XMPP Council - 2011-08-17

  1. linuxwolf has joined
  2. stpeter has joined
  3. ralphm has joined
  4. stpeter greetings
  5. linuxwolf waves
  6. ralphm Goeiemiddag!
  7. stpeter :)
  8. Kev Afternoon.
  9. stpeter joins a concurrent conference call
  10. linuxwolf heh
  11. stpeter I'm the IESG liaison to the IETF Tools Team :)
  12. ralphm I am doing a release
  13. Kev Wonderful.
  14. Kev We're all at the top of our game then :)
  15. stpeter heh
  16. linuxwolf (-:
  17. Kev MattJ's on his way.
  18. Kev 1) Roll call.
  19. Kev I'm here.
  20. MattJ has joined
  21. linuxwolf presente
  22. MattJ Me too!
  23. Kev Fritzy sent apologies.
  24. stpeter yep, saw that
  25. Tobias has joined
  26. Kev Righty, I'll assume ralphm's still here.
  27. Kev 2) Agenda bashing^w^w http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0260.html - move to draft?
  28. Kev We've still not got much feedback on this, but I think we've probably got all we're likely to now.
  29. linuxwolf /nod
  30. ralphm yes
  31. MattJ Yeah, I'm prepared to +1 it
  32. Kev Without invoking thumbscrews, anyway.
  33. stpeter :)
  34. MattJ It's always an option ;)
  35. linuxwolf heh
  36. linuxwolf +1, btw
  37. ralphm +1
  38. Kev I'd like to give it a once-through, which I didn't have a chance to do today as I'd planned, so I expect to vote onlist tomorrow or thereabouts.
  39. Kev Depending how fun work is.
  40. stpeter Kev: thanks
  41. Kev We'll be waiting for Nathan's vote anyway, so hopefully I'm not holding things up.
  42. Kev 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0261.html - move to draft?
  43. Kev Same applies from me.
  44. linuxwolf +1 also
  45. MattJ Ditto
  46. ralphm +1
  47. stpeter MattJ: what does "Ditto" mean for you?
  48. Kev "as above"
  49. linuxwolf his above, or yours? (-:
  50. MattJ stpeter, same again
  51. Kev 4) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/quickstart.html to experimental
  52. Kev +1 here, although we can shave a bit more off.
  53. stpeter MattJ: does "Ditto" mean "It's always an option ;)" for XEP-0261, too? or is that +1 to both? :)
  54. linuxwolf I'm +1 on quickstart
  55. stpeter Kev: yes, that was a rough "think piece" -- it needs polishing for sure
  56. MattJ stpeter, it's +1, with linuxwolf and Kev (provisionally)
  57. MattJ I had notes on the XEPs, but they're on my PC at home, I may be able to get hold of them this week
  58. Kev ralphm: Quickstart?
  59. stpeter ok
  60. ralphm +1
  61. MattJ But as I recall it was mostly editorial (and I think they may have been long fixed)
  62. Kev MattJ: Quickstart?
  63. ralphm there seems to be some room for improvement according to some
  64. MattJ Quickstart... +1 for acceptance
  65. Kev ralphm: Always :)
  66. Kev 5) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mucstatus.html - Experimental?
  67. MattJ I haven't read the ML threads on it at all, but I think it's a good start
  68. Kev +1 from me.
  69. MattJ +1 too
  70. ralphm +1. I was wondering if a new namespace is needed but other than that, yay?
  71. linuxwolf +1 also
  72. Kev Fab.
  73. stpeter ralphm: you think we could use an existing namespace?
