XMPP Council - 2010-12-01

  1. Fritzy has left

  2. Kev has left

  3. Kev has joined

  4. Kev has left

  5. Kev has joined

  6. Kev has left

  7. Kev has joined

  8. Tobias has joined

  9. Tobias has left

  10. Tobias has joined

  11. bear has left

  12. Tobias has left

  13. Tobias has joined

  14. Tobias has left

  15. Tobias has joined

  16. Tobias has left

  17. stpeter has joined

  18. stpeter has left

  19. stpeter has joined

  20. MattJ has joined

  21. Kev


  22. Kev

    We have two Council. I don't see Fritzy online, and I'm not sure if I have MM in my roster.

  23. Kev

    If I have, he's not online :)

  24. MattJ

    He says he's having connectivity issues

  25. MattJ

    Give him a sec.

  26. Kev

    Fritzy or MM?

  27. MattJ


  28. linuxwolf has joined

  29. MattJ


  30. linuxwolf


  31. linuxwolf


  32. Kev

    Yay, quorum!

  33. Kev

    Not that we need it without anything to vote on.

  34. MattJ


  35. linuxwolf

    I need for fire my sysadmin

  36. linuxwolf

    oh wait…that's me

  37. Kev

    Ralph's online, but not responsive.

  38. Kev

    Fritzy's not.

  39. linuxwolf

    well, quorum at least makes it feel official (-:

  40. MattJ

    Hmm, cisco.com doesn't seem to like this server

  41. linuxwolf

    ok…I'll let some folks here know, MattJ

  42. MattJ

    Dec 01 16:06:29 s2sin280e330 info Session closed by remote with error: undefined-condition Dec 01 16:06:29 s2sin280e330 info s2s disconnected: cisco.com->muc.xmpp.org (undefined-condition)

  43. Kev

    I'm happy to blame either server - or both :D

  44. MattJ


  45. linuxwolf


  46. Kev

    Ok, shall we have our faux-meeting?

  47. MattJ gives a faux-nod

  48. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  49. linuxwolf


  50. MattJ


  51. Kev

    Packaging includes: linuxwolf (x1), MattJ (x1), Kev (x1).

  52. Kev

    RalphM and Fritzy not included.

  53. Kev

    2) Agenda Bashing.

  54. MattJ


  55. Kev

    (hopefully stpeter will reappear at some point, as two of the three items are his)

  56. linuxwolf

    none from me

  57. linuxwolf


  58. linuxwolf

    he's WFH, so I can't utilize POKE

  59. Kev

    So let's jump to the "Our job" item and come back later for Peter's items.

  60. linuxwolf


  61. MattJ


  62. Kev

    So, in among us cancelling week after week because we had nothing to vote on, Joe suggested maybe Council's job was to make sure we had activity that needed attention.

  63. Kev


  64. linuxwolf

    well, first...

  65. linuxwolf

    end of year is difficult to get anything really done (-:

  66. Kev

    Yes, that much is true.

  67. stpeter


  68. linuxwolf

    that's historical

  69. Kev

    Evening Peter.

  70. ralphm has joined

  71. stpeter

    sorry, got the times wrong

  72. linuxwolf


  73. linuxwolf

    pesky time changes

  74. linuxwolf


  75. Kev

    We also have a different situation from previous years - last year we started being much less forgiving with voting periods, and as such lost the backlog of voting items that we've usually acquired over previous years.

  76. ralphm waves

  77. linuxwolf

    I think we should be taking a more (pro) active role

  78. Kev

    So the need to have a meeting to go over the same items again and have people not vote again has ended.

  79. Kev

    Evening Ralph.

  80. linuxwolf


  81. linuxwolf waves to ralphm

  82. MattJ

    If we should be more pro-active, more pro-active doing what exactly?

  83. Kev

    That said, I'm not opposed to us considering that it's our job to be making sure XEP progress continues.

  84. Kev

    The question is what the appropriate way of doing this is.

  85. Kev

    If it's poking the authors of XEPs we think need work, I think this may be somewhat pointless, as that's almost always Peter.

  86. stpeter


  87. linuxwolf


  88. linuxwolf

    how about we start with a roadmap (-:

  89. MattJ

    In my mind the council is by nature reactive, but the individuals should be proactive (writing and implementing specs is not something the council was set up to do together as a whole)

  90. linuxwolf

    set some goals for ourselves

  91. Kev

    We have a Peter again, so let's do that, yes.

  92. stpeter

    speaking of which, as soon as I'm done with these RFC revisions (speaking of pesky!), you'll experience a flood of XEP updates

  93. linuxwolf


  94. Kev

    Council discussing a roadmap is another thing I think's odd - we just vote on whatever people give us.

