XSF logo XSF Discussion - 2013-11-27


  1. Lance has joined
  2. dwd has left
  3. tato has joined
  4. Alex has left
  5. Ashley Ward has left
  6. tato has left
  7. tato has joined
  8. Zash has left
  9. Lance has joined
  10. Lance has left
  11. bear has joined
  12. fippo zash: it only mixes audio
  13. Lance has joined
  14. SouL has left
  15. tato has left
  16. tato has joined
  17. SouL has joined
  18. jabberjocke has left
  19. SouL https://jitsi.org/Main/JitSiCompromise20131126
  20. intosi has joined
  21. Alex has joined
  22. Alex has left
  23. Alex has joined
  24. bear has left
  25. Ashley Ward has joined
  26. Zash has joined
  27. dwd has joined
  28. Zash has left
  29. Lance has joined
  30. jabberjocke has joined
  31. Ashley Ward has left
  32. Zash has joined
  33. Ashley Ward has joined
  34. tato has left
  35. Ashley Ward has left
  36. Ashley Ward has joined
  37. Alex has left
  38. dwd Zash, It's muxing video but mixing audio. One "PeerConnection", many streams.
  39. fippo https://jitsi.org/Projects/JitsiVideobridge explains it
  40. Lance has joined
  41. Lance has joined
  42. Kev has left
  43. SouL has left
  44. Lance has joined
  45. SouL has joined
  46. Lloyd has joined
  47. jabberjocke has left
  48. Lloyd has left
  49. Laura has joined
  50. Alex has left
  51. Lloyd has joined
  52. Ashley Ward has left
  53. Ashley Ward has joined
  54. Alex has joined
  55. Lance has joined
  56. Lance has joined
  57. Zash has left
  58. Ashley Ward has left
  59. Ashley Ward has joined
  60. Ashley Ward has left
  61. Ashley Ward has joined
  62. bear has joined
  63. Zash has joined
  64. bear laura - ping?
  65. Laura Hi
  66. bear trying to connect
  67. Laura We could hear you, could you not hear us?
  68. bear evidently all my devices need new hangout software
  69. ralphm waves
  70. dwd is following the Council meeting.
  71. bear this is why I want to use xmpp video for this - I have a single JID but I have 4 gmail accounts :/
  72. ralphm are we doing a VC today?
  73. ralphm didn't get any memo
  74. Kev I hope not :p
  75. intosi Did you move the board meeting to !XMPP now?
  76. dwd I hope not :-P
  77. bear no - this was a test for something else
  78. intosi Ah, okay :)
  79. ralphm good
  80. fippo ah, you have a video call and don't use this fancy colibri stuff yet?
  81. dwd fippo, Does OTalk do it yet?
  82. fippo for 1-1 it might
  83. Simon has joined
  84. bear are we ready for the board meeting?
  85. Simon is ready.
  86. Laura *ready*
  87. bear cool - I saw dave earlier, I know he is lurking in the council meeting
  88. bear and ralph
  89. MattJ "lurking"
  90. ralphm I am. Kev is running out.
  91. bear ok, that's quorum - let's get this started
  92. bear bangs the gavel
  93. dwd Yeah, I'm here, just paying attention to the COuncil meeting.
  94. bear is council still going?
  95. ralphm bear: yes
  96. MattJ Just
  97. bear shall we wait 5 for it to finish?
  98. ralphm done
  99. MattJ Done
  100. ralphm bear: go
  101. bear and I see it's done
  102. bear ok, agenda bashing - anything anyone wants to add?
  103. Tobias has joined
  104. dwd bear, What is the current agenda?
  105. Kev Did you send out an agenda?
  106. Laura Link please
  107. bear thanks Dave for sending to members the two items started last week
  108. Simon I'd like to add: Mozilla outreach / Google + Federation
  109. bear The only agenda item for today talk about the test day
  110. dwd Both of which are outreach/liaison issues, actually.
