XMPP Council - 2011-07-13

  1. bear has joined
  2. bear has left
  3. mlundblad has joined
  4. Neustradamus has joined
  5. linuxwolf has joined
  6. stpeter has joined
  7. linuxwolf has left
  8. linuxwolf has joined
  9. linuxwolf has left
  10. linuxwolf has joined
  11. linuxwolf has left
  12. linuxwolf has joined
  13. linuxwolf has left
  14. linuxwolf has joined
  15. stpeter T-12 minutes?
  16. Kev Yep.
  17. linuxwolf goes to renew client cert
  18. stpeter stopped signing his email
  19. linuxwolf then who have I been talking to all this time?!?!!!111!!!eleventy11!! (-:
  20. Kev I sign my mail either Best, /K or /K
  21. stpeter hehe
  22. Kev Does that count?
  23. linuxwolf heh
  24. Wojtek has joined
  25. ralphm has joined
  26. ralphm hi
  27. stpeter hi Ralph!
  28. Kev Hi Ralph.
  29. linuxwolf waves
  30. erik has joined
  31. MattJ has joined
  32. MattJ waves
  33. Kev Hi Matt.
  34. MattJ This meeting can't go past 11:30, or I have to run :)
  35. Kev Damn, it's alread 15:54 now.
  36. stpeter Mr. EDT!
  37. MattJ Oh well
  38. MattJ stpeter, my watch is still in GMT :)
  39. stpeter heh
  40. MattJ But my schedule isn't
  41. linuxwolf (-:
  42. Astro has joined
  43. Kev Dingding.
  44. Kev So, onwards.
  45. Kev 1) Roll call.
  46. Kev I'm free!
  47. linuxwolf presente
  48. MattJ Present
  49. ralphm :-)
  50. Kev 2) Agenda Ba^w^whttp://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/compliance2012.html Accept as XEP?
  51. linuxwolf +1
  52. MattJ +1
  53. stpeter needs some work, clearly
  54. Kev stpeter: Yes, but that can be done in place.
  55. stpeter righ
  56. stpeter right even
  57. ralphm +1
  58. Kev I think the 198 discussion is interesting. I'm actually in favour of that, despite it making neither M-Link nor Swift compliant (neither do Resume).
  59. Kev (I'm +1, to be clear)
  60. Kev 3) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/commenting.html Accept as XEP?
  61. ralphm Kev: agreed on 198
  62. Kev I've asked the BuddyCloud guys to comment on this on list, because it seems like their area of expertise; I have no objection to publication at the moment.
  63. MattJ I haven't read it in detail, but it seems sane, I'm +1
  64. linuxwolf +1 also
  65. ralphm +1 on commenting. Very interesting, although I want to go through it a with a fine comb
  66. stpeter (we did have discussion about splitting 198 into two pieces, but Matthew convinced me that acking and resuming belong together)
  67. ralphm stpeter: nod
  68. Kev I think they do.
  69. MattJ stpeter, +1
  70. Kev You really want both features.
  71. MattJ I started the discussion :)
  72. stpeter yes
  73. stpeter MattJ: faulty memory
  74. Kev 4) LC on XEP-0296?
  75. Kev I think I'll have comments on this on-list, but I'm happy to LC it.
  76. MattJ +1 for LC
  77. linuxwolf obvious +1 from me (-:
  78. ralphm +1
  79. Kev 5) Date of next meeting.
  80. ralphm should it also be in compliance?
  81. Kev SBTSBC?
  82. MattJ SBTSBC++
  83. Astro prepares a comment on the Commenting XEP...
  84. linuxwolf ralphm: that's my thought…and why I'd like LC to be sooner rather than later
  85. linuxwolf Kev: WFM
  86. Kev ralphm: Well, there's a discussion. I think it'd be worth seeing how the LC goes.
  87. Kev Astro: Thanks.
  88. ralphm Kev: agreed
  89. Kev I think that's everyone agreed on date.
  90. Kev 6) Any other business.
  91. stpeter I like "Users leave comments on just about anything" :)
  92. Kev I liked the opening sentence.
  93. stpeter hmm, AOB
  94. stpeter are we closer to done on dialback?
  95. stpeter I can incorporate the one fix from fippo and push out a new version
  96. stpeter seems like we'd want a second LC
  97. Kev It's not clear to me whether fippo is now happy with it (with his fix pushed).
  98. linuxwolf stpeter: /nod … unless you want to act unilaterally (-: /ducks
  99. MattJ He's happy with little at the moment :)
  100. stpeter it's not clear to me if fippo is ever happy ;-)
  101. Neustradamus has left
  102. Kev Not that this is necessarily a requirement, but I think knowing is a requirement :)
  103. stpeter I have a broader question about dialback, though
  104. stpeter if we have a few minutes
  105. MattJ is all ears
  106. Kev I don't think we've had the situation before where authors have been is such disagreement.
  107. Kev So how to resolve it is a little new to me.
  108. linuxwolf there was one time in the distant past...
  109. stpeter Kev: new for me, too
  110. ralphm happiness is overrated?
