XMPP Council - 2010-05-10

  1. Tobias has joined
  2. Tobias has left
  3. Tobias has joined
  4. Tobias has left
  5. Tobias has joined
  6. Tobias has left
  7. Tobias has joined
  8. Tobias has left
  9. Tobias has joined
  10. stpeter has joined
  11. Kev has joined
  12. Kev has left
  13. Kev has joined
  14. Kev Excellent.
  15. stpeter hi Kev!!! ;-)
  16. Kev I'm glad that my suggestion that we skip a week so I wouldn't bother turning up for a meeting on holiday was turned down because it's too important that we have a Council meeting every week.
  17. Kev I'm also glad I made the effort to be here.
  18. stpeter :P
  19. stpeter you get a gold star!
  20. stpeter Kev: would you like me to draft warning text for the message archiving spec?
  21. Kev Oh, right, that's still on my list.
  22. stpeter I'm pushing on the tech review team regarding the file transfer specs
  23. Kev I'm happy for you to do it if you have the time, I'm unlikely to get to it this week (or next, which looks horrendously busy).
  24. stpeter I suppose that Ralph and I need to coordinate about pubsub
  25. Kev I saw you pushing for the file transfer review, thanks.
  26. Kev I have a comment about MUC, unhelpfully.
  27. stpeter is it just me or is there a lack of energy of late?
  28. Kev Which is that the disco identity for a room is the same as for a service, which isn't that helpful when you're trying to discover rooms.
  29. stpeter nods
  30. stpeter good point
  31. Kev (In fact, in the registry there's an entry for a directory of rooms, but MUC doesn't use this, in favour of conference for both service and room)
  32. stpeter XEP-0045 was defined soon after XEP-0030 and we didn't have a clear idea of how to use disco at the time
  33. Kev Yes, there's a definite lack of energy within the XSF at the moment.
  34. stpeter ok, at least I'm not the only one who thinks so
  35. Kev For me too, because I've been trying to head-down and get Swift done.
  36. stpeter nothing says we need to maintain the XSF
  37. stpeter we could put it in maintenance mode :)
  38. Kev I think it serves a purpose, it just needs to one of these re-imagining movies that seems to be the rage these days.
  39. stpeter :)
  40. Kev So, as the only Council member here, and despite not having quorum, I'm going to declare that there's no meeting next week, and that the next meeting will be 1800GMT 24th May.
  41. Tobias maintenance mode?
  42. ralphm has joined
  43. Kev Evening Ralph.
  44. Tobias Kev: someone should put it in the calendar this time ;)
  45. ralphm eh, wow. I got messages from the future
  46. Kev Tobias: MattJ volunteered to keep the calendar up to date for us.
  47. stpeter Tobias: sure, like we don't do any new work, just maintain the old stuff
  48. Tobias stpeter: ahh :)
  49. stpeter I thought I added this one to the calendar
  50. ralphm could somebody set up ntp for our server?
  51. Tobias stpeter: there is an entry for last week
  52. stpeter Tobias: you're right
  53. stpeter now I'll set up an entry for next week :P
  54. Kev ralphm: it seems to be correct.
  55. Tobias i thought there is no meeting next week
  56. Tobias ?
  57. Kev Comparing it to my NTP-configured machine at home.
  58. stpeter or the week after
  59. Kev Tobias: correct. No meeting next week, meeting the week after.
  60. ralphm Kev: odd, I got messages from 20:12 in the history when I joined
  61. Kev So there was one today, 10th May. None 17th May. Next is 24th May
  62. stpeter Kev: got it
  63. stpeter will be flying to New York on the 24th
  64. Kev stpeter: glamorous.
  65. ralphm What's there?
  66. stpeter Kev: IESG retreat, not so glamorous ;-)
  67. ralphm Hutje op de hei?