  111. Laura Background needed please (just a little)
  112. ralphm We didn't have minutes of last meeting, did we?
  113. bear no, I failed to get them out in a timely manner - my logs were gone and my link to the XSF one was wrong
  114. dwd Laura, Mozilla Presence is an effort by Mozilla, we naturally think they should be using XMPP. Google Federation is broken and lame, and doesn't have any security.
  115. Simon Laura: Mozilla is planning on spinning up a new push network to support FF OS devices and to support webapps on browsers. We need to ask them good questions to see if using XMPP would help them.
  116. bear http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/131120/
  117. dwd Simon, Oh, yeah, push, too.
  118. Laura Do we have links with Mozilla? Or do we need them?
  119. ralphm bear: the link is in this room's subject :-D
  120. ralphm Lance: yes and yes
  121. ralphm Laura even
  122. ralphm (yay tab-completion)
  123. Simon https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/wg-presence
  124. Laura Great
  125. Laura Steps?
  126. Simon I think our best approach here is to ask sensible questions - not the "we think they should use XMPP" approach.
  127. Laura *agree*
  128. Simon it adds credibility and helps them think they discovered XMPP
  129. Simon which is much more powerful.
  130. Laura We should understand why they haven't considered it, or if they have.
  131. bear i've been lurking in their IRC chat room to be available for questions, as has MattJ
  132. dwd Simon, Certainly understanding their requirements, and seeing if those actually are addressed by XMPP, would help.
  133. ralphm Laura: they actually did
  134. Simon "how will you deal with xyz issues?"
  135. ralphm Laura: in the meeting notes I read, XMPP pops up quite a bit
  136. fippo right. especially if xmpp doesn't address the requirements.
  137. ralphm as well as personal eventing
  138. Laura We need to get the message clear and address their concerns
  139. bear they have a couple concerns that would require a custom module for one of the xmpp servers
  140. Simon I also fear that they see (as many do) that XMPP is some kind of monolithic stack. If we can sell them on one feature, we're in a better position.
  141. Laura Are they willing to sponsor that module being developed?
  142. Kev If there are things they need that XMPP can't do, starting a discussion on standards@ seems like a sensible sort of idea.
  143. bear right now they are still working thru their own flow - they are working out even for them what the service would do and require
  144. Kev (Whoever knows what the issues are, not necessarily Moz)
  145. Simon Who has experience building push notification networks?
  146. bear so we are in the very early stages with them, just need to remain engaged so they don't skip over us because of a lack of response
  147. ralphm Simon: I think that feeling originates from the fact that all such endevours (like yours and Facebook and ...) start out from an IM implementation (like ejabberd).
  148. Laura Bear - can we help them to do this?
  149. Laura Generous of us, and will help us understand their thinking
  150. bear Laura - yes, being on hand with early prototype and/or specs for them to use
  151. Kev Simon: XMPP /is/ a push network, I think the question might need rephrasing :)
  152. Laura And the offer of our experience and knolwedge
  153. Simon Mobile push :)
  154. bear the two biggest concerns is that they do not want the devices (which would have UUIDs) to know about which users (also UUIDs) they are pushing to
  155. dwd As I said on the list, I think we just treat this as a Liaison form our end.
  156. bear but the users would know
  157. Simon Ralph - didn't Apple use some of your code for building their APN?
  158. ralphm Simon: that is a frequent myth.
  159. ralphm Simon: they use Idavoll in OS X Server for the Calendaring notifications.
  160. Simon adjusts his opinion of Ralph slightly.
  161. Tobias at least google's push protocol is XMPP based
  162. ralphm Simon: it is called NotificationServer and makes the whole space muddy.
  163. dwd Can I also suggest that we absolutely do not need to discuss any technical issues here and now.
  164. Tobias on some level
  165. bear they use twisted xmpp pubsub in their data center for the proxy between web and device
  166. bear (apple does)
  167. Simon So I agree this will need to be a liason - lets get some council members in there asking the right questions. But we'll need to move fast - there's code already being written.
