at the same time slot
[17:04:12] <bear> agreed - we need to put this to the list so she has ample time respond yea/nea
[17:04:15] <stpeter> why not weekly? fortnightly can get confusing ("do we have a meeting this week?") -- the meeting can always be short if there's not much to cover, as Council meetings are
[17:04:38] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:04:40] <ralphm> stpeter: I suggested this before, and still agree
[17:04:46] <Alex> +1
[17:04:47] *bear looks and wonders why he typed bi above
[17:04:49] <dwd> Yes, I agree, weekly is better.
[17:05:03] <Kev> I find it works well for Council, even if half the meetings end up being "1. Roll call 2. Date of next"
[17:05:21] <bear> noted, i'll reinforce that in the email
[17:05:32] *stpeter nods to Kev
[17:06:03] <bear> next agenda item i'm making FOSDEM report since ralph is time constrained
[17:06:40] <ralphm> dwd had a short chat on this earlier this week
[17:06:45] <bear> is there anything that is board actionable for FOSDEM yet?
[17:06:47] <ralphm> no
[17:07:09] <dwd> Not yet. We're somewhat constrined because we can't really commit until we've heard whether we get the Lounge again.
[17:07:14] <ralphm> we were talking about doing some kind of t-shirts/hoodies/whatever again
[17:07:19] <bear> has the wiki page for the next summit been created so we can start to note details and pending decision items?
[17:07:30] <ralphm> yeah, we formally won't know until half december
[17:07:35] <bear> ah - ok
[17:07:42] <ralphm> bear: I will do this tomorrow
[17:07:47] <ralphm> eh
[17:07:48] <bear> thanks ralph
[17:07:59] *stpeter updates his .plan to find out about travel approvals and reserving space at the Cisco office again
[17:07:59] <dwd> Oh, we have quite a large page on SUmmit_15.
[17:08:00] <ralphm> there is a summit page already, though
[17:08:16] <ralphm> dwd: that's mostly a copy of previous editions
[17:08:37] <bear> yea, it seemed overly detailed
[17:08:54] <bear> ok, anything else needed for ralph and FOSDEM?
[17:08:57] <ralphm> but I think a separate planning page for us would be good
[17:09:05] <ralphm> with things like the gear we need and stuff
[17:09:08] <bear> +1
[17:09:38] <bear> shall we move on to the next item - IoT Liason report?
[17:09:42] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:09:44] <ralphm> I was happy for the IoT mentioning some stuff for the XMPP UK meetup, and I'd love to have some stuff from them at FOSDEM
[17:09:45] <stpeter> FOSDEM is even earlier than usual this year, so preparation in December will be important
[17:09:57] <stpeter> ralphm: yes
[17:09:57] <ralphm> the location is an ideal venue for things like this
[17:10:09] <ralphm> FOSDEM is hardly earlier
[17:10:15] <ralphm> one day or so
[17:10:19] <stpeter> sure
[17:10:20] <Simon> FWIW, I'll be offline most of December and the start of Jan.
[17:10:27] <stpeter> Simon: good for you :-)
[17:10:30] <Simon> :)
[17:10:35] <ralphm> Simon: booh
[17:11:00] <stpeter> ok, about liaison relationships...
[17:11:02] <bear> peter - can you give your IoT liason update?
[17:11:20] <stpeter> as you know, we've received a liaison request from ISO TC 122 (logistics stuff)
[17:11:33] <stpeter> we need to finalize that
[17:11:51] *** Alex shows as "online"
[17:11:58] *** Alex2 has joined the room
[17:12:19] <stpeter> I did send an inquiry to them and they replied, so I will send information about that to the membership
[17:12:42] <stpeter> it was a small issue
[17:12:45] *** Alex has joined the room
[17:12:47] <stpeter> but we need to finalize it
[17:12:52] <stpeter> I'll have time to do that now
[17:13:12] <stpeter> I have also had some preliminary discussions with two other groups
[17:13:13] <dwd> We were finding out whether the specifications were under NDA or similar, weren't we?
[17:13:18] *** Alex has left the room
[17:13:22] *** Alex2 has left the room
[17:13:30] *** Alex has joined the room
[17:13:33] <stpeter> not quite NDA
[17:13:48] <stpeter> but they keep their specs under wraps until finished
[17:13:53] <dwd> Right.
[17:14:20] <stpeter> so if we assign two people (or whatever) to be liaisons, those people couldn't share the documents with, say, any XSF member or even the Council
[17:14:44] <stpeter> workaround: we could appoint the entire Council to be liaisons, but they might not care about the topics under consideration
[17:14:46] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:14:47] <bear> but they would not be barred from discussion specific items with council?
[17:14:56] <ralphm> I think at least one should be on the Council
[17:15:01] <stpeter> ralphm: good idea
[17:15:14] <Simon> What is ISO TC 122? The best I coluld find was the ISO packaging committee
[17:15:28] <stpeter> Simon: logistics
[17:15:31] <stpeter> lorries and such
[17:16:02] <stpeter> "this vehicle did not arrive at its scheduled location on time, has it been hijacked?" that kind of thing
[17:16:14] <bear> fleet monitoring?