  68. Kev Anyway, it's over 10 minutes now, we've only got Ralph and me, so no quorum.
  69. stpeter I checked in changes to council/events.xml
  70. Kev I'll send out not-minutes saying as such, telling people we're skipping next week.
  71. Kev Thanks Peter.
  72. Kev I'll then go and enjoy my week off.
  73. stpeter Kev: enjoy!
  74. ralphm Sorry, my train was delayed
  75. stpeter ralphm: how would you like to work on XEP-0060?
  76. ralphm After 1.13?
  77. stpeter no, for 1.13
  78. stpeter we need to de-delete some stuff
  79. stpeter things that were in 1.12
  80. ralphm ah
  81. Kev has left
  82. ralphm I thought we might be able to just revert some commits
  83. ralphm ;-)
  84. Kev has joined
  85. stpeter ralphm: I doubt it will be quite that easy
  86. ralphm yeah
  87. Kev Right, thanks for turning up, AFK now.
  88. ralphm Let's see
  89. stpeter ralphm: if you could find line numbers in the diff from 1.12 then I can revert those changes
  90. stpeter that would be http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0060/diff/1.12/vs/1.13rc13 I suppose
  91. stpeter (or section numbers)
  92. ralphm I could extract both versions and run it through meld
  93. ralphm selectively copying diffs back and forth
  94. ralphm and then commit
  95. stpeter sure that would be fine
  96. ralphm I wonder if I still have an account
  97. stpeter I think we're talking about a few small sections of the document
  98. nathan has joined
  99. ralphm yeah
  100. stpeter heck, if you tell me which sections I can find the appropriate diffs from 1.12
  101. stpeter hi nathan!
  102. nathan Howdy. :/ Sorry I'm late.
  103. stpeter nathan: this meeting didn't get into the calendar
  104. ralphm reaching quorum here
  105. stpeter heh
  106. stpeter Remko is offline
  107. jkhii has joined
  108. nathan Matt?
  109. ralphm looks at the huge diff
  110. stpeter he's NA
  111. stpeter or xa
  112. Tobias stpeter: strangely calendars don'T seem to be builded automatically anymore
  113. Tobias i'll investigate that later
  114. stpeter Tobias: ok
  115. stpeter Tobias: maybe I didn't run the right script?
  116. Tobias the way it's supposed to work is that you don't need to run any script :)
  117. ralphm stpeter: at least 7.1
  118. stpeter heh
  119. stpeter ralphm: right
  120. stpeter so the issues were (1) batch processing and ...?
  121. stpeter something about subids
  122. ralphm sid's for pending subscriptions
  123. ralphm I think also 7.2
  124. ralphm as I see batch item retractions were removed, too
  125. ralphm 12.8/10
  126. ralphm 12.9
  127. stpeter ok
  128. ralphm reference [20] in Appendix G
  129. stpeter sure, I can just search for "batch" in the SVN history
  130. ralphm Oh, right ;-)
  131. ralphm I just happened to look in all the places, I see
  132. stpeter ok I shall take a look at that one evening this week
  133. ralphm there is also a link to result-set management that had reference 20
  134. stpeter then you, nathan, and I can chat about 1.13+
  135. ralphm and now seems to just mention a XEP number
  136. stpeter yes
  137. ralphm Ah, that's also in my notes
  138. ralphm As the old 20 seems to be equivalent to 19
  139. ralphm that could maybe merge
  140. ralphm but that'd mean renumbering all others, so probably not a good idea
  141. stpeter shrugs
  142. stpeter those are just reference numbers, I don't care about renumbering
  143. ralphm oh
  144. ralphm good thing nobody ever uses these numbers
  145. ralphm in legal texts they just just leave vacancies
  146. stpeter :)
  147. stpeter no lawyers here, just us geeks!
  148. ralphm nod
  149. ralphm ok cool
  150. stpeter on the phone, brb
  151. Kev has left
  152. stpeter has left
  153. jkhii has left
  154. Tobias has left
  155. nathan has left