  168. bear yes, let's consider this something to put onto the liason list
  169. ralphm bear: are you sure about that, because if that's the case, that's likely also Idavoll, but I have no idea, really.
  170. bear will talk about apple offline
  171. ralphm (Idavoll is a Twisted-based Generic XMPP Publish-Subscribe Service implementation, by me)
  172. bear ok, so presense-wg - take away is to add it to the liason list and make sure members@ knows about it
  173. Simon Having mozilla integrate XMPP into their (future) core would be very powerful.
  174. ralphm agreed
  175. Simon who will do that?
  176. bear who can write up a members@ notification of that liason issue?
  177. dwd Erm.
  178. Laura Question - Are any of the developers on this part of the project based in London (do we know)
  179. Laura XMPPUK meetup on Monday
  180. Laura They could come and see?
  181. bear I will post that info to their irc channel
  182. Simon laura: not aware of any - seems like a large contingient are PST tz.
  183. bear tarek is involved - he is in/around Paris IIRC
  184. bear ok, i'll write up a quick blurb - please do call me out if this is not done in 2 hours
  185. bear next agenda item?
  186. bear google federation
  187. ralphm I'm still not sure about what happens with this liason team
  188. Simon We have an impeding PR disaster / security meh "XMPP cuts off Google" and our security efforts being for nothing.
  189. ralphm (re moz) Do we give them some kind of assignment, etc.
  190. bear ralphm - we will figure it out as we go, small iterations
  191. Simon 2 sides: we should have end to end security / I'm not cutting off paying customers.
  192. bear ralphm, lets defer that to after
  193. ralphm bear: ok
  194. ralphm Simon, first off, this is a community effort, not a XSF one, per se.
  195. Simon I'd written to three different Google XMPP guys and not heard anything back.
  196. bear right - I think we need to let people know this is a *test*
  197. Zash Has anyone heard anything from anyone at Google?
  198. Simon +1 on test.
  199. Simon Zash: nothing for close to a week.
  200. bear and that not all Operators have to be in on it - but once we get numbers we need to shout them loud and wide
  201. Simon I'll re-ping them.
  202. Simon indeed.
  203. bear we should make the appeal to the Operators that if they want google to change, show them impact numbers
  204. ralphm Also, GTalk has always been in this rough spot regarding proper certs for a hosted IM service.
  205. Simon so message is a) it's a test b) we're trying to work with Google.
  206. ralphm Are Google actually able to fix GTalk in short term so that they could participate, technically?
  207. Simon did I mention that XMPP.net is great?
  208. MattJ ralphm, right now I think we'd be happy even with a mismatched cert!
  209. Simon ralphm: answering emails would a nice start :)
  210. Kev I'm a little curious as to what the test is really going to show. It's not like we're talking about /enabling/ something for the first time, like IPv6 day. It's just going to show people which servers theirs is connecting to without TLS - and they know that already.
  211. dwd One thing I have noted about Google infrastructure in the past is that none of their services do a STARTTLS style switch.
  212. Simon mattJ: +1
  213. ralphm Simon: everyone agrees with this
  214. Simon has left
  215. dwd So it could be that there is a blocker on offering BTNS.
  216. Simon has joined
  217. Zash dwd: Allways the legacy ssl way?
  218. Zash dwd: Except xmpp-client?
  219. ralphm dwd: indeed, they way the Google Cloud Service thing with XMPP works, it expects one to start an TLS connection and then do XMPP, no STARTTLS
  220. ralphm (and no SRV either)
  221. dwd But in any case, it looks like we're not getting anywhere through the channels we have, so we need to look for other channels. We could presumably try the Open SOurce unit route?
  222. dwd ralphm, Right.
  223. MattJ I know at least one XMPP library that doesn't support that
  224. dwd Zash, They run xmpps only, right?
  225. ralphm MattJ: I had a bug report for it in Wokkel
  226. dwd Not that this matters much, mind.