[17:16:25] <stpeter> bear: as best I can determine, yes
[17:16:32] <dwd> We use TLS; we're immune to hijacking, right?
[17:16:34] <Simon> Right. What's the aim of liason - tech help or?
[17:16:50] <stpeter> so let me describe the two other liaison relationships and then I think we can talk in general about our approach
[17:16:53] <Simon> I didn't even need to read the sender of that to know it was a DWD post.
[17:16:58] <bear> :)
[17:17:04] <stpeter> Simon: review their technical specs so that they don't use XMPP in silly ways
[17:17:21] <bear> dave - can i watch you try to MiTM a lorrie session?
[17:17:26] <ralphm> this
[17:17:28] <Simon> Sounds very useful and a good way to generate an XEP down the road.
[17:17:28] <stpeter> the other two are IEC TC 57 (electrical grid stuff) and UPnP Forum
[17:17:42] <Kev> bear: Sorry, with that comment I'm forced to post http://b.oooom.net/1r8t
[17:17:58] <stpeter> IEC TC 57 seems to be interested in using XMPP in ways similar to the OpenADR folks did in the USA, but globally
[17:18:21] <stpeter> I reviewed the OpenADR work informally (no liaison relationship needed) last year
[17:18:27] <stpeter> IEC is more formal
[17:18:32] <bear> kev - that is an epic video IMO (and i'll stop derailing the thread now)
[17:18:39] <dwd> If they're extending, rather than using existing stuff, do we want them to do so within the XSF and the XEP framework, or don't we care?
[17:18:41] <stpeter> so they'd want something similar to what we do with ISO TC 122
[17:19:07] <stpeter> so far, these have not been extensions but "profiles" that re-use their existing XML payload formats
[17:19:17] <stpeter> they're just using XMPP as a transport
[17:19:27] <stpeter> at least during the initial phases
[17:19:28] <Simon> While on the subject of liason, it would be great to help out the mozilla folk more in their wg-presence list.
[17:19:34] <stpeter> Simon: yes
[17:19:49] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:19:57] *bear signed up for wg-presence mailing list last night
[17:20:08] <stpeter> the other liaison relationship people have been exploring with me is UPnP Forum, which is basing its "UPnP Cloud" technology on XMPP
[17:20:09] <Simon> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/wg-presence/2013-November/000143.html
[17:20:20] <Simon> and there is a call tomorrow 10AM PST
[17:20:37] <dwd> stpeter, So how does the UPnP stuff work in terms of specification access?
[17:20:55] <stpeter> (BTW, the last two have come about through people within Cisco poking me to help out since I'm the "XMPP Guy")
[17:21:36] <stpeter> dwd: I am not sure yet about that -- the discussions have been quite preliminary and I don't know the details, although I was on a call with some of the UPnP folks recently and they asked me some technical questions about XMPP
[17:22:17] <stpeter> since I work at Cisco and Cisco is a corporate member of these organizations, I haven't needed to sign an NDA or become a formal liaison or anything like that
[17:22:41] <stpeter> but both IEC and UPnP Forum seemingly would like to also establish a more formal relationship
[17:22:51] <Simon> I'm happy to add my name to a list to help out with liason (inside or outside of any official role). Can sign any NDAs privately too.
[17:22:53] <dwd> That seems like really good news.
[17:23:07] <stpeter> XMPP is now an old technology and these more formal SDOs are getting interested in using it :-)
[17:23:32] <stpeter> so the question for the Board is, do we want to set some guidelines for establishing liaison relationships with other SDOs?
[17:23:33] <Simon> That's it I'm leaving - you make me feel old.
[17:23:53] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:23:54] <dwd> stpeter, It'd be useful to steer these guys into working "our" way as much as we can, but it's good that they're inetersted at al.
[17:23:55] <stpeter> we have 3 in the pipeline now, and might have more in the future
[17:24:06] <bear> I think we need to have a wiki page (or something) that outlines how a group can make contact with us for that
[17:24:10] <dwd> stpeter, Is there anything you need form us at this stage?
[17:24:44] <stpeter> dwd: these organizations are quite formal in how they work, especially ISO/IEC -- they're multistakeholder organizations etc.
[17:24:52] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:25:00] <stpeter> dwd: so I don't think we'll steer them anywhere :-)
[17:25:26] <stpeter> dwd: I think we need direction from the Board about our preferred way of working here
[17:25:34] <bear> at a minimum we can make sure XMPP is not dismissed for bad information or FUD
[17:25:41] <dwd> stpeter, Right, but since we have a formal membership, I was wondering if all members could get access to the specs for liason, etc.
[17:25:42] <stpeter> e.g., "at least one Council member"
[17:26:00] *** SouL has joined the room
[17:26:20] <Simon> I guess this really depends what they are looking for? Technical help? Design help? Protocol approval?
