XMPP Council - 2011-08-17

13:05:02 linuxwolf has joined
14:54:11 stpeter has joined
14:58:56 ralphm has joined
15:00:13 stpeter greetings
15:00:29 linuxwolf waves
15:00:43 ralphm Goeiemiddag!
15:00:48 stpeter :)
15:01:19 Kev Afternoon.
15:02:24 stpeter joins a concurrent conference call
15:02:30 linuxwolf heh
15:02:48 stpeter I'm the IESG liaison to the IETF Tools Team :)
15:03:05 ralphm I am doing a release
15:03:24 Kev Wonderful.
15:03:32 Kev We're all at the top of our game then :)
15:03:43 stpeter heh
15:03:48 linuxwolf (-:
15:04:17 Kev MattJ's on his way.
15:04:38 Kev 1) Roll call.
15:04:40 Kev I'm here.
15:04:41 MattJ has joined
15:04:41 linuxwolf presente
15:04:48 MattJ Me too!
15:04:48 Kev Fritzy sent apologies.
15:05:26 stpeter yep, saw that
15:05:34 Tobias has joined
15:05:34 Kev Righty, I'll assume ralphm's still here.
15:05:53 Kev 2) Agenda bashing^w^w http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0260.html - move to draft?
15:06:11 Kev We've still not got much feedback on this, but I think we've probably got all we're likely to now.
15:06:17 linuxwolf /nod
15:06:23 ralphm yes
15:06:26 MattJ Yeah, I'm prepared to +1 it
15:06:26 Kev Without invoking thumbscrews, anyway.
15:06:32 stpeter :)
15:06:34 MattJ It's always an option ;)
15:06:38 linuxwolf heh
15:06:42 linuxwolf +1, btw
15:06:47 ralphm +1
15:06:57 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.
15:07:02 Kev Depending how fun work is.
15:07:07 stpeter Kev: thanks
15:07:30 Kev We'll be waiting for Nathan's vote anyway, so hopefully I'm not holding things up.
15:07:41 Kev 3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0261.html - move to draft?
15:07:43 Kev Same applies from me.
15:07:54 linuxwolf +1 also
15:08:04 MattJ Ditto
15:08:06 ralphm +1
15:08:27 stpeter MattJ: what does "Ditto" mean for you?
15:08:53 Kev "as above"
15:09:00 linuxwolf his above, or yours? (-:
15:09:05 MattJ stpeter, same again
15:09:10 Kev 4) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/quickstart.html to experimental
15:09:24 Kev +1 here, although we can shave a bit more off.
15:09:52 stpeter MattJ: does "Ditto" mean "It's always an option ;)" for XEP-0261, too? or is that +1 to both? :)
15:10:07 linuxwolf I'm +1 on quickstart
15:10:11 stpeter Kev: yes, that was a rough "think piece" -- it needs polishing for sure
15:10:30 MattJ stpeter, it's +1, with linuxwolf and Kev (provisionally)
15:11:10 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
15:11:15 Kev ralphm: Quickstart?
15:11:16 stpeter ok
15:11:18 ralphm +1
15:11:27 MattJ But as I recall it was mostly editorial (and I think they may have been long fixed)
15:11:27 Kev MattJ: Quickstart?
15:11:39 ralphm there seems to be some room for improvement according to some
15:11:40 MattJ Quickstart... +1 for acceptance
15:11:48 Kev ralphm: Always :)
15:11:53 Kev 5) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mucstatus.html - Experimental?
15:12:00 MattJ I haven't read the ML threads on it at all, but I think it's a good start
15:12:01 Kev +1 from me.
15:12:09 MattJ +1 too
15:12:10 ralphm +1. I was wondering if a new namespace is needed but other than that, yay?
15:12:25 linuxwolf +1 also
15:12:32 Kev Fab.
15:12:55 stpeter ralphm: you think we could use an existing namespace?
15:12:55 Kev 6) Roadmap for the rest of the session.
15:13:01 stpeter n/m
15:13:11 ralphm stpeter: I believe the conditions would only be used in muc#user
15:13:16 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 :)
15:13:21 stpeter haha
15:13:25 Kev stpeter: What were you thinking of?
