XMPP Council - 2010-12-01

01:25:17 Fritzy has left
02:59:31 Kev has left
03:03:30 Kev has joined
07:53:28 Kev has left
07:55:05 Kev has joined
07:55:24 Kev has left
07:56:33 Kev has joined
08:27:49 Tobias has joined
10:23:41 Tobias has left
11:31:38 Tobias has joined
11:51:41 bear has left
13:02:01 Tobias has left
13:25:33 Tobias has joined
13:59:00 Tobias has left
14:05:32 Tobias has joined
14:38:38 Tobias has left
15:01:39 stpeter has joined
15:06:41 stpeter has left
15:12:04 stpeter has joined
15:32:47 MattJ has joined
16:03:07 Kev Righty.
16:03:46 Kev We have two Council. I don't see Fritzy online, and I'm not sure if I have MM in my roster.
16:03:56 Kev If I have, he's not online :)
16:04:00 MattJ He says he's having connectivity issues
16:04:30 MattJ Give him a sec.
16:04:50 Kev Fritzy or MM?
16:05:02 MattJ MM
16:05:59 linuxwolf has joined
16:06:04 MattJ *applause*
16:06:05 linuxwolf finally
16:06:09 linuxwolf jeebus
16:06:10 Kev Yay, quorum!
16:06:16 Kev Not that we need it without anything to vote on.
16:06:20 MattJ Heh
16:06:22 linuxwolf I need for fire my sysadmin
16:06:26 linuxwolf oh wait…that's me
16:06:37 Kev Ralph's online, but not responsive.
16:06:42 Kev Fritzy's not.
16:07:01 linuxwolf well, quorum at least makes it feel official (-:
16:07:05 MattJ Hmm, cisco.com doesn't seem to like this server
16:07:23 linuxwolf ok…I'll let some folks here know, MattJ
16:07:31 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)
16:08:02 Kev I'm happy to blame either server - or both :D
16:08:07 MattJ :)
16:08:10 linuxwolf heh
16:08:29 Kev Ok, shall we have our faux-meeting?
16:08:42 MattJ gives a faux-nod
16:08:46 Kev 1) Roll call.
16:08:54 linuxwolf present
16:09:01 MattJ gift
16:09:09 Kev Packaging includes: linuxwolf (x1), MattJ (x1), Kev (x1).
16:09:17 Kev RalphM and Fritzy not included.
16:09:28 Kev 2) Agenda Bashing.
16:10:01 MattJ None
16:10:05 Kev (hopefully stpeter will reappear at some point, as two of the three items are his)
16:10:09 linuxwolf none from me
16:10:14 linuxwolf heh
16:10:24 linuxwolf he's WFH, so I can't utilize POKE
16:10:53 Kev So let's jump to the "Our job" item and come back later for Peter's items.
16:10:59 linuxwolf +1
16:11:12 MattJ ++
16:11:36 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.
16:11:38 Kev Discuss.
16:12:03 linuxwolf well, first...
16:12:14 linuxwolf end of year is difficult to get anything really done (-:
16:12:50 Kev Yes, that much is true.
16:12:55 stpeter greetings
16:12:56 linuxwolf that's historical
16:13:10 Kev Evening Peter.
16:13:10 ralphm has joined
16:13:11 stpeter sorry, got the times wrong
16:13:15 linuxwolf (-:
16:13:19 linuxwolf pesky time changes
16:13:20 linuxwolf anyhow
16:13:51 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.
16:13:52 ralphm waves
16:13:52 linuxwolf I think we should be taking a more (pro) active role
16:14:09 Kev So the need to have a meeting to go over the same items again and have people not vote again has ended.
16:14:12 Kev Evening Ralph.
16:14:19 linuxwolf true
16:14:25 linuxwolf waves to ralphm
16:14:48 MattJ If we should be more pro-active, more pro-active doing what exactly?
16:14:52 Kev That said, I'm not opposed to us considering that it's our job to be making sure XEP progress continues.
16:15:01 Kev The question is what the appropriate way of doing this is.
16:15:21 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.
16:15:35 stpeter heh
16:15:43 linuxwolf (-:
16:15:49 linuxwolf how about we start with a roadmap (-:
16:15:53 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)
16:15:55 linuxwolf set some goals for ourselves
16:16:05 Kev We have a Peter again, so let's do that, yes.
16:16:06 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
16:16:14 linuxwolf (-:
16:16:28 Kev Council discussing a roadmap is another thing I think's odd - we just vote on whatever people give us.
16:16:36 ralphm there are some areas for which people asking for specs for a number of summits
16:16:39 Kev But anyway, we can discuss what it is that we'd like for people to give us to vote on :)
16:16:42 linuxwolf we've had roadmaps in the past
16:16:49 Kev We have.