[17:26:25] <stpeter> dwd: typically these groups seem to want consolidated feedback, so opening up access to all XSF members might be complicated
[17:26:51] <stpeter> dwd: e.g., do we need to take an XSF vote on our review feedback?
[17:26:54] <dwd> stpeter, Yes, we'd want communications to be formalized through a liason.
[17:26:54] <stpeter> Simon: good question
[17:27:23] <bear> this really sounds like something that the Council needs to be a part of - since that is the group the membership bestows formally the task of ensuring technical accuracy
[17:27:32] <Simon> So this could be a working-group scenario (probably staffed by fine council members)
[17:27:37] <dwd> stpeter, As far as choice of actual liason goes, the COuncil ought to be selecting the people.
[17:27:58] <stpeter> Simon: in my experience so far, these groups have independently decided they want to use XMPP, but they're experts in other domains so they want someone who knows about XMPP to give them some design help with the XMPP aspects and review their work so that what they produce is consistent with the Tao of XMPP
[17:28:09] <Kev> dwd: I think that's something Board should give blessing to, if that's what we do.
[17:28:14] <Alex> I also think working group, maybe only with elected members from the council or board
[17:28:34] <stpeter> I note that in the IETF, it's the IAB (not the IESG) that appoints liaisons
[17:28:59] <bear> at first we could consider it a board+council working group and if membership expresses a strong desire we can make it another voted group?
[17:29:00] <Kev> These are people representing the XSF, in private. There's clearly relevance to both parties.
[17:29:07] <dwd> stpeter, Right, but the XSF Board isn't the IAB, the XSF Board is the ISOC Board.
[17:29:23] <stpeter> dwd: no one knows what the IAB really is ;-)
[17:29:33] <stpeter> but anyway, we need to figure this out
[17:29:34] <dwd> stpeter, However grew the biggest beard.
[17:29:44] <dwd> Whoever, even. My typing's gone today.
[17:29:55] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:29:56] <stpeter> my preference is to have only a single liaison or a small number of them
[17:30:11] <stpeter> not the whole Council or the whole membership
[17:30:16] <bear> single liason from a small(ish) pool?
[17:30:23] <dwd> OK, so I'll suggest that the Council provides nominations for liasons to the Board on a per-project basis, and the Board ratifies that.
[17:30:24] <stpeter> I'd be fine with the whole Council, actually, but they have enough to do
[17:30:44] <stpeter> another question is whether liaisons need to be XSF members
[17:30:59] <stpeter> dwd: that approach seems reasonable
[17:31:08] <bear> I want to say yes to that - as liason will represent the XSF
[17:31:22] <dwd> Oh, indeed... Yes, I think we do want liasons to be XSF members typically.
[17:31:41] <stpeter> bear: yes, I think so
[17:31:59] <dwd> It's not clear if we want this to be an unbreakable rule.
[17:32:15] <stpeter> dwd: not clear to me either
[17:32:20] <bear> I don't like unbreakable in general
[17:32:27] <stpeter> :)
[17:32:32] <bear> because a person may be needed due to problem space expertise
[17:32:40] <stpeter> we could consider a liaison team to be a work team per the bylaws
[17:32:42] <stpeter> (btw)
[17:32:44] <bear> in that case we should have both
[17:32:45] <dwd> If we had, say, two people on the liason team, I'd be happy to mandate that one of them must be XSF.
[17:32:54] <bear> yes
[17:33:02] <Simon> So let's do this on a case by case basis until we have a repeatable pattern. I'd be happy for the first liason to be made up of a council working group of ~3 people that feel strongly about the topic and can sign up/and sign an NDA to work on the topic.
[17:33:03] <dwd> stpeter, Yeah, that's XSF members only, right?
[17:33:07] <stpeter> dwd: yes
[17:33:11] <bear> peter - agree that liason should be a work team
[17:33:40] <dwd> bear, That does make it an unbreakable rule that the liasons are XSF members.
[17:34:20] <Kev> Is this a particularly productive discussion about a situation that hasn't come up? :)
[17:34:25] <bear> ok, following simon's lead: we (the board) will ask the Council to nominate 2+ people to form the initial liason team and then iterate on that as needed
[17:34:29] <stpeter> Simon: that's a good question, I don't know if these groups do have formal NDAs but it's something similar (and that's something the XSF is probably committing to by setting up a liaison relationship although right now I don't recall the details for ISO and I haven't heard about them yet for IEC or UPnP)
[17:34:54] <stpeter> Kev: :)
[17:34:58] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:35:28] <dwd> Let's keep XSF members only for now. If something comes up where we can't fulfill that for some reason, we'll tackle it then.
[17:35:32] <stpeter> Kev: I was suggesting that we use the work team model because it's already in the bylaws and we don't need to design new process for it
[17:35:50] <dwd> So, also, yes - use the work team model.
[17:36:00] <bear> +1 to work team model
[17:36:53] <bear> ok, do we have any other colour choices for this bike shed?
