stpeterhmm, 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....
KevAnd ding, 4pm.
KevAre we sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.
Kevstpeter: That sounds fun.
stpeteryes, fun indeed
Kev1) Roll Call
KevI'm here.
Fritzyhere
linuxwolfpresente
MattJHere
linuxwolfomfg…we actually have a Fritzy! (-:
KevHuzzah.
Kev2) Agenda bashing.
stpeterlaughs
KevI've noted adding Compliance.
Fritzynone
linuxwolfAOB, mabye
linuxwolfmaybe even
KevOk.
Kev3) 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
MattJThis has been nagging at me for a while
MattJWhy do we have agenda bashing /and/ AOB? :)
KevMattJ: I have no idea, and often wondered that.
Fritzythat sounds like a topic for AOB
Fritzy;)
MattJKev, you have the power!
stpeteragenda bashing could include removing items, I'd think
linuxwolfthat's what I was about to say, @Fritzy (-:
KevBut I treot Agenda Bashing as Things Wot Require Votes, and AOB as discussion points.
KevIn any case...
Kev3) 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
MattJFair enough
KevI'm +1.
MattJMe too
MattJI haven't read it in detail so maybe missed anything editorial
Fritzy+1
linuxwolfI'll vote on list
MattJBut I like this XEP and these changes
KevI 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.
Fritzyah, that's probably a good idea for a future revision. ;)
linuxwolf/nod
stpeterprobably not a bad idea for the Council to be aware of how things are done
KevMaybe it's sensible to require approval so Peter can't require authors to jump through hoops :)
ralphmhas joined
FritzyOr "future evil editor"
ralphmhello
Kev4) Reverting the compliance suites.
Fritzyhowdy
ralphm+1 on #3
Fritzywhat does that mean exactly (#4)
KevAre we agreed that Peter reverting the compliance suite 6120/3920 references was the right thing?
KevFritzy: Was typing.
MattJI'm agreed
KevI think we didn't intend the compliance suites to be updated in the first place when we issued the blanket "please update everything".
ralphmthe reverting is good
linuxwolf/agreed
KevGood.
Fritzyok
Kev5) Compliance 2012.
KevDo we want compliance suites this year?
MattJ+1, IMHO
MattJI've always been a fan of the compliance XEPs, even though not as much has been made of them that could have been
MattJI think they're worth the small amount of effort
linuxwolf+1 also
linuxwolfthey help authors determine what's in, and what they can cut corners on
KevI guess the logical follow-up question is what goes in them :)
linuxwolfwell, we could use the previous versions as a starting point (-:
Fritzysounds logical
KevI think we skipped 2011, making http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0270.html the most recent.
linuxwolfthen s/392[01]/612\1/g (-:
stpeteryes we skipped 2011
linuxwolfI don't think we need a new suite every year…but it's worth it now with the new XMPP specs
KevI'd like to strike -16 off the list, and replace it with 191.
KevI don't like -16.
Fritzy:)
stpeteryeah I don't either
KevWell, 'replace'. 191 is already there.
KevOtherwise, that looks like a fairly sensible base.
KevI'm not sure what else we'd particularly need on there.
linuxwolfI'd like to add −201
Fritzyshould someone copy it up and put it in inbox for next meeting?
linuxwolfmaybe −296 if I can get it updated (-:
linuxwolfFritzy: +1
linuxwolfand thanks for volunteering? (-:
stpeterheh
KevI'm not entirely convinced about 201.
linuxwolfI am
Kev296 seems much more valuable.
linuxwolfI have a couple of nits to clean up in 296
darkrainhas joined
linuxwolfbut I can also see about starting on this compliance 2012
KevShall we take it to list, then, and you can justify including 201 there? :)
linuxwolf(-:
linuxwolfit's not a hill for me to die on
MattJI'd be unsure of very recent XEPs in compliance suites
KevMattJ: Yes, me too, except that 296 is documenting best practice.
linuxwolfit's something a lot of clients are already doing
linuxwolfwell, the "good" clients (-:
linuxwolfstpeter: hehe
ralphm:-D
KevAlthough maybe referencing experimental XEPs in a compliance suite isn't smart.