  74. Kev 6) Roadmap for the rest of the session.
  75. stpeter n/m
  76. ralphm stpeter: I believe the conditions would only be used in muc#user
  77. Kev I'm not sure what point us having a roadmap serves, really - we'll vote on whatever the XEP Editor puts in front of us :)
  78. stpeter haha
  79. Kev stpeter: What were you thinking of?
  80. ralphm so we could maybe just make <conditions/> and its childs part of that namespace
  81. stpeter "what were you thinking?!" :)
  82. stpeter Kev: is there anything we'd like to push toward finishing? personally I'd like to at least get the MUC edits done
  83. MattJ Well, as a personal roadmap I still want to get archiving officially submitted
  84. Kev I'd like to get the MUC edits done, it'd be satisfying end.
  85. MattJ I don't think it's far off, I just need to schedule some weekend time to see it through
  86. stpeter MattJ: cool
  87. Kev Maybe I should get XEP-Correct submitted, it's been deployed for ages now.
  88. Tobias ages?
  89. stpeter Kev: and Kurt's security labels stuff perhaps
  90. linuxwolf /nod
  91. MattJ Tobias, internet ages :)
  92. Kev Labels are probably ready to advance, yeah.
  93. MattJ ie. weeks
  94. Kev Months!
  95. MattJ *gasp*
  96. linuxwolf focus
  97. stpeter consults http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-roadmap/
  98. Kev Does anyone have the official end of term date to hand?
  99. stpeter Kev: we don't know quite yet, depends on election schedule -- I'd think mid-October
  100. Kev OK.
  101. linuxwolf it's the meeting before counil/board elections? (-:
  102. stpeter ok, those seem like good priorities
  103. Kev I'm going to be wanting to miss three sessions starting 31st August, I think.
  104. Kev s/sessions/meetings/
  105. linuxwolf ok
  106. MattJ Ah, ouch, perhaps me too...
  107. MattJ Well, starting a little later
  108. linuxwolf eek
  109. stpeter Tobias: when you're finish with GSoC, perhaps we can try to finish off XEP-0234, too
  110. stpeter +ed
  111. Tobias sure
  112. MattJ I need to look at a calendar, but I don't know if I'll have internet for a couple of weeks from 8th September
  113. Kev So perhaps we'll have a couple of weeks off around the start of September, and come back to hurriedly vote everything through at the end of Sept / start of Aug.
  114. stpeter MattJ: ok
  115. stpeter right
  116. MattJ I rather likely shall, but... just in case
  117. linuxwolf Kev: you mean start of Oct
  118. Kev linuxwolf: Very probably.
  119. stpeter BTW I finished with XEP-0045 yesterday -- I'll start poking people for reviews
  120. ralphm For me, having Jingle and MUC progress seems reasonable for this term
  121. linuxwolf goes to kill some trees printing XEP-0045
  122. stpeter haha
  123. Kev Righty.
  124. stpeter that's all from me
  125. Kev 7) Next meeting
  126. Kev Next Wed?
  127. linuxwolf wfm
  128. stpeter WFM
  129. linuxwolf oh, I do have an AOB (-:
  130. ralphm aw, man!
  131. Kev MattJ / ralphm: next Wed?
  132. ralphm +1
  133. MattJ +1
  134. Kev 8) AOB.
  135. stpeter sheesh, next Wed is August 24th already?!?
  136. MattJ I know :/
  137. linuxwolf yup
  138. ralphm time flies
  139. linuxwolf anyhow...
  140. linuxwolf http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/keepalive.html
  141. linuxwolf we never did promote this or otherwise
  142. Kev ~I was told a million times of all the troubles in my way...
  143. ralphm ah yes, I chuckle everytime I see this one
  144. ralphm not that it is bad, by the way. Just all that added protocol for sending around whitespace
  145. linuxwolf /shrug
  146. ralphm I am +1 on making this experimental
  147. MattJ Part of me thinks we should scrap the negotiation and just leave it up to deployments (which is how it is done now)
  148. linuxwolf MattJ: the trick is in-office vs. mobile vs...
