XMPP Council - 2010-07-05

  1. Kev has joined

  2. Tobias has joined

  3. Tobias has left

  4. Tobias has joined

  5. Tobias has left

  6. Tobias has joined

  7. Tobias has left

  8. Kooda has joined

  9. Kooda has left

  10. Kooda has joined

  11. Tobias has joined

  12. Kev_ has joined

  13. Kev_ has left

  14. Kev_ has joined

  15. MattJ has joined

  16. Kev_

    Wow, two members of Council here already.

  17. Kev_


  18. MattJ

    I got here before 19:00 ;)

  19. Kev_

    Yes, me three.

  20. Kev_

    Give them until ten past, I guess.

  21. MattJ


  22. ralphm has joined

  23. ralphm


  24. MattJ


  25. Kev_

    Well done, with 30 seconds to spare.

  26. Kev_

    Or, 60, rather.

  27. Kev_

    Ok, ten past.

  28. Kev_

    1) Roll call.

  29. Kev_

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

  30. Kev_

    2) Agenda bashing.

  31. MattJ


  32. Kev_

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

  33. Kev_

    3) Pubsub

  34. MattJ

    What's to discuss?

  35. Kev_

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

  36. MattJ

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

  37. Kev_

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

  38. Kev_

    4) Voting.

  39. Kev_

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

  40. 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.

  41. ralphm


  42. Kev_

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

  43. Kev_

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

  44. Kev_

    But hi Choir.

  45. Kev_

    5) Date of next meeting.

  46. Kev_

    Next Monday as usual?

  47. ralphm

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

  48. MattJ


  49. Kev_

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

  50. MattJ


  51. Kev_

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

  52. Kev_

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

  53. ralphm

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

  54. ralphm

    in the pubsub list

  55. ralphm

    missed that :-)

  56. Kev_

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

  57. Kev_

    So, AOB?

  58. ralphm

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

  59. MattJ

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

  60. Kev_

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

  61. Kev_

    MattJ: excellent.

  62. MattJ

    But that's all for now

  63. ralphm

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

  64. Kev_

    But we've discussed that offlist anyway :)

  65. Kev_

    I think we're all done then.

  66. Kev_

    Thanks to those who turned up.

  67. MattJ

    np, thanks for chairing as usual :)

  68. Kev_ bangs the gavel.

  69. ralphm

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

  70. Kev_

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

  71. MattJ

    ralphm, the problem precisely :)

  72. ralphm

    Although it'll probably never beat XEP-0060

  73. ralphm


  74. MattJ

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

  75. Kev_

    I would like to use the successor in Swift.

  76. Kev_

    As long as it's modular and sane.

  77. MattJ

    I'll try not to let you down :)

  78. 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.

  79. Kev_

    Anyway, I'm off out, bibi.

  80. remko has joined

  81. MattJ

    See you

  82. Kev_ has left

  83. ralphm

    MattJ: that is sad

  84. MattJ

    ralphm, indeed

  85. remko has left

  86. MattJ

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

  87. MattJ

    Some of the design decisions I still can't fathom

  88. ralphm

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

  89. ralphm

    i.e. let implementations drive specifications more

  90. MattJ

    Yes, agreed

  91. MattJ

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

  92. ralphm

    implementations == experiments, really

  93. MattJ


  94. MattJ

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

  95. MattJ

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

  96. ralphm


  97. Tobias has left

  98. Tobias has joined

  99. Kev

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

  100. 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.

  101. Kev

    No-one dislikes small specs.

  102. Tobias has left

  103. Tobias has joined

  104. ralphm

    Kev: right

  105. Kooda has left

  106. ralphm has left

  107. mlundblad has joined

  108. mlundblad has left

  109. MattJ has left

  110. Tobias has left