  111. ralphm hah
  112. linuxwolf hehe
  113. stpeter so
  114. Kev linuxwolf: Oh. A memory stirs. XHTML-IM?
  115. stpeter the broader issue is: does this belong in the XMPP WG?
  116. stpeter I think it might
  117. stpeter because of the DNA/DNSSEC work
  118. Wojtek has left
  119. Kev stpeter: I think that's a credible argument, at least.
  120. ralphm good point
  121. linuxwolf yes
  122. ralphm kinda funny that we pulled it out of an RFC
  123. stpeter so I think it might make sense to fold DNA/DNSSEC in with the dialback spec and the bidi extension
  124. stpeter and publish it all as an RFC on XMPP S2S
  125. stpeter ralphm: right :)
  126. MattJ That would actually be nice
  127. Kev stpeter: I can see drawbacks to this.
  128. stpeter the IETF security mafia objected to dialback years ago because "it's not secure" -- but if we use DNSSEC then in fact dialback has useful security properties
  129. Kev Largely that you're pushing the experimental in with the established, and it risks how you judge that implementations are compliant.
  130. stpeter Kev: right
  131. stpeter hmm
  132. Kev I would be a little reluctant to make a move that would mean we have a sum total of zero servers that implement S2S.
  133. MattJ Nothing on the internet is "secure" :)
  134. ralphm Kev: nod
  135. ralphm Yeah, I don't care for the non-secure argument, we all know the trade-offs
  136. stpeter Kev: another approach would be to do all this work at the XSF, and then eventually publish an RFC when we publish 6120 bis a few years from now
  137. Kev So, if the RFC route is taken, I think it's probably better to publish two - one with what we have, and one with what we want.
  138. stpeter but splitting things across IETF and XSF feels a bit odd here
  139. stpeter anyway
  140. stpeter I just wanted to raise the issue
  141. Kev ralphm: Well, the IETF security guys *have* to complain that it's not secure, that's their purpose. What then happens is a matter for pragmatism.
  142. stpeter there will be discussions in Quebec City about DNA/DNSSEC
  143. linuxwolf it also matters what your definition of "secure" is
  144. Kev stpeter: I'm not opposed to the idea, at least at first glance, - just the implementation of rolling everything into one RFC.
  145. linuxwolf which is hard to get them to nail down sometimes (-:
  146. ralphm Haven't we earlier taken initial work as XEPs to then incorporate them into an RFC?
  147. stpeter ralphm: yes indeed
  148. linuxwolf ralphm: yes, privacy
  149. ralphm I don't see how it hurts to first have a few XEPs, worked on by the same people as in the WG
  150. linuxwolf the DNSSEC/DNA stuff will happen the IETF with or without us
  151. ralphm unless there are legal issues around this
  152. stpeter and roster versioning and so on
  153. stpeter well, the XMPP WG is just the folks who participate
  154. ralphm my point
  155. stpeter the IETF is not some monolithic entity
  156. linuxwolf true
  157. linuxwolf well, it's not a 1:1 mapping of standard@ and xmppwg@ commenters
  158. stpeter Kev: your point about two documents is well taken
  159. Kev So, what do we need to discuss about this here? Anything, or was it an airing?
  160. stpeter Kev: as in, publish dialback-core and dna-using-dialback with a reference to dialback-core
  161. linuxwolf two documents actually sounds like a good way to go…whether they're XEPs or RFCs
  162. ralphm Can't we just have the discussion on the xmppwg mailinglist and defere standards@ to that? We have multiple different lists for specific interest areas
  163. Kev stpeter: Yes, with bibi probably belonging in the latter, because that's also new and exciting.
  164. stpeter so for now I think it's fine to proceed with XEP-0220, but it would be nice to get it done
  165. stpeter Kev: yes
  166. linuxwolf and you want some level of assurance above "(non SEC) DNS lookups worked"
  167. linuxwolf (for bidi)
  168. stpeter and eventually I think we might republish 220 back at the IETF, but there's no hurry about it (could be done when we do the great republish of 6120bis, 6121bis, 6122bis, etc.)
  169. stpeter (if we do :)
  170. ralphm I have to cut out the meeting now to catch my train. Thanks all.
  171. linuxwolf /nod
  172. stpeter yep
  173. stpeter ok
  174. stpeter that's all from me
  175. stpeter no action required
  176. Kev Thanks Ralph.
  177. stpeter just an airing
  178. Kev I think we're done anyway :)
  179. linuxwolf nice and short
  180. Kev So, any other any other business?
  181. stpeter any other AOB? ;-)
  182. MattJ No AOB
  183. stpeter none here
  184. linuxwolf not directly council related, per se (-:
  185. Kev Fab.
  186. Kev In that case, thanks all!
  187. Kev gabs the bangle.
  188. linuxwolf need to add my comments to the "Great XSF Reset" discussion
  189. linuxwolf (-:
  190. stpeter loves the word "fab" and needs to use it more often but can't quite bring it off with that British panache
  191. Kev linuxwolf: I think there we may have a gift that keeps on giving.
  192. stpeter I haven't yet read any of the messages that came in on that thread overnight
  193. Kev Most were me.
  194. linuxwolf Kev: as long as it's not "We need a better name than XSF" again…and again…and again...