[17:36:58] <stpeter> :)
[17:37:01] <dwd> bear, So I'd like to move that for any liasons, the COuncil nominates a small team (1-3 typically) to act as liason work team, which the Board ratifies.
[17:37:15] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/ Article VIII by the way
[17:37:27] <stpeter> dwd: seems reasonable to me
[17:37:27] <bear> I suggest that we take dave's summary as our actionable item for this
[17:37:45] <Simon> +1
[17:37:52] <bear> ralph?
[17:38:01] <bear> (wondering if he is even still here)
[17:38:05] <dwd> Gone I think.
[17:38:15] <dwd> But we're still quorate.
[17:38:19] <bear> k
[17:38:25] <dwd> (just)
[17:38:29] <stpeter> dwd: you love the word 'quorate' don't you?
[17:38:36] <bear> Kev - what is the best place for the board to ask the council for this - on the mailing list?
[17:38:45] <stpeter> members@ list I'd think :-)
[17:38:59] <Kev> Poke me on the Council list to put it on the agenda, I"d have thought.
[17:39:01] <stpeter> other members might have ideas too
[17:39:02] <dwd> stpeter, You're upbraiding me for linguistics? Pot, kettle, black!
[17:39:09] <Simon> What's next on the agenda?
[17:39:21] <Kev> And sure, copy members@.
[17:39:25] <bear> Peter - can we then get you to post that request for the current liason spot on members@ to the council
[17:39:36] *bear notes he is moderated for council@
[17:39:40] <stpeter> " - Membership application question from Dave"
[17:39:50] <stpeter> bear: sure
[17:39:52] <dwd> Defer it until a next meeting.
[17:39:56] *** SouL has left the room
[17:39:58] <Kev> bear: Poke me via IM to try and fix that, or Peter.
[17:40:09] <bear> kev - will do
[17:40:12] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:40:16] <bear> ok, dave's question is deferred to next
[17:40:29] <bear> that leaves simon's item about planning for security day
[17:40:37] <stpeter> bear: fixed
[17:40:42] <bear> thank you sir
[17:41:14] <Simon> We really need a good set of technical documents on how to pass the security day. And we need to start ramping up publicity for it.
[17:41:28] <dwd> Simon, I'd rather defer your publicity questions until Laura is present.
[17:41:44] <Simon> I've tried to have some of these here. http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Securing_XMPP
[17:41:59] <Simon> publicity we can do with laura - sure
[17:42:10] <bear> we can raise the issue now to get started, most of this I think should be on members@ list
[17:42:11] *** SouL has joined the room
[17:42:22] <Simon> but we should think about nudging the different XMPP server groups to publish the bare minimum to pass the tests.
[17:42:29] <stpeter> Simon: yes
[17:42:37] <Simon> I'll start this with a post to jdev
[17:42:48] <stpeter> Simon: great!
[17:42:57] <Simon> and we should also ack the great work that thaijs has been doing on the xmpp.net project.
[17:43:02] <stpeter> Simon: I'm happy to poke people like Matthias and Artur directly, too
[17:43:25] <Simon> that's the most amazing piece of light shining into the dark corners of insecurity.
[17:43:33] <bear> agreed
[17:44:18] <Simon> Wish we had something like that to test XEPs :)
[17:44:22] <bear> that is something we can discuss with Laura, ways to show focus on members activities
[17:45:10] <stpeter> Simon: actually, the UPnP folks asked me about compliance testing suites but I didn't have much to offer
[17:45:25] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:45:30] <Simon> ok then that's my bit - but everyone please keep tweeting and mentioning the upcoming date.
[17:45:37] <Simon> 4th Jan :)
[17:45:39] <stpeter> Simon: will do!
[17:46:14] <bear> if anyone wants to see a blog post happen, please do poke me via IM or email and I'll generate one
[17:46:16] <Simon> the DNSSEC stuff isn't doing any harm with the IAB either :) Dan York loves us.
[17:46:24] <stpeter> yep!
[17:46:49] <dwd> Also pleasing to see Hannes joining in.
[17:46:58] <stpeter> Dan and I plan to write an Internet-Draft about being a "Jabber scribe" (as they call it) during IETF sessions
[17:47:06] <Simon> Hannes?
[17:47:20] <stpeter> another IETF character
[17:47:23] <dwd> Tschoffenig.
[17:47:34] <dwd> Author of the most Internet Drafts, I seem to recall.
[17:47:36] <Simon> right - so that's my security bit for this week.
[17:47:38] <stpeter> Hannes Tschofenig
[17:48:03] <bear> that is the last agenda item, any agenda bashing for this meeting?
[17:48:13] <stpeter> no AOB here
[17:48:24] <dwd> None from me.
[17:48:24] <Kev> I note we need to think about GSoC at some point. Potentially not now.
