XMPP Council - 2010-07-05

  1. Kev_

    Wow, two members of Council here already.

  2. Kev_


  3. MattJ

    I got here before 19:00 ;)

  4. Kev_

    Yes, me three.

  5. Kev_

    Give them until ten past, I guess.

  6. MattJ


  7. ralphm


  8. MattJ


  9. Kev_

    Well done, with 30 seconds to spare.

  10. Kev_

    Or, 60, rather.

  11. Kev_

    Ok, ten past.

  12. Kev_

    1) Roll call.

  13. Kev_

    Kev, Ralph, Matt present. Remko and Fritzy still AWOL.

  14. Kev_

    2) Agenda bashing.

  15. MattJ


  16. Kev_

    I only really wanted a meeting to get everyone back in reviewing specs after Remko and Fritzy dropped off the Council radar.

  17. Kev_

    3) Pubsub

  18. MattJ

    What's to discuss?

  19. Kev_

    The only thing holding this up now is Ralph approving Peter's rollbacks, I think.

  20. MattJ

    Besides, I've changed my mind, I like pubsub now

  21. Kev_

    So Ralph - can you check them and let Peter know, please?

  22. Kev_

    4) Voting.

  23. Kev_

    And, the people this applies to aren't here.

  24. Kev_

    I wanted to remind people that the reviewing and voting is the reason we've got a Council, and failing to do that isn't helping.

  25. ralphm


  26. Kev_

    Dave stepped down because he wasn't managing to hit the meetings, and was having to vote on-list.

  27. Kev_

    It's entirely inappropriate for the other of Council to not attend meetings *and* not vote on list.

  28. Kev_

    But hi Choir.

  29. Kev_

    5) Date of next meeting.

  30. Kev_

    Next Monday as usual?

  31. ralphm

    Kev_: did stpeter announce the changes yet, or are they just in vcs?

  32. MattJ


  33. Kev_

    There's a small chance I'll be unavailable, will update if so.

  34. MattJ


  35. Kev_

    ralphm: I do not know - could you coordinate with him, please?

  36. Kev_

    I suspect that once you're generally ok with the changes there'll need to be another vote.

  37. ralphm

    ah: "FYI. Ralph, this is for you. :)"

  38. ralphm

    in the pubsub list

  39. ralphm

    missed that :-)

  40. Kev_

    But it seems pointless to go through another vote for everyone if the changes weren't what you wanted.

  41. Kev_

    So, AOB?

  42. ralphm

    Kev_: seeing the summary, I'm ok with it then

  43. MattJ

    I was going to mention that I'm working on a replacement/successor series of XEPs to 136

  44. Kev_

    Ok, I'll speak to Peter and arrange a new vote.

  45. Kev_

    MattJ: excellent.

  46. MattJ

    But that's all for now

  47. ralphm

    we can quibble about details, but the document is never static

  48. Kev_

    But we've discussed that offlist anyway :)

  49. Kev_

    I think we're all done then.

  50. Kev_

    Thanks to those who turned up.

  51. MattJ

    np, thanks for chairing as usual :)

  52. Kev_ bangs the gavel.

  53. ralphm

    MattJ: oh, that sounds painful. The amount of discussion on XEP-0136 is uncountable, it seems

  54. Kev_

    I'll write minutes and send around - possibly tomorrow.

  55. MattJ

    ralphm, the problem precisely :)

  56. ralphm

    Although it'll probably never beat XEP-0060

  57. ralphm


  58. MattJ

    ralphm, but it turns out the only active client implementation is using one feature of the XEP, and that's about it :)

  59. Kev_

    I would like to use the successor in Swift.

  60. Kev_

    As long as it's modular and sane.

  61. MattJ

    I'll try not to let you down :)

  62. Kev_

    I don't object to all the 136 options existing - only to having them all in one place, and some of them being such a silly way of doing them.

  63. Kev_

    Anyway, I'm off out, bibi.

  64. MattJ

    See you

  65. ralphm

    MattJ: that is sad

  66. MattJ

    ralphm, indeed

  67. MattJ

    This only came to light to me because of the student implementing it in Prosody for GSoC

  68. MattJ

    Some of the design decisions I still can't fathom

  69. ralphm

    I'm going to try keep 'features' out of any spec if there isn't a high probability of it being implemented

  70. ralphm

    i.e. let implementations drive specifications more

  71. MattJ

    Yes, agreed

  72. MattJ

    Put out a basic spec, see what direction it gets pushed in (if any)

  73. ralphm

    implementations == experiments, really

  74. MattJ


  75. MattJ

    and to be fair this is usually what the XSF does very well

  76. MattJ

    It just happens that there are some specs that really take everyone's fancy, and end up a dog's dinner

  77. ralphm


  78. Kev

    ralphm: I think it's more thn "If it's not needed, don't put it in"

  79. Kev

    I think it's "If it's possible to implement without it, don't put it in", and then put it in another spec.

  80. Kev

    No-one dislikes small specs.

  81. ralphm

    Kev: right