  195. Kev linuxwolf: Those Jabber guys are evil.
  196. linuxwolf exactly
  197. Kev I was there, I remember :)
  198. linuxwolf they should be hoisted by their own petards
  199. linuxwolf (-:
  200. stpeter Those Jabber guys *were* evil.
  201. stpeter not sure if they've reformed since then
  202. linuxwolf at least one hasn't...apparently
  203. Kev I think at least one raised issue is important.
  204. linuxwolf goes to read and comment on emails
  205. ralphm has left
  206. Kev There is a perception, at least from some, that Council and Board aren't doing their jobs, and we clearly need to address this.
  207. Kev Or, well, I assert that we need to address this.
  208. linuxwolf agreed
  209. stpeter Kev: I'll wait for your minutes before issuing a LC on 296, and I think we might need to clarify the basis for such actions, but in general I think it is acceptable for a simple majority of Council members present to make a decision to issue a Last Call (i.e., no need to wait for Fritzy to weigh in)
  210. stpeter actually I think the Council is doing a fine job
  211. Kev Given that LC isn't an advancement action, per se, I think I'd buy that.
  212. stpeter right
  213. stpeter I think http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/policies-and-procedures/ is not quite clear on the matter
  214. Kev I think Council is, in some ways, doing better than it did at one point.
  215. stpeter agreed!
  216. Kev I feel it's taken how ever many years it is to start to work out what the Chair should be doing, and try to start doing it.
  217. Kev I think if the outcome of this debate is that Board and Council become more accountable, this is a good thing.
  218. stpeter well the Board's mandate is not as clear as the Council's, which is part of the challenge
  219. stpeter and, for the record, I think Kev does an excellent job as Council Chair
  220. Kev stpeter: It's true, but it also makes it hard to not wonder if they're pulling their weight. Their mandate to be doing stuff may not be clear, but the perception that unless stuff is being done they're not meeting their mandate seems hard to counter.
  221. Kev Aww, thanks.
  222. Kev Council is almost as simple as "Are there being votes on XEPs? Please tick as appropriate".
  223. Kev (To judge whether the job is being done)
  224. stpeter :)
  225. stpeter I do think it would help to clarify what a council "vote" is
  226. stpeter and when the two-week period applies
  227. Kev Yes.
  228. stpeter e.g., perhaps that applies only to advancement, not to acceptance (0.1) or last calls
  229. stpeter that's how I'd think of it
  230. Kev I would be happy with something like: Acceptance you have until the meeting to complain. Advancement you have a fortnight after the meeting.
  231. Kev Or something.
  232. Kev Although as I noted on list, if we were to do the former we'd need to not count submissions made 30seconds before the meeting.
  233. stpeter right
  234. stpeter we'd need all submissions to happen a week before
  235. Kev I do like the idea of people being able to autosubmit their stuff, and authors being able to autoupdate their Experimentals, and things.
  236. Kev I realise I have commit access to the repository, but I don't have access (or have access but not authority) to publish a new version.
  237. stpeter not sure we have enough publication activity to warrant work on automated tools, although I have no objection to doing so
  238. Kev Setting up an email address to which you can send new versions, or a web form through which you can upload, or whatever, and have everything happen automagically sounds terribly swish.
  239. Kev I accept there may well be an issue of perception rather than efficacy here.
  240. stpeter heh
  241. stpeter the IETF has tools for that
  242. stpeter http://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/
  243. Kev Right, I'm aware of it, although haven't used it.
  244. stpeter Kev: I'd be happy to work with you, via the list or not, on revisions to http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/policies-and-procedures/
  245. stpeter proposed revisions for review and approval by the rest of the Council, that is
  246. Kev Thanks. I think the best thing is probably to wait a short while for the list discussion to die down (maybe it already has, or maybe it'll errupt now those Merkin types have worken up) and see what seems prudent from that.
  247. stpeter sure
  248. stpeter speaking of which, I need to catch up :)
  249. stpeter but first I need to wash my breakfast dishes, brb
  250. Kev Enjoy!
  251. Kev I'm looking forward to dinner right now ;)
  252. bear has joined
  253. stpeter OT: it's starnge that there's no equivalent for "bon appetit" in English... http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/bonappetit.htm
  254. stpeter strange, even
  255. stpeter goes back to his email client
  256. Kev Oh, there is, isn't there?
  257. Kev "Enjoy"
  258. stpeter right
  259. stpeter there must be some old English phrase to bring back
  260. bear has left
  261. Kev Right, let's see if I can get those minutes out quickly.
  262. Kev stpeter: Sorry, I realise I wasn't clear earlier in AOB. I'm happy with the namespacing for 220, as I said on list at the time, I'm not blocking on that.
  263. stpeter right, I understood
  264. Kev I think there were no actions arising from that AOB. Is that your understanding?
  265. stpeter yes
  266. stpeter agreed
  267. erik has left
  268. mlundblad has left
  269. linuxwolf has left
  270. bear has joined
  271. bear has left