  227. bear sounds like we have two angles to work with - what is exactly the technical angle on why/how gmail federates and who to work with it or around it; and a marketing angle to get everyone in the world aware that the test is happening and where google falls into that realm
  228. Zash dwd: No, _xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com @ starttls works afaik
  229. dwd Zash, Ah-ha, I slouch corrected.
  230. Simon with RC4 :) /me shudders.
  231. Laura Bear - marketing, start with a blog post that we can all shout about and link to?
  232. Kev BTNS
  233. Laura Get the conversation started?
  234. bear laura - yes
  235. bear I think we should do blog reports that can be linked/repeated on two levels
  236. ralphm But again, the test coming from the manifesto, is strictly not an XSF effort.
  237. dwd bear, I think we need to formally approach them somehow and at least be sure they're aware. Is Chris Messina still the Open Source Guy?
  238. ralphm While I do think having some kind of liason with Google.
  239. Simon I think it's important that we show operators that they can add an exception for Google domains in their "use TLS everywhere" config.
  240. Kev ralphm: I think that, given the people involved, the public perception will be that it is.
  241. bear one for test day prep and one for us looking for someone at google to work with
  242. dwd ralphm, Yes, true. So perhaps we need to first see if our intervention is even wanted.
  243. Simon but as MattJ pointed out this isn't possible technically.
  244. Simon keeps forgetting that.
  245. Kev So if the XSF doesn't want to endorse it, it probably needs to say that.
  246. MattJ Simon, actually I said it's not possible with a simple black/whitelist
  247. MattJ I later said that it is possible, and I wondered if it was worth working on
  248. dwd Kev, I don't think I want the XSF to explicitly not endorse it, either. :-)
  249. MattJ (hence my interest in peoples' opinions on its worth)
  250. ralphm Kev: you want the XSF to get a community started effort to note that it is not an XSF effort. Hmm
  251. Kev dwd: Then it's implicitly endorsing it.
  252. bear ok, one take away from this is a blog style "Test Prep Report" - who can work on that?
  253. Kev dwd: In this case, I think.
  254. dwd Kev, Yes, I agree.
  255. Laura I can peer review, but don't have the tech background
  256. dwd Kev, Or just for you, I don't disagree.
  257. Simon Bear: I'm happy to write that up.
  258. Laura But can help from the marketing spin
  259. bear the majority of the discussion now I would like to suggest that we do as part of a weekly pre-board liason meeting on the google issue
  260. Laura Simon, co-share this task?
  261. Simon sure
  262. bear simon - you and laura - done
  263. bear can we get one of you all to write up a technical reasons report for the members@ list and then let the operators@ list know about it?
  264. ralphm I am also going to repeat that I don't think that *technically* GTalk can succesfully participate, even if we got bidirectional contact with googlers and have them work on it.
  265. Lloyd first real task, one of us now laura :)
  266. Kev ralphm: Why's that?
  267. ralphm Because of the certificate thing.
  268. Kev (Given that some form of TLS is all that's needed to participate)
  269. ralphm Isn't this why all of DNA was thought up?
  270. MattJ Their cert doesn't need to be valid for all their domains,just to do TLS
  271. MattJ here's a fun thing though: they'll probably want to do RC4, which folk are scrambling to disable throughout the network now :)
  272. Simon MattJ: coming back to the "is it worth it?" - having all sites, except Google, on secure connections is a huge win. Giving operators a way to achieve that using black/whitelists shouldn't be underestimated.
  273. Tobias ralphm, don't they do opportunistic TLS for STMP for hosted google apps domains?
  274. Tobias *SMTP
  275. ralphm Hmm, yes.
  276. Tobias dwd might know, since he's an email guy
  277. Tobias or you :)
  278. dwd Tobias, Possibly, I've not actually looked.