[17:48:33] <bear> noted
[17:48:44] <Kev> (But agenda for next week would be good, please)
[17:48:45] <stpeter> I have a huge presentation to make internally in 15 minutes so I'll ignore this XMPP stuff for a little while
[17:48:48] <bear> the only board business left to do is to affirm roles
[17:49:17] <bear> secretary, ED and so on, but I don't mind at all deferring that to another meeting
[17:49:25] <bear> so that the new board folks can acclimate
[17:49:36] <dwd> bear, stpeter suggested doing that in January.
[17:49:48] <bear> +1 to that
[17:50:13] <bear> ok, then I am calling this meeting done - any objections?
[17:50:19] <stpeter> no objections here!
[17:50:26] <bear> simon, dave?
[17:50:29] <Simon> done
[17:50:35] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:50:52] <dwd> Close away.
[17:50:54] <bear> any volunteer for meeting minutes - if not, I will do them tonight
[17:51:17] <stpeter> gotta run, bbl
[17:51:19] <bear> and I'll post the meeting announcement with agenda list to members@ tonight also
[17:51:20] *** stpeter has left the room
[17:51:26] <bear> ok, meeting is done
[17:51:49] <bear> minutes and agenda will be sent to members@ by me tonight
[17:51:54] <bear> thanks all for a most epic meeting
[17:52:13] *dwd looks at the time.
[17:52:18] <dwd> Yup. Epic. :-)
[17:52:29] <bear> yea, seriously not a Kev quality meeting today ;)
[17:53:09] <Kev> Four times as good as a Council meeting? :)
[17:54:37] <bear> :)
[17:55:44] *** Simon shows as "online"
[17:56:55] <bear> board meeting notice sent to members@
[17:57:09] <bear> more details to follow, switching of to $dayjob now
[17:57:14] <bear> s/of/over/
[18:00:48] *** Simon shows as "online"
[18:02:59] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:05:53] *** Simon shows as "online"
[18:06:21] *** dwd shows as "online"
[18:08:52] *** Simon has joined the room
[18:08:52] *** Simon shows as "online"
[18:11:34] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:11:34] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:11:50] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:12:52] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[18:15:00] *** Simon has left the room
[18:15:27] <Kev> My understanding is that all that's going to happen on 4th January is that people will need to have some sort of cert in place, is that right?
[18:16:15] <Kev> (That is - no-one's going to be requiring TAs and valid certs)
[18:19:26] *** SouL shows as "away"
[18:19:48] <fippo> kev: that is my understanding as well. require TLS, but don't check certs
[18:20:08] <fippo> reminds me that technically we should have a spec for starttls+dialback by then
[18:20:22] *fippo pokes dwd
[18:20:26] <Kev> Good, it'd be a shame to have to replace my five-year-old cert. I've gotten attached to it :D
[18:20:51] <fippo> that's actually one of the questions we need to work out for that
[18:20:52] <Lance> i'll be sad to see fippo have to replace his cert too :p
[18:21:26] <fippo> I'd say that for starttls+dialback only non-trusted or self-signed are egibly
[18:21:38] <fippo> but no certs that have expired or where the hostname doesn't match
[18:22:07] <Kev> Because a self-signed cert that's expired is less trustworthy than a selfsigned that hasn't?
[18:22:48] <fippo> no. because expired certs like mine should break
[18:22:55] <fippo> so i am forced to update it
[18:23:04] <fippo> and more important, so i notice something is wrong
[18:23:34] <Kev> And ADH is better or worse than an expired self-signed cert? :)
[18:23:55] <fippo> i dont think 6120 allows ADH :-p
[18:24:06] <fippo> but yeah, it's not a security question
[18:24:55] <Kev> Oh, does it not?
[18:26:47] <Kev> I can't find anything immediately disallowing anonymous suites.
[18:27:29] <fippo> right
[18:27:47] <fippo> it talks about a certificate in alot of places though.
[18:28:27] *** Zash shows as "away"
[18:28:29] <Kev> It's not immediately clear to me that anonymous+dialback is any worse than untrusted+dialback
[18:28:32] <Kev> Is it?
[18:28:58] <fippo> i think they're the same as far as starttls+dialback is concerned
[18:29:08] <fippo> untrusted+dialback has some advantages for d-w-d
[18:29:11] *** Zash shows as "online"
[18:30:43] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[18:30:44] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[18:30:54] <Kev> And pinning.
[18:33:04] <Kev> Interestingly, though, -PLUS+ADH would still be better for clients that any other mech+a trusted cert, I think?
[18:33:25] <Kev> Well, depends what you consider the attack to be, I guess.
[18:33:49] <MattJ> With -PLUS I don't think it matters whether you use ADH or any kind of cert
[18:34:07] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:34:09] <Kev> It does if you think the password might be compromised elsewhere.
[18:34:23] *** bear shows as "away"
[18:34:35] *** bear shows as "online"
[18:34:40] *** Lloyd has left the room
[18:34:47] <bear> hey - can I suggest you guys talk about this over in jdev?
