XMPP Council - 2011-07-06

06:31:56 Kev has joined
07:51:55 Kev has left
07:52:15 Kev has joined
12:11:31 mlundblad has joined
13:05:16 stpeter has joined
14:31:57 Fritzy has joined
14:54:24 linuxwolf has joined
15:01:07 MattJ has joined
15:02:15 stpeter hmm, I need to push out revised versions of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-precis-framework/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-xmpp-6122bis/ before the document deadline next Monday....
15:02:28 Kev And ding, 4pm.
15:02:40 Kev Are we sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.
15:02:48 Kev stpeter: That sounds fun.
15:03:06 stpeter yes, fun indeed
15:03:11 Kev 1) Roll Call
15:03:14 Kev I'm here.
15:03:17 Fritzy here
15:03:17 linuxwolf presente
15:03:22 MattJ Here
15:03:29 linuxwolf omfg…we actually have a Fritzy! (-:
15:03:30 Kev Huzzah.
15:03:37 Kev 2) Agenda bashing.
15:03:38 stpeter laughs
15:03:43 Kev I've noted adding Compliance.
15:04:28 Fritzy none
15:04:39 linuxwolf AOB, mabye
15:04:41 linuxwolf maybe even
15:04:49 Kev Ok.
15:05:00 Kev 3) Accept 1.1rc2 of XEP-0143 ("Guidelines for Authors of XMPP Extension Protocols"). http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0143-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0143/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc2
15:05:00 MattJ This has been nagging at me for a while
15:05:08 MattJ Why do we have agenda bashing /and/ AOB? :)
15:05:21 Kev MattJ: I have no idea, and often wondered that.
15:05:27 Fritzy that sounds like a topic for AOB
15:05:28 Fritzy ;)
15:05:30 MattJ Kev, you have the power!
15:05:38 stpeter agenda bashing could include removing items, I'd think
15:05:40 linuxwolf that's what I was about to say, @Fritzy (-:
15:05:45 Kev But I treot Agenda Bashing as Things Wot Require Votes, and AOB as discussion points.
15:05:52 Kev In any case...
15:05:53 Kev 3) Accept 1.1rc2 of XEP-0143 ("Guidelines for Authors of XMPP Extension Protocols"). http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0143-1.1.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0143/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc2
15:05:55 MattJ Fair enough
15:05:58 Kev I'm +1.
15:06:15 MattJ Me too
15:06:27 MattJ I haven't read it in detail so maybe missed anything editorial
15:06:34 Fritzy +1
15:06:36 linuxwolf I'll vote on list
15:06:36 MattJ But I like this XEP and these changes
15:06:39 Kev I wonder if it's sensible to reference something else for the instructions on how to submit a patch, just so Peter doesn't require Council approval if he changes his favourite Git workflow, but I don't mind.
15:06:56 Fritzy ah, that's probably a good idea for a future revision. ;)
15:07:01 linuxwolf /nod
15:07:25 stpeter probably not a bad idea for the Council to be aware of how things are done
15:07:36 Kev Maybe it's sensible to require approval so Peter can't require authors to jump through hoops :)
15:07:46 ralphm has joined
15:07:53 Fritzy Or "future evil editor"
15:07:55 ralphm hello
15:08:01 Kev 4) Reverting the compliance suites.
15:08:04 Fritzy howdy
15:08:11 ralphm +1 on #3
15:08:24 Fritzy what does that mean exactly (#4)
15:08:29 Kev Are we agreed that Peter reverting the compliance suite 6120/3920 references was the right thing?
15:08:32 Kev Fritzy: Was typing.
15:08:46 MattJ I'm agreed
15:08:50 Kev I think we didn't intend the compliance suites to be updated in the first place when we issued the blanket "please update everything".
15:08:50 ralphm the reverting is good
15:09:03 linuxwolf /agreed
15:09:05 Kev Good.
15:09:07 Fritzy ok
15:09:24 Kev 5) Compliance 2012.
15:09:31 Kev Do we want compliance suites this year?
15:09:33 MattJ +1, IMHO
15:09:52 MattJ I've always been a fan of the compliance XEPs, even though not as much has been made of them that could have been
15:10:07 MattJ I think they're worth the small amount of effort
15:10:19 linuxwolf +1 also
15:10:36 linuxwolf they help authors determine what's in, and what they can cut corners on
15:10:37 Kev I guess the logical follow-up question is what goes in them :)
15:11:05 linuxwolf well, we could use the previous versions as a starting point (-:
15:11:22 Fritzy sounds logical
15:11:27 Kev I think we skipped 2011, making http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0270.html the most recent.