16:16:58 Kev I think they're largely stpeter maps, rather than Council maps, though :)
16:17:02 stpeter however, we might want to recruit people to take over maintainership of various specs -- e.g., microblogging
16:17:04 linuxwolf file transfer v2, jingle, etc
16:17:07 Kev Anyway, I'm not proposing not having one :)
16:17:14 MattJ Exactly who's in charge here? :)
16:17:28 ralphm I think a roadmap is a fine idea actually
16:17:40 Kev So.
16:17:42 ralphm we've all said what we think needs to be done in our applications
16:17:43 Kev Road map items.
16:17:43 stpeter Kev: I think the members discussion about roadmap items was good, perhaps we need to poke people to take ownership of various specs
16:17:57 linuxwolf +1
16:18:21 Kev I'm just looking up the member discussion, hang on.
16:18:39 Kev http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap
16:19:50 ralphm so everything termed technical is our domain
16:19:56 linuxwolf more or less
16:20:04 Kev Not really Ralph, some is the WG's.
16:20:08 ralphm except the ca stuff
16:20:13 ralphm well, yes
16:20:18 MattJ "and establish the JSF" <-- "oops"? :)
16:20:27 linuxwolf well, this list looks a bit dated…sort of (-:
16:20:32 linuxwolf the timeless goals
16:20:37 stpeter I last posted about this on October 29 http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2010-October/006040.html
16:20:40 Kev I'd see getting file transfer sorted as a reasonable overarching theme for this term.
16:20:55 Matthew Miller has joined
16:20:55 Matthew Miller has left
16:20:59 stpeter Kev: interop testing at FOSDEM might be good
16:21:05 linuxwolf /nod
16:21:10 Kev It might.
16:21:16 Kev Although it's a little hard to do that.
16:21:28 Kev Given that FOSDEM is likely to be a fairly hospitable network.
16:21:42 Kev Where we know that basically nothing interops with f/t on the Internet :)
16:22:04 ralphm why?
16:22:13 ralphm we can set up a local test bed?
16:22:29 Kev We can set up a suitably inhospitable network, if we try.
16:23:00 Kev The other thing that really desperately needs love is -45
16:23:24 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.
16:23:45 MattJ and 198 :)
16:23:55 MattJ and archiving
16:23:57 Kev Well, 198 *does* work :)
16:23:57 linuxwolf heh
16:24:11 linuxwolf 198 works for those that have implemented it, as far as I can tell
16:24:12 MattJ It needs some spec changes, but that's on stpeter's todo already
16:24:19 stpeter Kev: I have a big pile of MUC edits to key in
16:24:24 stpeter MattJ: 198 needs changes?
16:24:27 ralphm does that include work on what joe and I termed 'hats'?
16:24:35 Kev I don't think hats belong in -45.
16:24:40 stpeter agreed on that!
16:24:42 linuxwolf stpeter: I think there were some minor nits for 198
16:24:45 Kev Not that I think they don't belong anywhere, but not 45.
16:24:46 linuxwolf I'll try to find them
16:24:48 MattJ stpeter, it doesn't?
16:24:49 ralphm I know there isn't a spec for it yet, but it would maybe remove stuff from 45
16:24:50 stpeter linuxwolf: ok
16:24:58 MattJ stpeter, you did say a while back it was on your todo :)
16:25:20 MattJ stpeter, Dave and I have both posted feedback to the list that needs incorporating - I think Dave's was even in patch form :)
16:25:21 stpeter I see a two-phase approach on MUC (or in parallel) -- clean up 45 and work on hats etc.
16:25:22 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.
16:25:30 MattJ Kev, agreed
16:25:38 Kev I see hats as GC3.
16:25:45 linuxwolf /nod
16:26:06 ralphm does it include removal of status codes in favour of elements (like we did with errors in xmpp)
16:26:08 ralphm ?
16:26:18 Kev I see that as GC3 too :)
16:26:36 stpeter hmm
16:26:48 stpeter perhaps
16:27:03 linuxwolf moving away from status codes is a big change
16:27:03 Kev Anything that's going to require every single implementation of xep-0045 to be modified doesn't belong in 45 at this point.
16:27:25 linuxwolf not that I'm in favor of status codes, mind you...
16:27:30 Kev No, quite.
16:27:48 ralphm just assessing the scope
16:27:53 stpeter we had talked about status elements as an extension, so strictly speaking it would not be in 45 anyway
16:28:15 ralphm hah, so it would build on 45
16:28:22 ralphm as if it is not big enough already :-)
16:28:28 stpeter right
16:28:31 stpeter :P
16:28:33 linuxwolf "too big to fail(off)"
16:28:39 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.