[18:35:57] <Kev> The XSF isn't an appropriate venue? :)
[18:36:22] <bear> it is - was just tyring to raise the awareness higher and jdev has more lurkers
[18:38:23] *** dwd shows as "online"
[18:39:11] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[18:39:13] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[18:40:31] *** SouL has left the room
[18:41:42] *** SouL has joined the room
[18:41:52] *** SouL shows as "online"
[18:43:49] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[18:43:50] *** Ashley Ward has joined the room
[18:47:39] *** Jef has joined the room
[18:51:51] *** SouL shows as "away"
[18:54:20] *** bear shows as "away"
[18:54:51] *** bear shows as "online"
[18:55:35] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:55:35] *** Jef has left the room
[19:03:18] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:03:47] *** SouL shows as "online"
[19:04:26] *** Ashley Ward has left the room
[19:05:59] *** dwd shows as "online"
[19:07:03] *** Simon has joined the room
[19:07:03] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:07:03] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:09:22] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:11:04] *** bear shows as "away"
[19:13:17] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:13:56] *** Simon has left the room
[19:20:35] *** Simon has joined the room
[19:20:35] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:20:36] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:23:16] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[19:23:20] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:28:12] *** SouL has left the room
[19:28:24] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:33:27] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:35:03] *** SouL has joined the room
[19:38:30] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:43:34] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:47:43] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:47:43] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[19:47:46] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:47:46] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:48:37] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:52:55] *** stpeter has joined the room
[19:53:41] *** Simon shows as "online"
[19:58:15] *** Kev shows as "away"
[19:58:44] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:03:48] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:07:03] *** SouL shows as "away"
[20:09:18] *** Simon has joined the room
[20:09:18] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:09:18] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:12:25] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:17:29] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:22:32] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:27:35] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:28:17] *** bear shows as "online"
[20:32:38] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:37:42] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:38:09] *** SouL has left the room
[20:38:32] *** Simon has left the room
[20:38:56] *** Simon has joined the room
[20:38:56] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:39:13] *** SouL has joined the room
[20:41:21] *** SouL has left the room
[20:41:34] *** SouL has joined the room
[20:41:38] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:43:15] *** dwd shows as "online"
[20:46:41] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:48:31] *** bear shows as "away"
[20:49:21] *** bear shows as "online"
[20:51:44] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:55:10] *** Jef has joined the room
[20:56:47] *** Simon shows as "online"
[20:58:48] <MattJ> Simon, the "Securing XMPP" is making me uneasy
[20:59:08] <MattJ> ^ +page
[20:59:24] <Simon> what's up?
[20:59:32] <MattJ> It's just looking so complex...
[20:59:48] <Simon> I know.
[20:59:51] <MattJ> when the correct answer for Prosody users is really just... make sure you're running the latest versions of everything
[21:00:00] <MattJ> I can't speak for other implementations
[21:00:28] <MattJ> DANE is complicated and would need a whole tutorial by itself, it's not production-ready yet IMHO
[21:00:40] <Simon> Agreed. Let's cut it out.
[21:00:53] <MattJ> We need better docs, but I don't think it belongs in a high-level page such as this
[21:01:08] <MattJ> I need to work with Zash and other folk who have it deployed already to document it
[21:01:24] <Zash> mod_s2s_auth_dnssec_srv isn't DANE
[21:01:28] <MattJ> More testers and we can iron out the implementation and setup procedure
[21:01:31] <Simon> Presumably on 4th Jan ops will need to add c2s_require_encryption = true
s2s_require_encryption = true
?
[21:01:43] <MattJ> Zash, there was a mod_dane or something though?
[21:01:50] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:01:54] <Zash> MattJ: No
[21:02:02] <MattJ> Simon, yes, that makes sense - I'm happy with that being on that page
[21:02:34] <MattJ> But cipher strings and such... I'd rather users just leave that stuff to us, unless they really know what they are doing
[21:02:54] <Simon> Also Prosody seems to treat client and s2s connections the same.
[21:03:02] <Simon> So we should just have a general section.
[21:03:02] <Zash> Treat how?
[21:03:17] <Simon> I mean with keys and ciphers.
[21:03:42] <MattJ> Yes, it does (though in trunk you can separate them - most people don't need/want this)
[21:04:12] <Simon> But yeah - it's late now, but I'd like to restructure the page more as a "for things to work on 4th Jan, you need to add the following to different servers" page.
[21:04:28] <Simon> Promise to look at this in the morning.
[21:04:38] <MattJ> I can help with that perhaps, I think most of the information is there now
[21:04:56] <MattJ> It just needs restructuring and simplification
[21:05:01] <MattJ> boiling down to the essentials
[21:05:03] <Simon> I suggest we structure it by Server, not c2s and s2s as teh page is done now.
[21:05:12] <MattJ> Agreed
[21:05:16] <Simon> then we have just the commands for each server.