15:13:31 ralphm so we could maybe just make <conditions/> and its childs part of that namespace
15:13:36 stpeter "what were you thinking?!" :)
15:13:57 stpeter Kev: is there anything we'd like to push toward finishing? personally I'd like to at least get the MUC edits done
15:14:16 MattJ Well, as a personal roadmap I still want to get archiving officially submitted
15:14:20 Kev I'd like to get the MUC edits done, it'd be satisfying end.
15:14:28 MattJ I don't think it's far off, I just need to schedule some weekend time to see it through
15:14:33 stpeter MattJ: cool
15:14:40 Kev Maybe I should get XEP-Correct submitted, it's been deployed for ages now.
15:14:51 Tobias ages?
15:14:54 stpeter Kev: and Kurt's security labels stuff perhaps
15:15:01 linuxwolf /nod
15:15:07 MattJ Tobias, internet ages :)
15:15:09 Kev Labels are probably ready to advance, yeah.
15:15:12 MattJ ie. weeks
15:15:18 Kev Months!
15:15:22 MattJ *gasp*
15:15:28 linuxwolf focus
15:15:28 stpeter consults http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-roadmap/
15:15:42 Kev Does anyone have the official end of term date to hand?
15:16:01 stpeter Kev: we don't know quite yet, depends on election schedule -- I'd think mid-October
15:16:05 Kev OK.
15:16:07 linuxwolf it's the meeting before counil/board elections? (-:
15:16:13 stpeter ok, those seem like good priorities
15:16:21 Kev I'm going to be wanting to miss three sessions starting 31st August, I think.
15:16:27 Kev s/sessions/meetings/
15:16:37 linuxwolf ok
15:16:38 MattJ Ah, ouch, perhaps me too...
15:16:43 MattJ Well, starting a little later
15:16:50 linuxwolf eek
15:16:51 stpeter Tobias: when you're finish with GSoC, perhaps we can try to finish off XEP-0234, too
15:17:02 stpeter +ed
15:17:02 Tobias sure
15:17:06 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
15:17:11 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.
15:17:13 stpeter MattJ: ok
15:17:18 stpeter right
15:17:19 MattJ I rather likely shall, but... just in case
15:17:29 linuxwolf Kev: you mean start of Oct
15:17:38 Kev linuxwolf: Very probably.
15:17:40 stpeter BTW I finished with XEP-0045 yesterday -- I'll start poking people for reviews
15:17:44 ralphm For me, having Jingle and MUC progress seems reasonable for this term
15:17:58 linuxwolf goes to kill some trees printing XEP-0045
15:18:07 stpeter haha
15:18:17 Kev Righty.
15:18:19 stpeter that's all from me
15:18:21 Kev 7) Next meeting
15:18:24 Kev Next Wed?
15:18:29 linuxwolf wfm
15:18:30 stpeter WFM
15:18:35 linuxwolf oh, I do have an AOB (-:
15:18:49 ralphm aw, man!
15:18:57 Kev MattJ / ralphm: next Wed?
15:19:00 ralphm +1
15:19:02 MattJ +1
15:19:07 Kev 8) AOB.
15:19:10 stpeter sheesh, next Wed is August 24th already?!?
15:19:15 MattJ I know :/
15:19:16 linuxwolf yup
15:19:17 ralphm time flies
15:19:22 linuxwolf anyhow...
15:19:23 linuxwolf http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/keepalive.html
15:19:34 linuxwolf we never did promote this or otherwise
15:19:42 Kev ~I was told a million times of all the troubles in my way...
15:19:53 ralphm ah yes, I chuckle everytime I see this one
15:20:46 ralphm not that it is bad, by the way. Just all that added protocol for sending around whitespace
15:20:53 linuxwolf /shrug
15:20:58 ralphm I am +1 on making this experimental
15:21:23 MattJ Part of me thinks we should scrap the negotiation and just leave it up to deployments (which is how it is done now)
15:21:41 linuxwolf MattJ: the trick is in-office vs. mobile vs...
15:22:02 linuxwolf I suppose one could run a set of connection managers in the "bad" places and another for the rest of us… (-:
15:22:03 MattJ I don't think the case is very different, especially when 198 is in play
15:22:17 MattJ A dropped connection is a dropped connection
15:22:47 Kev So, shall we treat this as a ~vote?
15:22:57 Kev I'm not strictly against throwing this up as experimental.
15:23:09 Kev I'm not particularly in favour of it either.
