XMPP Council - 2011-08-17

  1. linuxwolf has joined

  2. stpeter has joined

  3. ralphm has joined

  4. stpeter


  5. linuxwolf waves

  6. ralphm


  7. stpeter


  8. Kev


  9. stpeter joins a concurrent conference call

  10. linuxwolf


  11. stpeter

    I'm the IESG liaison to the IETF Tools Team :)

  12. ralphm

    I am doing a release

  13. Kev


  14. Kev

    We're all at the top of our game then :)

  15. stpeter


  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


  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


  30. ralphm


  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


  36. linuxwolf

    +1, btw

  37. ralphm


  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


  46. ralphm


  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


  60. ralphm


  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


  73. stpeter

    ralphm: you think we could use an existing namespace?

  74. Kev

    6) Roadmap for the rest of the session.

  75. stpeter


  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


  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


  89. stpeter

    Kev: and Kurt's security labels stuff perhaps

  90. linuxwolf


  91. MattJ

    Tobias, internet ages :)

  92. Kev

    Labels are probably ready to advance, yeah.

  93. MattJ

    ie. weeks

  94. Kev


  95. MattJ


  96. linuxwolf


  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


  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


  105. linuxwolf


  106. MattJ

    Ah, ouch, perhaps me too...

  107. MattJ

    Well, starting a little later

  108. linuxwolf


  109. stpeter

    Tobias: when you're finish with GSoC, perhaps we can try to finish off XEP-0234, too

  110. stpeter


  111. Tobias


  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


  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


  123. Kev


  124. stpeter

    that's all from me

  125. Kev

    7) Next meeting

  126. Kev

    Next Wed?

  127. linuxwolf


  128. stpeter


  129. linuxwolf

    oh, I do have an AOB (-:

  130. ralphm

    aw, man!

  131. Kev

    MattJ / ralphm: next Wed?

  132. ralphm


  133. MattJ


  134. Kev

    8) AOB.

  135. stpeter

    sheesh, next Wed is August 24th already?!?

  136. MattJ

    I know :/

  137. linuxwolf


  138. ralphm

    time flies

  139. linuxwolf


  140. linuxwolf


  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


  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


  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


  177. linuxwolf


  178. linuxwolf


  179. Kev

    I had remembered discussing it, was surprised it hadn't been actioned (yay, verbs)

  180. linuxwolf


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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