[21:05:25] <MattJ> I think that will help a lot
[21:05:32] <Simon> yep
[21:05:38] <stpeter> +1
[21:05:43] <stpeter> that all sounds good
[21:06:16] <MattJ> Oh, and that reminds me I have some stats to post to jdev
[21:06:30] <stpeter> stats++
[21:06:34] <Simon> BTW, I ran into a bit of an issue with Prosody. I'd sort of assumed that I didn't need to install an intermediate certificate from my ca. Found out the hard way.
[21:06:51] <stpeter> yeah, intermediate certs are a pain
[21:06:52] <Simon> it might be nice to be more explicit about this in the docs.
[21:06:53] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:07:01] <MattJ> http://prosody.im/doc/certificates#certificate_chains
[21:07:13] <Simon> /might be nice if I read the docs.
[21:07:36] <Simon> you could loose the link to xmpp ica. :)
[21:07:49] <MattJ> A certificate issues by an intermediate CA is rarely usable on a server without the ICA's cert somewhere
[21:07:55] <MattJ> Yes, I'll fix that :)
[21:08:08] <MattJ> *issued by
[21:08:14] <Simon> XMPP.net is great for testing these things though :)
[21:08:23] <stpeter> yeah for sure, Thijs rocks
[21:08:25] <MattJ> +1
[21:08:49] <bear> +1
[21:09:34] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[21:09:37] <fippo> about 1000 times as much as my 2007 openssl s_client patches ;-)
[21:10:03] <stpeter> we should give Thijs an award of some kind at the next Summit :-)
[21:10:28] <fippo> free spare ribs?
[21:10:29] <stpeter> I still have on my desk the "Jimmie" award I earned in 2000 :-)
[21:10:56] *** SouL has left the room
[21:11:43] <bear> :)
[21:11:57] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:12:03] <stpeter> "Best Performance by a Deity" :-)
[21:12:05] <Simon> +1 on awards.
[21:12:12] <stpeter> I need to take a picture of that
[21:12:58] *** ralphm has joined the room
[21:13:01] *** SouL has joined the room
[21:15:58] *** SouL shows as "away" and his status message is "Dormint Zzz...
Durmiendo Zzz...
Sleeping Zzz..."

[21:16:43] <MattJ> Simon, I've updated the docs on ICAs and simplified the wording now
[21:16:53] <Simon> excellent :)
[21:17:00] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:17:07] <Simon> I'm re-layingout the wiki page now.
[21:17:28] <Simon> to the chagrin of "come to bed now Simon"
[21:17:34] <Simon> what is wrong with me.
[21:17:56] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[21:18:13] <MattJ> :)
[21:21:45] *** bear shows as "away"
[21:22:03] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:22:15] <Simon> ok - slightly better formatted now.
[21:22:23] <Simon> http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Securing_XMPP
[21:22:58] <Simon> Perhaps we add "optional" to the gmail.com exclusion
[21:23:34] <Zash> And that's also not going to work
[21:23:44] <MattJ> Yeeah, we have a small issue there
[21:23:53] <Zash> s2s_insecure_domains isn't exceptions to the encryption requirement
[21:24:20] <Simon> I'll let you guys look after the prosody config :)
[21:24:24] <MattJ> I can hack this into mod_manifesto though perhaps :)
[21:24:27] <stpeter> can we do even unauthenticated encryption with gmail? even anon-DH would be better than nothing
[21:24:35] <MattJ> stpeter, nope
[21:24:41] <MattJ> They have no TLS whatsoever
[21:24:42] <stpeter> Simon: thanks for the updates, time to go to bed!
[21:24:44] <stpeter> sigh
[21:24:58] <SouL> stpeter: +1
[21:25:00] <SouL> gnight
[21:25:09] <stpeter> they're encrypting stuff between their data centers like made, but don't care about user communications?
[21:25:17] <stpeter> s/made/mad/
[21:25:20] <MattJ> and Prosody's s2s_require_encryption has no exclusion list
[21:25:24] <Simon> That could be a bit killer. Certainly for me I'm not goting to get a bunch of folk off gmail for a while.
[21:25:31] *** SouL has left the room
[21:25:31] <stpeter> Simon: yeah I know :(
[21:25:43] <stpeter> Simon: worry about that tomorrow, ok? ;-)
[21:25:48] <Simon> deal
[21:25:50] *** Alex shows as "online"
[21:25:51] <Simon> night all
[21:25:52] <stpeter> :)
[21:25:54] <MattJ> 'night :)
[21:25:58] *** SouL has joined the room
[21:27:06] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:28:53] *** Zash has left the room
[21:29:18] *** bear shows as "online"
[21:30:08] <bear> I see gmail folks moving on this only after we can show serious peer pressure that they are the *last* one to be insecure
[21:30:17] <stpeter> yes
[21:30:31] <MattJ> Call me cynical, but I doubt it somehow
[21:30:47] <stpeter> perhaps they'd rather turn off federation entirely
[21:31:25] <bear> yea
[21:31:39] <MattJ> I think federation is hanging by a thread (or maybe a piece of string) - their reaction to the peer pressure could be that someone there realises this is their last insecure service
[21:31:47] <MattJ> and then decides it's best turned off
[21:32:07] <stpeter> right
[21:32:10] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:32:22] <stpeter> everyone move to Hangouts and be done with that pesky interoperability stuff
[21:32:27] <MattJ> :)
[21:32:36] <bear> sit in your silo and be happy already
[21:32:40] <stpeter> heh
[21:32:55] <Simon> Matt - what is happening with your sign-up service?