  279. Lloyd has left
  280. bear they have steps what is required for SMTP over TLS
  281. MattJ SMTP's hostname matching is... "different", to say the least
  282. MattJ Board meeting getting technical alert
  283. bear yes, that is why I wanted those tech participants just now to summarize their concerns
  284. dwd MattJ, Yes, the suits are talking tech again.
  285. bear to the members@ list
  286. ralphm Simon: I think that no implementations currently can whitelist all GTalk domains in one swoop. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  287. Tobias MattJ, yeah...just wanted to mention that there are things we should check first before drawing such conclusions
  288. MattJ ralphm, I can do that by the end of the day though, for Prosody
  289. bear bangs the "let's take this to the jdev or operators list" gavel
  290. Simon Ralph: agreed - but never underestimate MattJ :)
  291. Ashley Ward has left
  292. ralphm Agreed.
  293. ralphm I think the only action for us is: see if we can get into Google on this.
  294. dwd So do we have any plan for that?
  295. bear yes, that is a seperate action
  296. ralphm Irrespective of the manifesto/test
  297. bear Simon, can you email Peter and team up on the google side-channel contact
  298. Simon Bear: will do.
  299. ralphm I'm going to try, too.
  300. bear and then work with Laura to rope in Chris messina and Tim Bray (or other Google OS types)
  301. MattJ We've never had strong relations with Google (the organisation), only with individuals who can't talk for their employer
  302. bear I think we need to word some open letters to them
  303. Simon I worked with Chris Messina in another life. Will ping him.
  304. bear right, let's take this to the formal level
  305. dwd Chris has left Google, it seems.
  306. bear they have liasons for open source, let's start reaching out to them to help them
  307. ralphm I will use the liason angle this time. Maybe that helps.
  308. Ashley Ward has joined
  309. bear yea, but Chris will still have recent internal contacts - so talking to him won't be a waste of time IMO
  310. ralphm I am going to contact Adewale Oshineye.
  311. bear shall we declare a liason team for this: Simon, Laura, Ralph ?
  312. Laura happy to get involved
  313. dwd ralphm, I'm not sure Ade has the contacts, but worth trying. I argue with him regularly. :-)
  314. ralphm I am ok, initially. But once we have an in, I want at least one Council member for this.
  315. bear agree
  316. dwd bear, We don't actually declare liaison teams, FWIW, the Council nominates them.
  317. bear but first we need to reach out on the political level
  318. ralphm dwd: he is Developer Advocate and from my perspective, he should?
  319. dwd bear, We agreed that whole liaison procedure last meeting.
  320. bear edits for the pendantic
  321. dwd ralphm, Yeah, true. We can try him, certainly.
  322. bear shall we declare a working group on the board for reaching out to Google?
  323. ralphm +1
  324. Simon +1
  325. Laura +1
  326. dwd +1
  327. bear ok, done
  328. Simon Pinging https://plus.google.com/+cdibona/ (Chis Dibona ) now
  329. bear let's get the contacts made and report back next week on any progress?
  330. Laura I may need some guidance (newest to this area) but will contact people as needed
  331. bear let me know if I can help by getting Leo Laporte to put some pressure on them thru his channels
  332. bear I think we need to ensure that our message is uniform in tone and well written
  333. bear so anything after the initial ping should be done in the same voice
  334. Laura We should all be using the same words, messaging etc
  335. dwd RIght, ensuring that Google (and others) see there's a coherent and unified community behind what we're saying is important.
  336. bear so please do share drafts of the emails with each other
  337. bear is their anything else to wrangle on this topic?
  338. Laura Is there somewhere we can hare these (off email) so we all have the latest version?
  339. Laura Google doc?
  340. Ashley Ward has left
  341. bear I would almost suggest the wiki
  342. Laura Wiki works. Can someone set up a page and circulate?
  343. bear i'll set up a Outreach page now
  344. Laura We should list on there who we are contatcing / needs to be contacted
  345. Laura So no duplication
  346. Simon let's add that to the wiki
  347. dwd OK, are we done on this?
