XMPP Council - 2011-07-06

  1. Kev has joined

  2. Kev has left

  3. Kev has joined

  4. mlundblad has joined

  5. stpeter has joined

  6. Fritzy has joined

  7. linuxwolf has joined

  8. MattJ has joined

  9. 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....

  10. Kev

    And ding, 4pm.

  11. Kev

    Are we sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.

  12. Kev

    stpeter: That sounds fun.

  13. stpeter

    yes, fun indeed

  14. Kev

    1) Roll Call

  15. Kev

    I'm here.

  16. Fritzy


  17. linuxwolf


  18. MattJ


  19. linuxwolf

    omfg…we actually have a Fritzy! (-:

  20. Kev


  21. Kev

    2) Agenda bashing.

  22. stpeter laughs

  23. Kev

    I've noted adding Compliance.

  24. Fritzy


  25. linuxwolf

    AOB, mabye

  26. linuxwolf

    maybe even

  27. Kev


  28. 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

  29. MattJ

    This has been nagging at me for a while

  30. MattJ

    Why do we have agenda bashing /and/ AOB? :)

  31. Kev

    MattJ: I have no idea, and often wondered that.

  32. Fritzy

    that sounds like a topic for AOB

  33. Fritzy


  34. MattJ

    Kev, you have the power!

  35. stpeter

    agenda bashing could include removing items, I'd think

  36. linuxwolf

    that's what I was about to say, @Fritzy (-:

  37. Kev

    But I treot Agenda Bashing as Things Wot Require Votes, and AOB as discussion points.

  38. Kev

    In any case...

  39. 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

  40. MattJ

    Fair enough

  41. Kev

    I'm +1.

  42. MattJ

    Me too

  43. MattJ

    I haven't read it in detail so maybe missed anything editorial

  44. Fritzy


  45. linuxwolf

    I'll vote on list

  46. MattJ

    But I like this XEP and these changes

  47. 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.

  48. Fritzy

    ah, that's probably a good idea for a future revision. ;)

  49. linuxwolf


  50. stpeter

    probably not a bad idea for the Council to be aware of how things are done

  51. Kev

    Maybe it's sensible to require approval so Peter can't require authors to jump through hoops :)

  52. ralphm has joined

  53. Fritzy

    Or "future evil editor"

  54. ralphm


  55. Kev

    4) Reverting the compliance suites.

  56. Fritzy


  57. ralphm

    +1 on #3

  58. Fritzy

    what does that mean exactly (#4)

  59. Kev

    Are we agreed that Peter reverting the compliance suite 6120/3920 references was the right thing?

  60. Kev

    Fritzy: Was typing.

  61. MattJ

    I'm agreed

  62. 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".

  63. ralphm

    the reverting is good

  64. linuxwolf


  65. Kev


  66. Fritzy


  67. Kev

    5) Compliance 2012.

  68. Kev

    Do we want compliance suites this year?

  69. MattJ

    +1, IMHO

  70. 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

  71. MattJ

    I think they're worth the small amount of effort

  72. linuxwolf

    +1 also

  73. linuxwolf

    they help authors determine what's in, and what they can cut corners on

  74. Kev

    I guess the logical follow-up question is what goes in them :)

  75. linuxwolf

    well, we could use the previous versions as a starting point (-:

  76. Fritzy

    sounds logical

  77. Kev

    I think we skipped 2011, making http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0270.html the most recent.

  78. linuxwolf

    then s/392[01]/612\1/g (-:

  79. stpeter

    yes we skipped 2011

  80. linuxwolf

    I don't think we need a new suite every year…but it's worth it now with the new XMPP specs

  81. Kev

    I'd like to strike -16 off the list, and replace it with 191.

  82. Kev

    I don't like -16.

  83. Fritzy


  84. stpeter

    yeah I don't either

  85. Kev

    Well, 'replace'. 191 is already there.

  86. Kev

    Otherwise, that looks like a fairly sensible base.

  87. Kev

    I'm not sure what else we'd particularly need on there.

  88. linuxwolf

    I'd like to add −201

  89. Fritzy

    should someone copy it up and put it in inbox for next meeting?

  90. linuxwolf

    maybe −296 if I can get it updated (-:

  91. linuxwolf

    Fritzy: +1

  92. linuxwolf

    and thanks for volunteering? (-:

  93. stpeter


  94. Kev

    I'm not entirely convinced about 201.

  95. linuxwolf

    I am

  96. Kev

    296 seems much more valuable.

  97. linuxwolf

    I have a couple of nits to clean up in 296

  98. darkrain has joined

  99. linuxwolf

    but I can also see about starting on this compliance 2012

  100. Kev

    Shall we take it to list, then, and you can justify including 201 there? :)

  101. linuxwolf


  102. linuxwolf

    it's not a hill for me to die on

  103. MattJ

    I'd be unsure of very recent XEPs in compliance suites

  104. Kev

    MattJ: Yes, me too, except that 296 is documenting best practice.

  105. linuxwolf


  106. stpeter types 'cp xep-0270.xml inbox/compliance2012.xml

  107. linuxwolf

    it's something a lot of clients are already doing

  108. linuxwolf

    well, the "good" clients (-:

  109. linuxwolf

    stpeter: hehe

  110. ralphm


  111. Kev

    Although maybe referencing experimental XEPs in a compliance suite isn't smart.

  112. Kev

    I wonder if any of the others are.