15:11:41 linuxwolf then s/392[01]/612\1/g (-:
15:12:11 stpeter yes we skipped 2011
15:12:20 linuxwolf I don't think we need a new suite every year…but it's worth it now with the new XMPP specs
15:12:20 Kev I'd like to strike -16 off the list, and replace it with 191.
15:12:26 Kev I don't like -16.
15:12:33 Fritzy :)
15:12:37 stpeter yeah I don't either
15:12:43 Kev Well, 'replace'. 191 is already there.
15:13:05 Kev Otherwise, that looks like a fairly sensible base.
15:13:19 Kev I'm not sure what else we'd particularly need on there.
15:13:45 linuxwolf I'd like to add −201
15:13:47 Fritzy should someone copy it up and put it in inbox for next meeting?
15:13:54 linuxwolf maybe −296 if I can get it updated (-:
15:14:11 linuxwolf Fritzy: +1
15:14:18 linuxwolf and thanks for volunteering? (-:
15:14:24 stpeter heh
15:14:32 Kev I'm not entirely convinced about 201.
15:14:38 linuxwolf I am
15:14:42 Kev 296 seems much more valuable.
15:15:07 linuxwolf I have a couple of nits to clean up in 296
15:15:15 darkrain has joined
15:15:18 linuxwolf but I can also see about starting on this compliance 2012
15:15:31 Kev Shall we take it to list, then, and you can justify including 201 there? :)
15:15:38 linuxwolf (-:
15:15:46 linuxwolf it's not a hill for me to die on
15:15:52 MattJ I'd be unsure of very recent XEPs in compliance suites
15:16:08 Kev MattJ: Yes, me too, except that 296 is documenting best practice.
15:16:13 linuxwolf exactly
15:16:14 stpeter types 'cp xep-0270.xml inbox/compliance2012.xml
15:16:19 linuxwolf it's something a lot of clients are already doing
15:16:26 linuxwolf well, the "good" clients (-:
15:16:41 linuxwolf stpeter: hehe
15:16:43 ralphm :-D
15:16:48 Kev Although maybe referencing experimental XEPs in a compliance suite isn't smart.
15:17:02 Kev I wonder if any of the others are.
15:17:03 ralphm I fully agree there
15:17:03 linuxwolf ok, so then I'll propose 296 move forward? (-:
15:17:11 ralphm so I suppose stuff needs to happen before 2012
15:17:28 Fritzy haha
15:17:29 Kev Right.
15:17:29 linuxwolf ralphm: we can start on it, but yes
15:18:41 Kev So rough idea for the moment is to make compliance 2012 = 2010 + 6120 -16, and to consider threads and locking on-list?
15:18:53 MattJ +1
15:18:57 linuxwolf sure
15:19:01 Kev Ok.
15:19:10 Kev 6) Date of next meeting.
15:19:14 Kev SBTSBC?
15:19:19 MattJ +1
15:19:23 linuxwolf +1
15:19:31 Fritzy +1
15:19:33 MattJ whether I can make it I don't know yet, I won't know until next week
15:19:42 MattJ I'll try to send apologies in advance if I can't
15:19:45 Kev Ta.
15:20:13 Kev 7) Any other agenda bashing?
15:20:39 Fritzy uh, AOB vs. Agenda Bashing?
15:20:40 Fritzy ;)
15:20:40 linuxwolf 1) a nit in 0297, the namespace is "urn:xmpp:forward:tmp", but it should be "urn:xmpp:forward:0", yes?
15:21:03 linuxwolf 2) did anyone ever follow up on the xep-0220 discussion?
15:21:20 stpeter I did not follow up on dialback
15:21:33 stpeter that was my action item
15:21:33 Kev linuxwolf: It should be, really, yes, now it's accepted.
15:21:52 MattJ +1
15:21:57 MattJ to #1
15:22:04 MattJ and to following up on 220 as well
15:22:13 linuxwolf Kev: I'm starting on an update to carbons, including msg-fwd, and found that little nit (-:
15:22:20 Kev Wonderful, thanks.
15:22:26 Kev I'll poke the authors.
15:22:29 linuxwolf (-:
15:22:31 stpeter I'll send the 220 message now before I do a deep dive on i18n madness
15:22:35 linuxwolf I can provide you a patch (-:
15:22:51 Kev I wouldn't bother, unless you've already done it :)
15:23:02 linuxwolf I think I have…in one of my clones (-:
15:23:02 Kev I suspect it'd take as long to apply the patch as to write it.