  348. bear http://wiki.xmp.org/web/Outreach
  349. bear any other talk? shall we move on to next item (which I have completely forgotten what that is!)
  350. Simon +1: move on.
  351. bear ok, moving on
  352. bear what is next?
  353. Kev This is when agenda are convenient :p
  354. Simon bring the meeting to a close before anything new pops up.
  355. Kev You've not covered GSoC yet, which last week went on the agenda for this week (theoretically).
  356. dwd As did the member applications thing.
  357. bear curses his brain
  358. bear GSoC - we need to determine if we have anyone who will be a mentor
  359. bear without that we shouldn't apply
  360. Kev First thing is whether Board are happy that we apply, I think.
  361. bear Last year we put out a call for projects and mentors - we should do that again
  362. Kev If Board are happy, then we find whether there's support in the community.
  363. bear ok, is the board ok with applying?
  364. Simon is happy to mentor agian.
  365. ralphm +1 on being happy
  366. dwd I'm happy if we have the support within the community. I'd be happier if we had an org admin.
  367. bear ok, the board is happy
  368. Laura I am unaware of what this is, so will hold back opinion
  369. Laura Happy to go with majority
  370. bear I can be the org admin if we have mentors
  371. Kev Laura: Google thing each summer where they pay students to work on OSS, on behalf of OSS projects who apply for slots to give to students who apply to the orgs.
  372. Kev Laura: The XSF often acts as an umbrella project through which projects like Swift, Gajim, Prosody get students.
  373. Laura Oooh, sounds great!
  374. Kev Last year there wasn't much interest from projects in it (or not enough), so we didn't apply.
  375. Kev Usually there is and we do.
  376. bear the board has +1'd this - can we get a post to members@ about finding projects and get the wiki page started?
  377. Kev Sure, I think you appointed yourself org admin, so that's your job :)
  378. bear yep - I'll do that tonight
  379. bear writes task down
  380. bear ok, next item - member application form
  381. bear which dave posted to members@ about
  382. bear dwd?
  383. dwd If we're good with my proposal, I can write that up as a XEP.
  384. Alex I am fine with it
  385. dwd Obviously it's not a final choice at this stage - it becomes so when we last call and approve it.
  386. bear since it's a proposal, let's get it written and off for debate to the list
  387. dwd Any comments about the full name business? The last time this cropped up we didn't really come to a conclusion.
  388. Kev Real names are logically required.
  389. bear yes, real name + jid - that's about the minimum we should expect
  390. dwd Kev, I think so, yes. But I left is as a SHOULD because of the debate last time about Solarius.
  391. Alex real name, jid and email
  392. dwd And affiliation.
  393. Kev There was much debate last time because it wasn't covered anywhere, which essentially made it a discussion about Solarius, not about thegeneral case.
  394. Alex ya, company name or personal
  395. bear but I defer about what constitutes a real name - I would love to be just "bear"
  396. Kev There's time to talk about the general case now, and I'm not sure why we wouldn't require real name.
  397. dwd Right, yes, you remind me that a full name includes the possibility that it's a company membership, which we also allow.
  398. Laura Can we not have real name and 'nickname'?
  399. dwd Laura, Nickname hardly seems mandatory, though. :-)
  400. Kev Laura: Require people to have a nickname before they can join? :)
  401. Laura No, not required. Just a field on the form
  402. Laura If there is one, we use thsat
  403. Kev There's no form, it's just a wiki page.
  404. Laura If not, real name
  405. Kev Just that some fields are logically required.
  406. bear can we take this to the list?
  407. Alex once we decided all this stuff I create a new wiki text and a template
  408. dwd I'll write it up with full name required on what I'm hearing, and submit a XEP.
  409. bear that is what we currently do, so let's make that the first prototype
  410. bear ok, any other issues for todays meeting?
  411. Kev Only a reminder that I think we're still due last week's minutes.
  412. ralphm Kev: this was mentioned before.
  413. bear yes, I have a good hour of homework for tonight
  414. dwd I've nothing more for this time. We're on for next week?