[21:32:56] *** Alex has left the room
[21:33:23] <stpeter> Simon: go to bed already!
[21:33:25] <MattJ> Simon, you were getting some sleep
[21:33:36] <MattJ> and... I'm hoping to get to it at the weekend
[21:33:44] <stpeter> Simon: I'm going to kick you out!
[21:33:45] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:33:45] <Lance> someone just kick him from the room already :p
[21:33:58] <MattJ> It's currently a weekend-only project (I'd like to remove myself as the bottleneck ASAP though... get it up on github or something)
[21:34:03] *** psa has joined the room
[21:34:14] <MattJ> psa means business
[21:34:54] <bear> LOL
[21:35:14] <bear> does prosody (or other xmpp servers) allow UDP connections?
[21:35:41] <psa> hmph
[21:35:42] <bear> and ... I see Matt answering
[21:35:45] *** Simon got kicked
[21:36:49] <psa> hmph, I can't figure out how to kick people in Adium :P
[21:36:52] <MattJ> bear, XMPP over lossy transports will be... unpleasant ;)
[21:36:58] *** Simon got kicked
[21:37:03] <psa> /help
[21:37:06] <psa> hmph
[21:37:09] <bear> ugh - it won't let a mod kick a mod
[21:37:13] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:37:24] <psa> no, it's a UI or PEBKAC issue
[21:37:36] <bear> I just tried it using swift
[21:37:37] <psa> I can't figure out how to kick anyone
[21:37:45] <bear> Occupant role change failed: Not allowed
[21:37:50] <bear> that's the error I got
[21:37:57] <psa> damn MUC protections!
[21:38:11] <psa> security be damned!
[21:38:14] <MattJ> bear, XEP-0045 says you have to demote first :)
[21:38:29] <psa> stupid specs
[21:38:37] <psa> evil corporations defined this garbage!
[21:38:44] <psa> heh
[21:38:49] <Lance> alright guys, lets make a new room and all move there
[21:38:50] <MattJ> I'm sure half the people on standards@ would agree with you
[21:38:54] *** psa has left the room
[21:38:57] <MattJ> and the other half won't
[21:39:01] <stpeter> well, Simon got the message :P
[21:39:06] <bear> :)
[21:39:27] <bear> MattJ - yea,udp seems overkill, maybe they are solving/asking the wrong question
[21:40:48] <MattJ> If they really want presence over UDP... SIP? :)
[21:41:04] *** Simon has joined the room
[21:41:04] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:41:20] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[21:41:20] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[21:41:50] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[21:42:33] *** Simon shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[21:42:33] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:42:34] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:43:12] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:43:45] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[21:44:45] *** Edwin Mons has joined the room
[21:44:49] *** Simon shows as "online"
[21:45:31] <ralphm> stpeter: maybe not
[21:46:00] <stpeter> ralphm: we just don't know, do we? if the right people read your + posts, things will all turn out well ;-)
[21:46:01] *** Simon has left the room
[21:48:50] <ralphm> stpeter: hmm. I think the technical people mostly did, but have no say
[21:49:24] <stpeter> ralphm: likely
[21:49:25] <bear> which post?
[21:49:37] <stpeter> that's how big companies often work (i.e., evil corporations)
[21:54:43] <ralphm> I like how hangouts recently addes things like moods, in-call and device status. http://m.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=35592
[21:54:49] <ralphm> adds
[21:55:36] <ralphm> bear: the ones rectifying google back in May
[21:56:01] <bear> ah - ok, thought maybe I broke my reading list again
[21:56:52] <ralphm> but eh PEP
[22:01:52] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[22:06:02] *** bear shows as "away"
[22:06:16] *** bear shows as "online"
[22:08:54] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:19:37] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:21:13] *** bear shows as "away"
[22:24:05] *** dwd shows as "online"
[22:30:33] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:40:33] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:43:07] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:59:12] *** stpeter has left the room
[22:59:49] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "ZZZzzzzZZZzzzzzzzz"
[23:04:34] *** bear shows as "online"
[23:19:59] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "ZZZzzzzZZZzzzzzzzz"
[23:25:30] *** dwd has left the room
[23:29:18] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "ZZZzzzzZZZzzzzzzzz"
[23:39:28] *** Edwin Mons shows as "away" and his status message is "ZZZzzzzZZZzzzzzzzz"
[23:41:42] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:46:48] *** Jef shows as "online"
[23:47:04] *** bear shows as "away"
[23:51:48] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:55:24] *** Jef shows as "online"