15:23:12 linuxwolf Kev: yeah, pretty much
15:23:28 Kev Aaaaanything else?
15:23:34 ralphm nope
15:23:35 linuxwolf nay from me
15:23:47 Fritzy nodda
15:23:55 Kev I'll try to remember to not include agenda bashing next time, and we can bash on-list, or AOB in the meeting.
15:24:09 Kev Right, if we're all done...
15:24:12 Kev Thanks all.
15:24:20 Kev gangs the bavel.
15:24:32 stpeter scrolls up to see if needs to do anything with 143 yet
15:24:54 stpeter ah no, lw to vote on list
15:25:04 linuxwolf stpeter: I didn't read the changes yet, sorry!
15:25:09 stpeter no worries
15:25:25 linuxwolf likes to read first, vote second (-:
15:25:40 stpeter details, details
15:25:57 linuxwolf ok, off to prep for my next meeting...adios
15:26:02 Kev Enjoy.
15:26:03 stpeter enjoy!
15:26:32 linuxwolf today's light…only 3 (-:
15:27:33 stpeter heh
15:50:24 darkrain has left
16:08:06 ralphm has left
16:09:03 Fritzy has left
16:41:19 stpeter ok I looked at the XEP-0220 issues
16:41:25 stpeter at least briefly
16:41:31 stpeter it is very frustrating
16:41:56 stpeter and I have some IETF deadlines so I might need to delay real work on this until Tuesday
16:51:29 Kev I'm sure it'll wait.
16:52:23 stpeter I am about ready to suggest that Philipp and I need to work on separate specifications of the protocol, and the Council can decide which one it wants to advance -- until then, RFC 3920 will remain the canonical documentation
16:56:38 MattJ That would be sad, but if it needs to happen to further the specs, so be it
16:56:57 stpeter not sure yet -- I'll try to reach some consensus on the list
17:06:53 stpeter sends a conciliatory note
17:33:52 MattJ stpeter, you're a trouble-maker ;)
17:35:09 linuxwolf /-:
17:41:43 stpeter sorry, I got annoyed
17:41:48 stpeter there's no reason to be so snarky
17:41:58 stpeter we're all trying to work toegher on this stuff
17:42:06 stpeter together, even
17:42:15 MattJ +1, your last email is fine by me
17:42:24 linuxwolf I think I would have been ruder, myself (-:
17:44:28 stpeter and http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber still contains numerous errors, but I don't publicly question their motives
17:45:35 MattJ Don't remind me that page exists
17:45:49 MattJ It's better than it used to be, at least
17:46:31 MattJ Mainly since it no longer has the out-of-context quote of me
17:46:31 stpeter ok, enough dialback for today, now I need to crank out a bunch of internationalization work and put together some slides for a presentation about XMPP on Friday before some "smart grid" group
17:46:54 MattJ What's the not-so-smart grid?
17:47:01 stpeter the dumb grid
17:47:12 stpeter how electricity gets to your house :)
17:47:31 stpeter people are making it smarter using demand-response technologies and such
17:47:33 MattJ Evidently
17:47:41 stpeter in fact they're already using XMPP (some of them, anyway)
17:48:02 stpeter "price went up, you might want to turn off the clothes dryer" and such
17:48:20 stpeter but the folks using XMPP are doing commercial and industrial applications mostly
17:48:20 Kev They should purchase Swiften licenses to use as their libraries...
17:48:37 stpeter Kev: good idea, I'll let them know ;-)
17:48:59 stpeter also some embedded stuff -- actual XMPP-enabled washers and dryers and such
17:49:07 Kev They should...
17:49:07 stpeter it's a bit crazy ;-)
17:49:37 stpeter the sensors stuff is semi-related -- I never saw further replies to those threads, though...
17:50:23 stpeter anyway, bbiab
17:50:28 MattJ :)
17:50:35 MattJ brb, need to relocate to a printer
17:50:50 linuxwolf I think it's time for lunch…bbl
17:51:16 MattJ has left
18:18:19 stpeter lunch is a good idea
21:45:31 mlundblad has left
21:51:49 mlundblad has joined
22:00:42 linuxwolf has left
22:05:25 linuxwolf has joined
22:22:55 Kooda has joined
22:34:12 Kooda has joined
22:38:53 mlundblad has left
23:25:24 linuxwolf has left