  95. ralphm

    there are some areas for which people asking for specs for a number of summits

  96. Kev

    But anyway, we can discuss what it is that we'd like for people to give us to vote on :)

  97. linuxwolf

    we've had roadmaps in the past

  98. Kev

    We have.

  99. Kev

    I think they're largely stpeter maps, rather than Council maps, though :)

  100. stpeter

    however, we might want to recruit people to take over maintainership of various specs -- e.g., microblogging

  101. linuxwolf

    file transfer v2, jingle, etc

  102. Kev

    Anyway, I'm not proposing not having one :)

  103. MattJ

    Exactly who's in charge here? :)

  104. ralphm

    I think a roadmap is a fine idea actually

  105. Kev


  106. ralphm

    we've all said what we think needs to be done in our applications

  107. Kev

    Road map items.

  108. stpeter

    Kev: I think the members discussion about roadmap items was good, perhaps we need to poke people to take ownership of various specs

  109. linuxwolf


  110. Kev

    I'm just looking up the member discussion, hang on.

  111. Kev


  112. ralphm

    so everything termed technical is our domain

  113. linuxwolf

    more or less

  114. Kev

    Not really Ralph, some is the WG's.

  115. ralphm

    except the ca stuff

  116. ralphm

    well, yes

  117. MattJ

    "and establish the JSF" <-- "oops"? :)

  118. linuxwolf

    well, this list looks a bit dated…sort of (-:

  119. linuxwolf

    the timeless goals

  120. stpeter

    I last posted about this on October 29 http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2010-October/006040.html

  121. Kev

    I'd see getting file transfer sorted as a reasonable overarching theme for this term.

  122. Matthew Miller has joined

  123. Matthew Miller has left

  124. stpeter

    Kev: interop testing at FOSDEM might be good

  125. linuxwolf


  126. Kev

    It might.

  127. Kev

    Although it's a little hard to do that.

  128. Kev

    Given that FOSDEM is likely to be a fairly hospitable network.

  129. Kev

    Where we know that basically nothing interops with f/t on the Internet :)

  130. ralphm


  131. ralphm

    we can set up a local test bed?

  132. Kev

    We can set up a suitably inhospitable network, if we try.

  133. Kev

    The other thing that really desperately needs love is -45

  134. Kev

    If this year sees us do nothing except getting file transfer working and MUC cleaned up, it wouldn't be a bad thing, I think.

  135. MattJ

    and 198 :)

  136. MattJ

    and archiving

  137. Kev

    Well, 198 *does* work :)

  138. linuxwolf


  139. linuxwolf

    198 works for those that have implemented it, as far as I can tell

  140. MattJ

    It needs some spec changes, but that's on stpeter's todo already

  141. stpeter

    Kev: I have a big pile of MUC edits to key in

  142. stpeter

    MattJ: 198 needs changes?

  143. ralphm

    does that include work on what joe and I termed 'hats'?

  144. Kev

    I don't think hats belong in -45.

  145. stpeter

    agreed on that!

  146. linuxwolf

    stpeter: I think there were some minor nits for 198

  147. Kev

    Not that I think they don't belong anywhere, but not 45.

  148. linuxwolf

    I'll try to find them

  149. MattJ

    stpeter, it doesn't?

  150. ralphm

    I know there isn't a spec for it yet, but it would maybe remove stuff from 45

  151. stpeter

    linuxwolf: ok

  152. MattJ

    stpeter, you did say a while back it was on your todo :)

  153. MattJ

    stpeter, Dave and I have both posted feedback to the list that needs incorporating - I think Dave's was even in patch form :)

  154. stpeter

    I see a two-phase approach on MUC (or in parallel) -- clean up 45 and work on hats etc.

  155. Kev

    MattJ: You and I should sort out what else needs doing with archiving, and ask those nice folks on Council to approve a bunch of new XEPs.

  156. MattJ

    Kev, agreed

  157. Kev

    I see hats as GC3.

  158. linuxwolf


  159. ralphm

    does it include removal of status codes in favour of elements (like we did with errors in xmpp)

  160. ralphm


  161. Kev

    I see that as GC3 too :)

  162. stpeter


  163. stpeter


  164. linuxwolf

    moving away from status codes is a big change

  165. Kev

    Anything that's going to require every single implementation of xep-0045 to be modified doesn't belong in 45 at this point.

  166. linuxwolf

    not that I'm in favor of status codes, mind you...

  167. Kev

    No, quite.

