XMPP Council - 2010-05-10

  1. Kev


  2. stpeter

    hi Kev!!! ;-)

  3. 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.

  4. Kev

    I'm also glad I made the effort to be here.

  5. stpeter


  6. stpeter

    you get a gold star!

  7. stpeter

    Kev: would you like me to draft warning text for the message archiving spec?

  8. Kev

    Oh, right, that's still on my list.

  9. stpeter

    I'm pushing on the tech review team regarding the file transfer specs

  10. 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).

  11. stpeter

    I suppose that Ralph and I need to coordinate about pubsub

  12. Kev

    I saw you pushing for the file transfer review, thanks.

  13. Kev

    I have a comment about MUC, unhelpfully.

  14. stpeter

    is it just me or is there a lack of energy of late?

  15. 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.

  16. stpeter nods

  17. stpeter

    good point

  18. 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)

  19. 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

  20. Kev

    Yes, there's a definite lack of energy within the XSF at the moment.

  21. stpeter

    ok, at least I'm not the only one who thinks so

  22. Kev

    For me too, because I've been trying to head-down and get Swift done.

  23. stpeter

    nothing says we need to maintain the XSF

  24. stpeter

    we could put it in maintenance mode :)

  25. 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.

  26. stpeter


  27. 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.

  28. Tobias

    maintenance mode?

  29. Kev

    Evening Ralph.

  30. Tobias

    Kev: someone should put it in the calendar this time ;)

  31. ralphm

    eh, wow. I got messages from the future

  32. Kev

    Tobias: MattJ volunteered to keep the calendar up to date for us.

  33. stpeter

    Tobias: sure, like we don't do any new work, just maintain the old stuff

  34. Tobias

    stpeter: ahh :)

  35. stpeter

    I thought I added this one to the calendar

  36. ralphm

    could somebody set up ntp for our server?

  37. Tobias

    stpeter: there is an entry for last week

  38. stpeter

    Tobias: you're right

  39. stpeter

    now I'll set up an entry for next week :P

  40. Kev

    ralphm: it seems to be correct.

  41. Tobias

    i thought there is no meeting next week

  42. Tobias


  43. Kev

    Comparing it to my NTP-configured machine at home.

  44. stpeter

    or the week after

  45. Kev

    Tobias: correct. No meeting next week, meeting the week after.

  46. ralphm

    Kev: odd, I got messages from 20:12 in the history when I joined

  47. Kev

    So there was one today, 10th May. None 17th May. Next is 24th May

  48. stpeter

    Kev: got it

  49. stpeter will be flying to New York on the 24th

  50. Kev

    stpeter: glamorous.

  51. ralphm

    What's there?

  52. stpeter

    Kev: IESG retreat, not so glamorous ;-)

  53. ralphm

    Hutje op de hei?

  54. Kev

    Anyway, it's over 10 minutes now, we've only got Ralph and me, so no quorum.

  55. stpeter

    I checked in changes to council/events.xml

  56. Kev

    I'll send out not-minutes saying as such, telling people we're skipping next week.

  57. Kev

    Thanks Peter.

  58. Kev

    I'll then go and enjoy my week off.

  59. stpeter

    Kev: enjoy!

  60. ralphm

    Sorry, my train was delayed

  61. stpeter

    ralphm: how would you like to work on XEP-0060?

  62. ralphm

    After 1.13?

  63. stpeter

    no, for 1.13

  64. stpeter

    we need to de-delete some stuff

  65. stpeter

    things that were in 1.12

  66. ralphm


  67. ralphm

    I thought we might be able to just revert some commits

  68. ralphm


  69. stpeter

    ralphm: I doubt it will be quite that easy

  70. ralphm


  71. Kev

    Right, thanks for turning up, AFK now.

  72. ralphm

    Let's see

  73. stpeter

    ralphm: if you could find line numbers in the diff from 1.12 then I can revert those changes

  74. stpeter

    that would be http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0060/diff/1.12/vs/1.13rc13 I suppose

  75. stpeter

    (or section numbers)

  76. ralphm

    I could extract both versions and run it through meld

  77. ralphm

    selectively copying diffs back and forth

  78. ralphm

    and then commit

  79. stpeter

    sure that would be fine

  80. ralphm

    I wonder if I still have an account

  81. stpeter

    I think we're talking about a few small sections of the document

  82. ralphm


  83. stpeter

    heck, if you tell me which sections I can find the appropriate diffs from 1.12

  84. stpeter

    hi nathan!

  85. nathan

    Howdy. :/ Sorry I'm late.

  86. stpeter

    nathan: this meeting didn't get into the calendar

  87. ralphm

    reaching quorum here

  88. stpeter


  89. stpeter

    Remko is offline

  90. nathan


  91. ralphm looks at the huge diff

  92. stpeter

    he's NA

  93. stpeter

    or xa

  94. Tobias

    stpeter: strangely calendars don'T seem to be builded automatically anymore

  95. Tobias

    i'll investigate that later

  96. stpeter

    Tobias: ok

  97. stpeter

    Tobias: maybe I didn't run the right script?

  98. Tobias

    the way it's supposed to work is that you don't need to run any script :)

  99. ralphm

    stpeter: at least 7.1

  100. stpeter


  101. stpeter

    ralphm: right

  102. stpeter

    so the issues were (1) batch processing and ...?

  103. stpeter

    something about subids

  104. ralphm

    sid's for pending subscriptions

  105. ralphm

    I think also 7.2

  106. ralphm

    as I see batch item retractions were removed, too

  107. ralphm


  108. ralphm


  109. stpeter


  110. ralphm

    reference [20] in Appendix G

  111. stpeter

    sure, I can just search for "batch" in the SVN history

  112. ralphm

    Oh, right ;-)

  113. ralphm

    I just happened to look in all the places, I see

  114. stpeter

    ok I shall take a look at that one evening this week

  115. ralphm

    there is also a link to result-set management that had reference 20

  116. stpeter

    then you, nathan, and I can chat about 1.13+

  117. ralphm

    and now seems to just mention a XEP number

  118. stpeter


  119. ralphm

    Ah, that's also in my notes

  120. ralphm

    As the old 20 seems to be equivalent to 19

  121. ralphm

    that could maybe merge

  122. ralphm

    but that'd mean renumbering all others, so probably not a good idea

  123. stpeter shrugs

  124. stpeter

    those are just reference numbers, I don't care about renumbering

  125. ralphm


  126. ralphm

    good thing nobody ever uses these numbers

  127. ralphm

    in legal texts they just just leave vacancies

  128. stpeter


  129. stpeter

    no lawyers here, just us geeks!

  130. ralphm


  131. ralphm

    ok cool

  132. stpeter

    on the phone, brb