XSF logo XMPP Council - 2010-05-03

  1. Tobias has joined
  2. Tobias has left
  3. Tobias has joined
  4. Tobias has left
  5. Tobias has joined
  6. mlundblad has joined
  7. Tobias has left
  8. Tobias has joined
  9. Tobias has left
  10. Tobias has joined
  11. mlundblad has left
  12. jkhii has joined
  13. Fritzy has joined
  14. Kev 50 minutes
  15. Tobias has left
  16. Tobias has joined
  17. MattJ has joined
  18. MattJ If I'm not around when the meeting starts, proceed without me, and I'll vote on-list
  19. Kev Ok.
  20. MattJ has spent most of the last 48 hours unwell in bed :(
  21. Kev That sounds inefficient.
  22. MattJ Most
  23. Fritzy get well
  24. Kev That too.
  25. MattJ Thanks :)
  26. MattJ I'm recovering, had today been yesterday though I wouldn't have remembered the metting at all
  27. MattJ or the meeting
  28. Fritzy that's the thing about yesterday
  29. ralphm has joined
  30. ralphm materializes out of thin air
  31. Kev Impressive.
  32. Kev Ok then.
  33. Kev Is everyone sitting comfortably?
  34. Kev Then let's begin.
  35. Kev 1) Roll Call.
  36. Kev I see a Nathan, a Matt, and Ralph and a Kev.
  37. Kev 2) Agenda bashing.
  38. MattJ Present
  39. Kev Any?
  40. MattJ None
  41. Fritzy Well, is it reasonable to ask that we re-open pubsub collections?
  42. Kev We can discuss that at the end, yes.
  43. Fritzy 248
  44. Fritzy ok
  45. Kev Including a debate about what 're-open' means.
  46. ralphm :-)
  47. Kev 3) XEP-0060: Publish-Subscribe Version: 1.13rc17 Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0060/diff/1.12/vs/1.13rc17 Accept as 1.13?
  48. ralphm I had a brief chat with stpeter about this
  49. ralphm My proposal about XEP-0060 is the following:
  50. ralphm We revert the changes regarding IQ notifications, the removed subids in subscription approvals and the removal of batch publishing.
  51. Kev IQ are already gone, aren't they?
  52. ralphm The first can be moved to a separate spec if desired by people.
  53. ralphm (they are in the online version)
  54. Kev rc17?
  55. Kev I remember them being gone from the last one we reviewed.
  56. Fritzy hm, I didn't see them in rc17
  57. stpeter has joined
  58. ralphm ok
  59. stpeter hmph, I didn't receive a calendar notification
  60. ralphm the removed subids in subscription approval would have issues with content-based subscriptions
  61. ralphm so I suggest we revert that change
  62. ralphm and regarding removing batch processing: it is not a backwards-compatible change, that I'm unsure about
  63. ralphm how it will play out with existing implementations, both client-side and service side
  64. Kev We can make non-backwards-compatible changes if we increment the namespace.
  65. ralphm so we need to look into that, if we really want to remove it, in a future version
  66. ralphm kicks Kev
  67. stpeter I'm fine with reverting those removals pending further discussion -- we can do remove them in 1.14 if necessary (although we did have consensus on removing the batch stuff from last summer)
  68. stpeter really I just want to get 1.13 published and then we can have more discussions about the move controversial stuff
  69. ralphm I also actually use batch publishing in existing code
  70. ralphm what stpeter says
  71. ralphm the other changes are mostly cleanups
  72. ralphm of which we probably need another batch
  73. Kev If it gets 1.13 published, so we can discuss 1.14, I'll go with reverting a couple of changes.
  74. ralphm as I discovered through my thorough rereading
  75. ralphm also, I think we should not add more stuff to this spec
  76. Kev ralphm: so in summary, that's a -1 on this, with suggested changes after which you'll revote positively?
  77. ralphm no, I'm +1 with those changes
  78. ralphm I don't want to revote
  79. Kev Well, yes, I had a dream last night (yes, really), about splitting pubsub down to be trivial, and defining everything in bolt-on specs.
  80. Kev Ok, well, I'm +1 with the changed Ralph describes too.
  81. ralphm Kev: indeed
  82. Kev Fritzy / MattJ?
  83. ralphm most of the stuff added could have done in other specs
  84. Fritzy I'm +1
  85. ralphm and XEP-0060 allows many ways to bolt-on
  86. stpeter Kev: yes we've had that discussion too in the past :)
  87. ralphm most of it could be discoverable
  88. MattJ +1, with ralphm's considerations, I concede he is a pubsub expert more than myself :)
  89. Fritzy ralphm: I'd like to address how things get bolted on in 1.15
  90. ralphm and config fields can also be added in other specs
  91. Kev 4) Issue last calls? Candidates are XEPs 234 (Jingle FT), 255 (Location Query), 260 and 261 (Jingle SOCKS5 and IBB).