  168. ralphm

    just assessing the scope

  169. stpeter

    we had talked about status elements as an extension, so strictly speaking it would not be in 45 anyway

  170. ralphm

    hah, so it would build on 45

  171. ralphm

    as if it is not big enough already :-)

  172. stpeter


  173. stpeter


  174. linuxwolf

    "too big to fail(off)"

  175. Kev

    ralphm: My opinion of scope for 45 changes is stuff that's largely backwards compatible and cleans up the ambiguities. Of which there are plenty.

  176. MattJ


  177. stpeter

    Kev: yes I think that's right

  178. MattJ

    I was always against a radically new protocol, but I'm not so much anymore

  179. Kev

    So, are we roughly done with the roadmap discussion?

  180. stpeter

    and I think that's what my edits worked toward

  181. stpeter


  182. stpeter

    MattJ: :)

  183. Kev

    Right, so

  184. ralphm

    stpeter: you mentioned mobile stuff and microblogging

  185. Kev

    Peter wanted to discuss open issues on specs.

  186. Kev

    Agenda item 4!

  187. stpeter

    people wanted a radically new protocol back in 2002, also

  188. linuxwolf


  189. stpeter


  190. linuxwolf


  191. stpeter

    let's see, open issues

  192. stpeter

    XEP-0266 -- Jingle codecs

  193. stpeter

    it would be good to finish that up

  194. Kev

    What needs doing there?

  195. stpeter

    it's difficult to get consensus on that topic

  196. stpeter

    I'm just raising open issues so we know what's coming :)

  197. Kev

    Consensus on 266 is impossible.

  198. stpeter

    I'd like to find someone else to maintain the microblogging spec

  199. linuxwolf

    I'm going to need to drop in a minute or two

  200. stpeter

    Kev: depends on how rough it is :)

  201. stpeter


  202. Kev

    Most people not disagreeing violently is going to be the best bet.

  203. Kev

    stpeter: Oh good, the 'rough consensus' oxymoron :)

  204. MattJ


  205. stpeter

    clearly the FT stuff needs updating

  206. stpeter

    perhaps we can push out new versions after interop testing at FOSDEM?

  207. Kev

    Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

  208. stpeter

    and same for 198 and roster versioning?

  209. Kev

    My interest in interop testing is largely checking everything behaves s2s at the moment, but clients shouldn't be neglected.

  210. linuxwolf


  211. stpeter

    do we have a chatroom for the interop testing next week? just jdev?

  212. Kev

    We don't, that I know of.

  213. MattJ

    I made the interop room on this server the other day, but didn't announce it

  214. Kev

    I think bear took ownership of that event, but I've not seen anything since.

  215. Kev

    I'll poke the iteam into action for whatever's required :)

  216. stpeter

    heh ok

  217. Kev

    MattJ's volunteered to run the CA, I think.

  218. MattJ


  219. stpeter

    wow http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap is ancient

  220. MattJ


  221. stpeter

    I'll update the roadmap tomorrow afternoon or Friday -- swamped through noon tomorrow

  222. Kev

    Other items on the horizon are Matt's and my history stuffs, the changes to other stuff around that (I'd like to update Mine to use it, although I never got a reply from Joe about that), xep-correct and similar stuffs.

  223. Kev

    We've hit the limit of my meeting patience, so shall we stop there for today? I think we've discussed most things.

  224. Kev

    Date of next meeting.

  225. ralphm

    I'd like the stuff from stpeter's mail on it

  226. stpeter


  227. Kev

    Next Wednesday, same time.

  228. stpeter

    +1 here

  229. ralphm


  230. linuxwolf


  231. MattJ


  232. stpeter updates the calendar

  233. Kev

    7) Any other business?

  234. linuxwolf

    stpeter: grazie!

  235. Kev

    Thanks Peter.

  236. MattJ doesn't say anything

  237. stpeter

    none here for now

  238. linuxwolf

    I got nothing

  239. Kev

    Jolly good :)

  240. Kev

    Ok, thanks all, then.

  241. Kev

    I'll sort out something in way of minutes in the not too distant future.

  242. Kev bangs the gavel.

  243. MattJ


  244. stpeter

    calendar updated

  245. MattJ

    Thanks :)

  246. linuxwolf has left

  247. stpeter

    http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-council.ics is your friend :)

  248. stpeter

    or http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-all.ics

  249. ralphm has left

  250. Tobias has joined

  251. Tobias

    stpeter: the automatic updating of calendars works, right?

  252. stpeter

    Tobias: I updated it manually :)

  253. stpeter

    next time I'll let it update automatically

  254. Tobias

    that doesn't really answer my question, does it? :)

  255. stpeter

    nope :)

  256. Tobias has left

  257. Tobias has joined

  258. Tobias has left

  259. Tobias has joined

  260. Tobias has left