XMPP Council - 2010-12-01

Righty.

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

If I have, he's not online :)

He says he's having connectivity issues

Give him a sec.

Fritzy or MM?

MM

*applause*

finally

jeebus

Yay, quorum!

Not that we need it without anything to vote on.

Heh

I need for fire my sysadmin

oh wait…that's me

Ralph's online, but not responsive.

Fritzy's not.

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

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

ok…I'll let some folks here know, 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)

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

:)

heh

Ok, shall we have our faux-meeting?

1) Roll call.

present

gift

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

RalphM and Fritzy not included.

2) Agenda Bashing.

None

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

none from me

heh

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

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

+1

++

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.

Discuss.

well, first...

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

Yes, that much is true.

greetings

that's historical

Evening Peter.

sorry, got the times wrong

(-:

pesky time changes

anyhow

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.

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

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

Evening Ralph.

true

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

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

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

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.

heh

(-:

how about we start with a roadmap (-:

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)

set some goals for ourselves

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

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

(-:

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

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

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

we've had roadmaps in the past

We have.

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

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

file transfer v2, jingle, etc

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

Exactly who's in charge here? :)

I think a roadmap is a fine idea actually

So.

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

Road map items.

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

+1

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

http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap

so everything termed technical is our domain

more or less

Not really Ralph, some is the WG's.

except the ca stuff

well, yes

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

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

the timeless goals

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

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

Kev: interop testing at FOSDEM might be good

/nod

It might.

Although it's a little hard to do that.

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

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

why?

we can set up a local test bed?

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

The other thing that really desperately needs love is -45

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.

and 198 :)

and archiving

Well, 198 *does* work :)

heh

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

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

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

MattJ: 198 needs changes?

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

I don't think hats belong in -45.

agreed on that!

stpeter: I think there were some minor nits for 198

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

I'll try to find them

stpeter, it doesn't?

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

linuxwolf: ok

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

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

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

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.

Kev, agreed

I see hats as GC3.

/nod

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

?

I see that as GC3 too :)

hmm

perhaps

moving away from status codes is a big change

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

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

No, quite.

just assessing the scope

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

hah, so it would build on 45

as if it is not big enough already :-)

right

:P

"too big to fail(off)"

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.

+1

Kev: yes I think that's right

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

So, are we roughly done with the roadmap discussion?

and I think that's what my edits worked toward

ye

MattJ: :)

Right, so

stpeter: you mentioned mobile stuff and microblogging

Peter wanted to discuss open issues on specs.

Agenda item 4!

people wanted a radically new protocol back in 2002, also

(-:

ok

xmpp-ng

let's see, open issues

XEP-0266 -- Jingle codecs

it would be good to finish that up

What needs doing there?

it's difficult to get consensus on that topic

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

Consensus on 266 is impossible.

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

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

Kev: depends on how rough it is :)

ok

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

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

:)

clearly the FT stuff needs updating

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

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

and same for 198 and roster versioning?

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

/nod

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

We don't, that I know of.

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

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

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

heh ok

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

Indeed

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

Quite

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

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.

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

Date of next meeting.

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

yep

Next Wednesday, same time.

+1 here

+1

+1

+1

7) Any other business?

stpeter: grazie!

Thanks Peter.

none here for now

I got nothing

Jolly good :)

Ok, thanks all, then.

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

Thanks

calendar updated

Thanks :)

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

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

stpeter: the automatic updating of calendars works, right?

Tobias: I updated it manually :)

next time I'll let it update automatically

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

nope :)