  92. ralphm through the registrar
  93. ralphm (e.g. by not using pubsub# prefixes, but another)
  94. Fritzy right
  95. Kev I think we should either do the f/t block, or location, but not both at once.
  96. Kev Which do people think most important?
  97. stpeter I posted about the f/t stack on the technical review list earlier today: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/techreview/2010-May/000118.html
  98. ralphm FT
  99. Fritzy I think FT.
  100. ralphm let's get /that/ done, too, finally
  101. MattJ Kev, any reason not to do them together?
  102. Kev MattJ: we have a pseudo-policy of only doing 2 last calls togeth.r
  103. stpeter how about we give the technical review team two weeks to perform its own review (do location in the meantime) and then have LC on the FT stuff?
  104. Kev The f/t stack will be three.
  105. MattJ Ok, I wasn't aware of that one :)
  106. MattJ stpeter, sounds like a good plan
  107. Kev stpeter: I'm happy with that.
  108. Kev Fritzy / ralphm?
  109. ralphm yeah, that makes sense
  110. stpeter and I'll poke the techreview folks about getting busy :)
  111. ralphm who's that, right now?
  112. stpeter http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Review_team
  113. Fritzy I'm fine with that.
  114. ralphm stpeter: ah thanks, I was looking at the XSF pages
  115. Kev 5) Proto-XEP: Message Carbons http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/carbons.html
  116. ralphm I'm +1 on publishing
  117. Kev This requires server changes, wich is liable to slow adoption, but it seems the right way to be doing this.
  118. Kev +h
  119. ralphm and then have a seat for the battle
  120. stpeter is on the phone now
  121. MattJ +1 to publishing
  122. Kev I don't think there's a battle, both specs are Joe's.
  123. MattJ This is something requested by a lot of people
  124. ralphm oh, but Joe isn't the only party ;-)
  125. Kev MattJ: right, this does Nice Things.
  126. ralphm I just read the standards thread on it
  127. ralphm I like the idea
  128. Fritzy +1 on this.
  129. Kev Ok, so.
  130. Kev 6) Re-open pubsub collections.
  131. Kev What does 're-open' mean?
  132. ralphm afaik, it has just been deferred
  133. Fritzy I'd just like to do a call for experience.
  134. Fritzy right
  135. ralphm as I've stated many times before
  136. ralphm it needs work
  137. ralphm a lot of
  138. Fritzy have you implemented it?
  139. ralphm partially, yes
  140. Fritzy DAG?
  141. Kev Fritzy: all it needs is for someone to make an edit for it to be un-deferred.
  142. ralphm partially because the spec has all these issues
  143. ralphm I can look up my list of concerns
  144. Fritzy ralphm: how about you and I discuss what the issues are and I'll put the issues into JIRA or whatever
  145. stpeter +1 to Fritzy taking over maintainership if he pleases
  146. Fritzy k, cool
  147. Fritzy I'm implementing it right now
  148. Fritzy and it does need work... but I'd like to see it move, so I can start maintaining it.
  149. ralphm Fritzy: sure thing
  150. Kev Ok, so nothing to do, Fritzy to start editing.
  151. Kev 7) Date of next meeting.
  152. Kev I've got a week off next week, so I'd ideally like to skip a week, but can arrange to not be away that night if needed.
  153. MattJ I'm fine either way
  154. Kev Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure I can make the following week.
  155. Fritzy but you can the following week?
  156. Kev So do you want to do next week, and if I'm here, I'm here, and if not someone else can chair it.
  157. Kev I'll take the silence as a yes.
  158. ralphm I like to just schedule every week
  159. Kev Ok.
  160. Kev Next week then.
  161. Kev If I'm not here, someone else can chair.
  162. ralphm sure
  163. Kev 8) AOB.
  164. ralphm none
  165. Kev None from me.
  166. MattJ None
  167. Fritzy none
  168. ralphm yay!
  169. Kev Excellent.
  170. Kev Thanks all, I'll send out minutes (probably tomorrow).
  171. ralphm 21 min. Not bad
  172. Kev bangs le gavel.
  173. MattJ :)
  174. ralphm Fritzy: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/pubsub/2009-September/000332.html
  175. ralphm starts a thread that runs all the way through december
  176. Fritzy ralphm: thanks
  177. MattJ Kev, now le gavel is banged, at what time did you send the first message "50 minutes"?
  178. Kev Ten past 6, BST.
  179. ralphm Fritzy: most of my concerns are covered by my lenghty responses
  180. MattJ Thanks
  181. Fritzy ralphm: cool, I'll pour through it
  182. Kev [18:09:13] <Kev> 50 minutes
  183. ralphm Fritzy: good luck, let me know if you have any questions
  184. ralphm and then pick a slot to hash it all out
  185. Fritzy yeah, I'll be in touch on it for sure
  186. ralphm I'd prefer to get this over with the two of us, and then present it to the standards list
  187. Fritzy sounds good
  188. Tobias has left
  189. Tobias has joined
  190. Tobias has left
  191. stpeter notices that the meeting has adjourned :)
  192. mlundblad has joined
  193. Tobias has joined
  194. julm has left
  195. julm has joined
  196. mlundblad I missed the meeting, are these logged nowadays?
  197. stpeter yes
  198. stpeter http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/council/100503/
  199. ralphm has left
  200. jkhii has left
  201. stpeter has left
  202. Fritzy has left
  203. Tobias has left
  204. Tobias has joined
  205. Tobias has left
  206. Tobias has joined
  207. Tobias has left
  208. Tobias has joined
  209. Tobias has left