  415. Laura *nods*
  416. ralphm +1
  417. bear unless someone vetoes next week, that will be the next meeting
  418. bear bangs gavel
  419. bear see you all in a week
  420. Simon bye all
  421. Laura Bye
  422. bear thanks all
  423. dwd Toodle pip.
  424. bear I have dayjob meetings now - will work up my tasks in a bit
  425. ralphm I had some back and forth with Ade. Some notes:
  426. ralphm * that we probably should make it clear that the manifesto is not the thing we (XSF) want to push, but that we want to work so that the side effect is not that everyone on GTalk gets shut out
  427. ralphm * that we also want to have ways to work on other XMPP efforts like GCS
  428. Simon GCS?
  429. ralphm eh GCM
  430. Simon ah
  431. ralphm it was called cloud services earlier
  432. ralphm and I personally would like to stress the harmful situation of the current way interoperability fails between the XMPP network, GTalk and Hangouts
  433. ralphm goes for dinner
  434. Laura I think I have asked this before, but now that the Board will be making approaches to Google and we are bound to get looked up - who updates this page? http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/the-xsf-board-of-directors/
  435. Kev I guess Bear.
  436. Kev Although I (and many others) have access to do it, if Bear doesn't mind.
  437. Kev Or, hrmm. Probably doesn't need asking.
  438. bear just do it Kev
  439. bear I thought i had gotten to all of the wiki pages and web pages for this new board and council
  440. Kev Laura: Did you have your blurb ready?
  441. bear heck, laura should be given credentials to do it
  442. bear she will be writing blog posts
  443. bear laura what email address is good for you - I will add you to the wp config
  444. Laura laura.gill@surevine.com please
  445. Kev It has people's names on there now, at least.
  446. bear ok, she has been added
  447. bear has left
  448. Simon has left
  449. Laura has left
  450. bear has joined
  451. SouL has left
  452. SouL has joined
  453. Simon has joined
  454. tato has joined
  455. Lance has joined
  456. Lance has joined
  457. Tobias has joined
  458. Tobias has left
  459. Tobias has joined
  460. dwd has left
  461. dwd has joined
  462. Simon has left
  463. Simon has joined
  464. Simon has left
  465. Simon has joined
  466. fippo http://www.chriskranky.com/the-need-for-speed-connecting-faster/ :-)
  467. fippo i hope that tsahi's wheels include trickle + early transport warmup
  468. fippo otherwise his webrtc car lose against my jingle one :-)
  469. ralphm Drag race!
  470. MattJ :)
  471. dwd Trickle ICE has been in Jingle since year zero pretty much, right?
  472. fippo yeah
  473. fippo it's never been really documented though
  474. fippo i still need to push emil to update 0176
  475. fippo https://twitter.com/HCornflower/status/405800002909241344 :-)
  476. dwd We've allowed trickling candidates since at least 2009, I see that in 176. I'll claim we've done trickle all that time and more. :-)
  477. fippo imo, emil has been doing more for trickle than ekr and justin
  478. fippo ah... it's draft-ivov-mmusic.. so it's clear.
  479. Simon has left
  480. fippo ice isn't signalling...
  481. fippo erm...
  482. Simon has joined
  483. fippo i'll let emil handle this.
  484. fippo btw board guys still around...
  485. fippo do you want to motivate me by using the jitsi video bridge for your next meeting? :-)
  486. MattJ No, they don't
  487. MattJ unless you build in realtime text-to-speech and speech-to-text
  488. MattJ and preserve dwd's sarcasm correctly
  489. bear fippo - yes please, we have pre meeting chats that it would/could be used
  490. bear but yes, the actual meeting I feel should always be text as that allows everyone to be included
  491. ralphm we do?