  149. linuxwolf I suppose one could run a set of connection managers in the "bad" places and another for the rest of us… (-:
  150. MattJ I don't think the case is very different, especially when 198 is in play
  151. MattJ A dropped connection is a dropped connection
  152. Kev So, shall we treat this as a ~vote?
  153. Kev I'm not strictly against throwing this up as experimental.
  154. Kev I'm not particularly in favour of it either.
  155. MattJ Me neither
  156. MattJ Who said we need to be more accepting? :)
  157. linuxwolf heh
  158. MattJ or was it more rejecting?
  159. Kev linuxwolf: So what's your position?
  160. stpeter I don't have strong feelings about this one -- we'll see if there's energy and interest
  161. MattJ Ok, then publish it as experimental and we'll see how it fares
  162. linuxwolf I'm +1 to experimental
  163. MattJ I see no reason not to, and that's enough for me
  164. Kev I don't see a technical reason to block it, so I'm not.
  165. ralphm that's that then
  166. Kev OK, I guess we should leave it a fortnight for Fritzy to comment or such, given that this fell through the gaps.
  167. MattJ Thanks linuxwolf for reviving it :)
  168. Kev Or 10 days, or whatever period we decided was right.
  169. linuxwolf this was first published a month ago
  170. ralphm what linuxwolf syas
  171. linuxwolf technically, we're well past that
  172. ralphm and I don't think it counts as a DNV
  173. linuxwolf and we did discuss it then, too
  174. Kev What did we conclude, then?
  175. ralphm nobody objected so nobody objecte
  176. ralphm d
  177. linuxwolf exactly
  178. linuxwolf (-:
  179. Kev I had remembered discussing it, was surprised it hadn't been actioned (yay, verbs)
  180. linuxwolf haha
  181. Kev I don't remember what we said at the time, though.
  182. Kev In any case, we're done unless someone else has OB.
  183. linuxwolf none of us present objected
  184. linuxwolf Fritzy had yet to comment
  185. linuxwolf and I think Ralphm joined too late to say something (-:
  186. Kev Righty.
  187. stpeter sigh, I have another conference call after this one :)
  188. Kev Yes, publish, then.
  189. Kev OK, I'm not hearing any other business, so thanks all.
  190. linuxwolf none from me
  191. Kev angs the avel.
  192. linuxwolf heh
  193. stpeter Kev: would you like to buy a "b"?
  194. Kev angs the bavel.
  195. stpeter :)
  196. linuxwolf oy vey
  197. MattJ :)
  198. MattJ Now, one more meeting before I can sleep...
  199. MattJ bbl
  200. stpeter thanks, guys
  201. Tobias has joined
  202. linuxwolf has left
  203. linuxwolf has joined
  204. Tobias has joined
  205. Tobias has left
  206. MattJ has left
  207. ralphm has left
  208. Tobias has joined
  209. Tobias on MUC finishing: wasn't there a discussion sometime back on using SASL for logging into protected rooms instead of specifying the plain text password?
  210. Kev Tobias: There was a discussion, yes.
  211. Tobias Kev, but nothing came out of it, right?
  212. Kev Right.
  213. stpeter I think that would be an extension
  214. stpeter I wrote an email about it at least but the feedback wasn't great :)
  215. Tobias yeah...just came to mind while working on something
  216. stpeter http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/remote-auth.html
  217. stpeter in fact more than an email :)
  218. stpeter feedback is welcome
  219. Tobias has left
  220. Tobias has joined
  221. stpeter ok, let me review the meeting log here and see what action items are required of the Editor :)
  222. stpeter well, apparently we need to wait for Fritzy to weigh in, so no actions for me
  223. linuxwolf has left
  224. linuxwolf has joined
  225. linuxwolf stpeter: actually, no, we're not waiting for fritzy (-:
  226. linuxwolf we had already discussed keepalive at the 7/20 meeting, with no objections from that session
  227. linuxwolf s/session/meeting/
  228. linuxwolf we're already well past the "no objections" time set by XEP 1
  229. Tobias has left
  230. linuxwolf has left
  231. linuxwolf has joined
  232. linuxwolf has left
  233. stpeter hmm, yes, linuxwolf is right about the keepalive spec
  234. stpeter has left