KevI wonder if any of the others are.
ralphmI fully agree there
linuxwolfok, so then I'll propose 296 move forward? (-:
ralphmso I suppose stuff needs to happen before 2012
Fritzyhaha
KevRight.
linuxwolfralphm: we can start on it, but yes
KevSo rough idea for the moment is to make compliance 2012 = 2010 + 6120 -16, and to consider threads and locking on-list?
MattJ+1
linuxwolfsure
KevOk.
Kev6) Date of next meeting.
KevSBTSBC?
MattJ+1
linuxwolf+1
Fritzy+1
MattJwhether I can make it I don't know yet, I won't know until next week
MattJI'll try to send apologies in advance if I can't
KevTa.
Kev7) Any other agenda bashing?
Fritzyuh, AOB vs. Agenda Bashing?
Fritzy;)
linuxwolf1) a nit in 0297, the namespace is "urn:xmpp:forward:tmp", but it should be "urn:xmpp:forward:0", yes?
linuxwolf2) did anyone ever follow up on the xep-0220 discussion?
stpeterI did not follow up on dialback
stpeterthat was my action item
Kevlinuxwolf: It should be, really, yes, now it's accepted.
MattJ+1
MattJto #1
MattJand to following up on 220 as well
linuxwolfKev: I'm starting on an update to carbons, including msg-fwd, and found that little nit (-:
KevWonderful, thanks.
KevI'll poke the authors.
linuxwolf(-:
stpeterI'll send the 220 message now before I do a deep dive on i18n madness
linuxwolfI can provide you a patch (-:
KevI wouldn't bother, unless you've already done it :)
linuxwolfI think I have…in one of my clones (-:
KevI suspect it'd take as long to apply the patch as to write it.
linuxwolfKev: yeah, pretty much
KevAaaaanything else?
ralphmnope
linuxwolfnay from me
Fritzynodda
KevI'll try to remember to not include agenda bashing next time, and we can bash on-list, or AOB in the meeting.
KevRight, if we're all done...
KevThanks all.
Kevgangs the bavel.
stpeterscrolls up to see if needs to do anything with 143 yet
stpeterah no, lw to vote on list
linuxwolfstpeter: I didn't read the changes yet, sorry!
stpeterno worries
linuxwolflikes to read first, vote second (-:
stpeterdetails, details
linuxwolfok, off to prep for my next meeting...adios
KevEnjoy.
stpeterenjoy!
linuxwolftoday's light…only 3 (-:
stpeterheh
darkrainhas left
ralphmhas left
Fritzyhas left
stpeterok I looked at the XEP-0220 issues
stpeterat least briefly
stpeterit is very frustrating
stpeterand I have some IETF deadlines so I might need to delay real work on this until Tuesday
KevI'm sure it'll wait.
stpeterI 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
MattJThat would be sad, but if it needs to happen to further the specs, so be it
stpeternot sure yet -- I'll try to reach some consensus on the list
stpetersends a conciliatory note
MattJstpeter, you're a trouble-maker ;)
linuxwolf/-:
stpetersorry, I got annoyed
stpeterthere's no reason to be so snarky
stpeterwe're all trying to work toegher on this stuff
stpetertogether, even
MattJ+1, your last email is fine by me
linuxwolfI think I would have been ruder, myself (-:
stpeterand http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber still contains numerous errors, but I don't publicly question their motives
MattJDon't remind me that page exists
MattJIt's better than it used to be, at least
MattJMainly since it no longer has the out-of-context quote of me
stpeterok, 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
MattJWhat's the not-so-smart grid?
stpeterthe dumb grid
stpeterhow electricity gets to your house :)
stpeterpeople are making it smarter using demand-response technologies and such
MattJEvidently
stpeterin fact they're already using XMPP (some of them, anyway)
stpeter"price went up, you might want to turn off the clothes dryer" and such
stpeterbut the folks using XMPP are doing commercial and industrial applications mostly
KevThey should purchase Swiften licenses to use as their libraries...
stpeterKev: good idea, I'll let them know ;-)
stpeteralso some embedded stuff -- actual XMPP-enabled washers and dryers and such
KevThey should...
stpeterit's a bit crazy ;-)
stpeterthe sensors stuff is semi-related -- I never saw further replies to those threads, though...