16:28:53 MattJ +1
16:28:56 stpeter Kev: yes I think that's right
16:29:10 MattJ I was always against a radically new protocol, but I'm not so much anymore
16:29:14 Kev So, are we roughly done with the roadmap discussion?
16:29:14 stpeter and I think that's what my edits worked toward
16:29:22 stpeter ye
16:29:27 stpeter MattJ: :)
16:29:36 Kev Right, so
16:29:37 ralphm stpeter: you mentioned mobile stuff and microblogging
16:29:47 Kev Peter wanted to discuss open issues on specs.
16:29:50 Kev Agenda item 4!
16:29:50 stpeter people wanted a radically new protocol back in 2002, also
16:29:56 linuxwolf (-:
16:30:02 stpeter ok
16:30:02 linuxwolf xmpp-ng
16:30:07 stpeter let's see, open issues
16:30:18 stpeter XEP-0266 -- Jingle codecs
16:30:24 stpeter it would be good to finish that up
16:30:30 Kev What needs doing there?
16:30:32 stpeter it's difficult to get consensus on that topic
16:30:42 stpeter I'm just raising open issues so we know what's coming :)
16:30:53 Kev Consensus on 266 is impossible.
16:30:55 stpeter I'd like to find someone else to maintain the microblogging spec
16:31:01 linuxwolf I'm going to need to drop in a minute or two
16:31:02 stpeter Kev: depends on how rough it is :)
16:31:04 stpeter ok
16:31:06 Kev Most people not disagreeing violently is going to be the best bet.
16:31:17 Kev stpeter: Oh good, the 'rough consensus' oxymoron :)
16:31:38 MattJ :)
16:31:39 stpeter clearly the FT stuff needs updating
16:31:49 stpeter perhaps we can push out new versions after interop testing at FOSDEM?
16:31:58 Kev Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
16:32:08 stpeter and same for 198 and roster versioning?
16:32:17 Kev My interest in interop testing is largely checking everything behaves s2s at the moment, but clients shouldn't be neglected.
16:32:26 linuxwolf /nod
16:32:36 stpeter do we have a chatroom for the interop testing next week? just jdev?
16:32:46 Kev We don't, that I know of.
16:32:51 MattJ I made the interop room on this server the other day, but didn't announce it
16:32:58 Kev I think bear took ownership of that event, but I've not seen anything since.
16:33:14 Kev I'll poke the iteam into action for whatever's required :)
16:33:19 stpeter heh ok
16:33:25 Kev MattJ's volunteered to run the CA, I think.
16:33:33 MattJ Indeed
16:34:04 stpeter wow http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Roadmap is ancient
16:34:20 MattJ Quite
16:34:30 stpeter I'll update the roadmap tomorrow afternoon or Friday -- swamped through noon tomorrow
16:34:35 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.
16:35:23 Kev We've hit the limit of my meeting patience, so shall we stop there for today? I think we've discussed most things.
16:35:27 Kev Date of next meeting.
16:35:32 ralphm I'd like the stuff from stpeter's mail on it
16:35:33 stpeter yep
16:35:36 Kev Next Wednesday, same time.
16:35:40 stpeter +1 here
16:35:43 ralphm +1
16:35:45 linuxwolf +1
16:35:51 MattJ +1
16:35:55 stpeter updates the calendar
16:36:02 Kev 7) Any other business?
16:36:06 linuxwolf stpeter: grazie!
16:36:11 Kev Thanks Peter.
16:36:14 MattJ doesn't say anything
16:36:23 stpeter none here for now
16:36:31 linuxwolf I got nothing
16:36:34 Kev Jolly good :)
16:36:39 Kev Ok, thanks all, then.
16:36:49 Kev I'll sort out something in way of minutes in the not too distant future.
16:36:53 Kev bangs the gavel.
16:37:23 MattJ Thanks
16:37:28 stpeter calendar updated
16:37:42 MattJ Thanks :)
16:39:02 linuxwolf has left
16:39:08 stpeter http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-council.ics is your friend :)
16:39:34 stpeter or http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-all.ics
17:08:25 ralphm has left
17:20:21 Tobias has joined
17:22:45 Tobias stpeter: the automatic updating of calendars works, right?
17:34:54 stpeter Tobias: I updated it manually :)
17:35:06 stpeter next time I'll let it update automatically
17:35:14 Tobias that doesn't really answer my question, does it? :)
17:35:21 stpeter nope :)
18:19:43 Tobias has left
19:25:58 Tobias has joined
19:27:11 Tobias has left
22:33:32 Tobias has joined
23:31:45 Tobias has left