15:23:15 MattJ Me neither
15:23:23 MattJ Who said we need to be more accepting? :)
15:23:29 linuxwolf heh
15:23:31 MattJ or was it more rejecting?
15:23:41 Kev linuxwolf: So what's your position?
15:23:47 stpeter I don't have strong feelings about this one -- we'll see if there's energy and interest
15:24:02 MattJ Ok, then publish it as experimental and we'll see how it fares
15:24:12 linuxwolf I'm +1 to experimental
15:24:16 MattJ I see no reason not to, and that's enough for me
15:24:18 Kev I don't see a technical reason to block it, so I'm not.
15:24:32 ralphm that's that then
15:24:33 Kev OK, I guess we should leave it a fortnight for Fritzy to comment or such, given that this fell through the gaps.
15:24:44 MattJ Thanks linuxwolf for reviving it :)
15:24:44 Kev Or 10 days, or whatever period we decided was right.
15:24:46 linuxwolf this was first published a month ago
15:24:55 ralphm what linuxwolf syas
15:24:57 linuxwolf technically, we're well past that
15:25:04 ralphm and I don't think it counts as a DNV
15:25:07 linuxwolf and we did discuss it then, too
15:25:14 Kev What did we conclude, then?
15:25:15 ralphm nobody objected so nobody objecte
15:25:16 ralphm d
15:25:27 linuxwolf exactly
15:25:28 linuxwolf (-:
15:25:30 Kev I had remembered discussing it, was surprised it hadn't been actioned (yay, verbs)
15:25:39 linuxwolf haha
15:25:43 Kev I don't remember what we said at the time, though.
15:25:53 Kev In any case, we're done unless someone else has OB.
15:25:54 linuxwolf none of us present objected
15:26:02 linuxwolf Fritzy had yet to comment
15:26:13 linuxwolf and I think Ralphm joined too late to say something (-:
15:26:21 Kev Righty.
15:26:23 stpeter sigh, I have another conference call after this one :)
15:26:24 Kev Yes, publish, then.
15:26:33 Kev OK, I'm not hearing any other business, so thanks all.
15:26:40 linuxwolf none from me
15:26:48 Kev angs the avel.
15:26:56 linuxwolf heh
15:27:04 stpeter Kev: would you like to buy a "b"?
15:27:16 Kev angs the bavel.
15:27:22 stpeter :)
15:27:30 linuxwolf oy vey
15:30:08 MattJ :)
15:30:17 MattJ Now, one more meeting before I can sleep...
15:30:22 MattJ bbl
15:33:00 stpeter thanks, guys
15:43:44 Tobias has joined
16:07:12 linuxwolf has left
16:07:22 linuxwolf has joined
16:11:43 Tobias has joined
16:12:25 Tobias has left
16:50:19 MattJ has left
17:23:25 ralphm has left
17:31:11 Tobias has joined
17:32:09 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?
17:33:03 Kev Tobias: There was a discussion, yes.
17:33:37 Tobias Kev, but nothing came out of it, right?
17:34:04 Kev Right.
17:34:32 stpeter I think that would be an extension
17:34:46 stpeter I wrote an email about it at least but the feedback wasn't great :)
17:34:57 Tobias yeah...just came to mind while working on something
17:35:07 stpeter http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/remote-auth.html
17:35:15 stpeter in fact more than an email :)
17:35:35 stpeter feedback is welcome
18:11:48 Tobias has left
18:49:24 Tobias has joined
19:42:08 stpeter ok, let me review the meeting log here and see what action items are required of the Editor :)
19:44:00 stpeter well, apparently we need to wait for Fritzy to weigh in, so no actions for me
20:06:55 linuxwolf has left
20:08:01 linuxwolf has joined
20:08:23 linuxwolf stpeter: actually, no, we're not waiting for fritzy (-:
20:10:22 linuxwolf we had already discussed keepalive at the 7/20 meeting, with no objections from that session
20:10:28 linuxwolf s/session/meeting/
20:11:22 linuxwolf we're already well past the "no objections" time set by XEP 1
21:23:53 Tobias has left
22:33:38 linuxwolf has left
22:35:15 linuxwolf has joined
22:35:25 linuxwolf has left
23:00:59 stpeter hmm, yes, linuxwolf is right about the keepalive spec
23:04:26 stpeter has left