  113. ralphm

    I fully agree there

  114. linuxwolf

    ok, so then I'll propose 296 move forward? (-:

  115. ralphm

    so I suppose stuff needs to happen before 2012

  116. Fritzy


  117. Kev


  118. linuxwolf

    ralphm: we can start on it, but yes

  119. Kev

    So rough idea for the moment is to make compliance 2012 = 2010 + 6120 -16, and to consider threads and locking on-list?

  120. MattJ


  121. linuxwolf


  122. Kev


  123. Kev

    6) Date of next meeting.

  124. Kev


  125. MattJ


  126. linuxwolf


  127. Fritzy


  128. MattJ

    whether I can make it I don't know yet, I won't know until next week

  129. MattJ

    I'll try to send apologies in advance if I can't

  130. Kev


  131. Kev

    7) Any other agenda bashing?

  132. Fritzy

    uh, AOB vs. Agenda Bashing?

  133. Fritzy


  134. linuxwolf

    1) a nit in 0297, the namespace is "urn:xmpp:forward:tmp", but it should be "urn:xmpp:forward:0", yes?

  135. linuxwolf

    2) did anyone ever follow up on the xep-0220 discussion?

  136. stpeter

    I did not follow up on dialback

  137. stpeter

    that was my action item

  138. Kev

    linuxwolf: It should be, really, yes, now it's accepted.

  139. MattJ


  140. MattJ

    to #1

  141. MattJ

    and to following up on 220 as well

  142. linuxwolf

    Kev: I'm starting on an update to carbons, including msg-fwd, and found that little nit (-:

  143. Kev

    Wonderful, thanks.

  144. Kev

    I'll poke the authors.

  145. linuxwolf


  146. stpeter

    I'll send the 220 message now before I do a deep dive on i18n madness

  147. linuxwolf

    I can provide you a patch (-:

  148. Kev

    I wouldn't bother, unless you've already done it :)

  149. linuxwolf

    I think I have…in one of my clones (-:

  150. Kev

    I suspect it'd take as long to apply the patch as to write it.

  151. linuxwolf

    Kev: yeah, pretty much

  152. Kev

    Aaaaanything else?

  153. ralphm


  154. linuxwolf

    nay from me

  155. Fritzy


  156. Kev

    I'll try to remember to not include agenda bashing next time, and we can bash on-list, or AOB in the meeting.

  157. Kev

    Right, if we're all done...

  158. Kev

    Thanks all.

  159. Kev gangs the bavel.

  160. stpeter scrolls up to see if needs to do anything with 143 yet

  161. stpeter

    ah no, lw to vote on list

  162. linuxwolf

    stpeter: I didn't read the changes yet, sorry!

  163. stpeter

    no worries

  164. linuxwolf likes to read first, vote second (-:

  165. stpeter

    details, details

  166. linuxwolf

    ok, off to prep for my next meeting...adios

  167. Kev


  168. stpeter


  169. linuxwolf

    today's light…only 3 (-:

  170. stpeter


  171. darkrain has left

  172. ralphm has left

  173. Fritzy has left

  174. stpeter

    ok I looked at the XEP-0220 issues

  175. stpeter

    at least briefly

  176. stpeter

    it is very frustrating

  177. stpeter

    and I have some IETF deadlines so I might need to delay real work on this until Tuesday

  178. Kev

    I'm sure it'll wait.

  179. 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

  180. MattJ

    That would be sad, but if it needs to happen to further the specs, so be it

  181. stpeter

    not sure yet -- I'll try to reach some consensus on the list

  182. stpeter sends a conciliatory note

  183. MattJ

    stpeter, you're a trouble-maker ;)

  184. linuxwolf


  185. stpeter

    sorry, I got annoyed

  186. stpeter

    there's no reason to be so snarky

  187. stpeter

    we're all trying to work toegher on this stuff

  188. stpeter

    together, even

  189. MattJ

    +1, your last email is fine by me

  190. linuxwolf

    I think I would have been ruder, myself (-:

  191. stpeter

    and http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber still contains numerous errors, but I don't publicly question their motives

  192. MattJ

    Don't remind me that page exists

  193. MattJ

    It's better than it used to be, at least

  194. MattJ

    Mainly since it no longer has the out-of-context quote of me

  195. 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

  196. MattJ

    What's the not-so-smart grid?

  197. stpeter

    the dumb grid

  198. stpeter

    how electricity gets to your house :)

  199. stpeter

    people are making it smarter using demand-response technologies and such

  200. MattJ


  201. stpeter

    in fact they're already using XMPP (some of them, anyway)

  202. stpeter

    "price went up, you might want to turn off the clothes dryer" and such

  203. stpeter

    but the folks using XMPP are doing commercial and industrial applications mostly

  204. Kev

    They should purchase Swiften licenses to use as their libraries...

  205. stpeter

    Kev: good idea, I'll let them know ;-)

  206. stpeter

    also some embedded stuff -- actual XMPP-enabled washers and dryers and such

  207. Kev

    They should...

  208. stpeter

    it's a bit crazy ;-)

  209. stpeter

    the sensors stuff is semi-related -- I never saw further replies to those threads, though...

  210. stpeter

    anyway, bbiab

  211. MattJ


  212. MattJ

    brb, need to relocate to a printer

  213. linuxwolf

    I think it's time for lunch…bbl

  214. MattJ has left

  215. stpeter

    lunch is a good idea

  216. mlundblad has left

  217. mlundblad has joined

  218. linuxwolf has left

  219. linuxwolf has joined

  220. Kooda has joined

  221. Kooda has joined

  222. mlundblad has left

  223. linuxwolf has left