  492. bear it's a new thing just started today
  493. MattJ Conspiracy
  494. bear simon, laura and my late self were talking about the new web pages
  495. fippo i think it should be ready until next week ;-)
  496. fippo bear: and after that it's talky which doesn't support the http://bloggeek.me/webrtc-federation/ argument anymore please :-)
  497. MattJ Sharing a URL is handy
  498. MattJ Until we have XMPP in the browser
  499. fippo it's not.
  500. MattJ as much as I disagree that it's federation
  501. SouL xD
  502. fippo http://hancke.name/why-send-some-a-URI-is-not-a-signalling-protocol.html
  503. fippo basically sending an url is useless unless you have a bidirectional realtime channel
  504. bear it may not be federation or signalling, but it sure makes it great for event planning
  505. fippo sure. henriks "my parents open talky.io/xx at a certain time" is a great usecase
  506. MattJ and it's not handy?
  507. fippo who own talky.io/xx?
  508. bear we haven't implemented reserved rooms yet
  509. bear on talky.io
  510. fippo awww, use xmpp :-)
  511. MattJ anonymous auth
  512. ralphm the problem is in the 'at a certain time'
  513. fippo i still think that having talky as an argument against federation is somewhat silly when henrik says "yup, talky is a silo. this is bad"
  514. ralphm Using hangouts, my wife first checks if I'm online before calling me there, when abroad.
  515. bear we are working on something that is more federated and uses xmpp
  516. fippo bear: i know :-)
  517. ralphm bear: haha, fippo is indeed, together with Lance, I assume.
  518. bear :)
  519. fippo bear: once you move over to xmpp, you get a great video bridge for free ;-)
  520. bear yep
  521. remko has joined
  522. bear I would love to have the skills to work on a video muxer
  523. fippo heh. i don't either
  524. fippo but the jitsi guys have
  525. bear sure I can hack up something - but proper muxing requires mad audio/video skills
  526. fippo well... enough to avoid muxing video
  527. remko sorr for being too lazy to look this up, but what's the recommended way of submitting a change to the XEP XSL stylesheet?
  528. MattJ "email stpeter"? :)
  529. Tobias a patch to someone who has git access?
  530. remko i'll go with 'email stpeter', i'm sure he doesn't get enough email
  531. Tobias right
  532. MattJ What is the change, out of curiosity?
  533. Tobias changes font to comic sans ^^
  534. remko mattj: support for the <sub> span element
  535. Tobias what does it do? what's the use case?
  536. remko brace yourself: it adds support for a <sub> element and transforms it into ... a <sub> element
  537. Tobias what does it do for the PDF output? :)
  538. remko oh blimey, we have multiple XSL stylesheets?
  539. Tobias yup...there is a xep2texml.xsl i think
  540. remko yeah, and fo.xsl.
  541. Tobias fo.xsl is deprecated
  542. remko oh, phew
  543. Tobias is working on image support for the PDF too
  544. bear what file do you need changed?
  545. remko bear: xep.xsl
  546. bear k, let me get setup
  547. remko tobias: the xep2texml seems to be missing other stuff too, no? I don't see 'em' or 'pre' in there
  548. Tobias probably...it's on my todo :)
  549. Tobias those two should be easy though
  550. remko well, then <sub> should be easy too. Just add it to your todo list ;-)
  551. Tobias what does it do? subscript? so the latex _{} or so?
  552. remko yeah
  553. Tobias ah..ok
  554. remko although that's only in math; googling seems to come up with some packages to do it in plain text mode. Yay LaTeX :)
  555. Tobias heh :)
  556. Simon has left
  557. bear remko - done, please sanity check the diff
  558. remko bear: thanks a bunch, i'll check it when it goes public
  559. bear yea, that is the flip side to this - do I have to poke something to get it in use
  560. remko has left
  561. jabberjocke has joined
  562. Tobias has joined
  563. Tobias has left
  564. Alex has left
  565. bear submits meeting minutes for today and last week
  566. bear sends members@ post about GSoC
  567. bear goes to dinner
  568. Zash has joined
  569. ralphm Love the match report
  570. dwd has left
  571. tato has left
  572. tato has joined