stpetergosh, the identi.ca XMPP interface just seems to be dead, eh?
KevI don't know, I've not dented via XMPP for a long time.
stpeterI gave up denting, for the most part
stpeterbecause there's no XMPP interface any longer
stpetermight as well just use Twitter at that point
dwdI was astonished at how much more productive I became when I turned the XMPP feed off.
stpeterdwd: you've become productive?!?
dwdstpeter, More productive. Relative, not absolute.
dwdReminds me, I should probably update my Board application, given I have become even more managerial as of today. :-)
stpeterdwd: congrats, I hope
dwdstpeter, As "VP Engineering (XMPP)", I need that as a Form 538/B, in triplicate.
dwdMind you, no point in updating my board application if nobody else is standing. :-/
stpeterdwd: recruitment in progress behind the scenes
stpeterI'm also poking people about standing for Council
vt100has joined
KevI'll be filling out a Council app at some point.
stpeterOT: I'm chatting in another tab with one of the OTR guys, and we're aiming to publish an initial Internet-Draft by the end of October
KevThat'd be nice.
KevGet a XEP published and I imagine we'd be interested in putting support in Swift :)
MattJhas joined
KevOuch. Kindles just got silly-cheap. So very tempting.
stpeterKev: given that OTR is not an XMPP-specific technology (or even XMPP-friendly at this point, although I hope to influence its direction in that regard), I think the IETF is the right place to publish this spec
stpeterdid they?
Kevstpeter: Right. I was assuming OTR would be RFCd, and then a XEP would explain how to use it for XMPP.
stpeterKev: yes
KevI don't much care if an RFC defines how to use it for XMPP instead.
stpeterKev: or, probably
KevJust that there's an implementable spec.
stpeterright :)
KevThe article I'm reading says the base Kindle just became $79.
KevHad that happened a fortnight ago I'd have come home with one.
stpeterI do think we'd want to at least define more Jabberish ways to discover support for OTR, but that's easy
dwdKev, UK prices haven't appeared to change.
Kevdwd: Why would they? :)
stpeterperhaps the price change hasn't take effect yet, still $114 at the website
ralphmhas joined
stpetertries to finish an email to the hybi@ietf.org list before the Council meeting
MattJYou're brave
stpeterI'm the responsible AD so I'm trying to be responsible :)
KevAnd ... ding.
Koodahas joined
KevSo.
Kev1) Roll call
KevI'm here.
linuxwolfpresente
ralphmand me
MattJme too
KevExcellents.
Kev2) 258-to-Draft.
ralphmeh
ralphmagenda?
Kevralphm: Mail thread was called 'Meeting 20110928'.
ralphmheh
ralphmI meant I want to bash it
MattJHa
ralphmadding FOSDEM to it
MattJAOB? :)
KevOh. We decided some weeks ago not to bash agendas in the meetings anymore, as you can do that on list prior.
KevLeave it for AOB :)
stpeterby "258-to-Draft" you mean "issuing a Last Call", not voting, right?
Kevstpeter: I do.
linuxwolf(-:
MattJGreat, I'm +1 then
linuxwolf+1 also
KevOr, rather, I mean "The Author's requested we consider it for advancement to Draft, so we should vote on Last Calling it".
MattJSecurity labels may become one of my favourite XEPs
MattJI have favourite XEPs, wow.
ralphm+1
KevI have a long-standing grumble about hierachies being a nuisance to represent, but I'm +1 on LCing.
ralphmMattJ: that took a while
MattJHeh
ralphmKev: nod
stpeterthis will force me to finally read it carefully
linuxwolfheh
dwdMattJ, How can you like 258? Not even a prime number.
linuxwolfgoes to kill a branch
KevOk.
Kev3) MUC-unique.
MattJYes...
ralphmlinuxwolf: you hate trees?
linuxwolfwell, it's certainly started a conversation at least
linuxwolfralphm: yes, and I demonstrate it by printing XEPs and RFCs
MattJHow about we publish it as experimental, and have people put their code where their mouth is? :)
linuxwolfI've no objections to accepting it
KevI think I'm the last person who wanted to keep it, and I've finally accepted that it can die.
linuxwolfheh
KevBut I've no objection to accepting it.
MattJIt's not the end of the world if it dies, but I see no reason to when some people are in favour of keeping it
MattJIt's already implemented in places, so having that document would be useful regardless
KevIt does offer things that client-generated things don't.
linuxwolf/nod
linuxwolfeh
ralphm+1 on accepting MUC-unique
dwdFWIW, M-Link implements MUC-unique, but I don't think it needs to be in the core spec.
linuxwolfit would be more efficient than what a client can do by itself, but it is possible to do unique rooms with only a client
ralphmAlthough I wondered if we shouldn't just make an iq set for creating the room
MattJlinuxwolf, in 99.9999999999% of cases it would be less efficient than the client just making up a room name
linuxwolfralphm: that boat sailed many years ago…unless we work on MUC-NG (-:
ralphmlinuxwolf: I don't see how it would interfere with XEP-0045
Kevlinuxwolf: It is possible to make unique rooms with only a client. MUC-Unique lets the server do more than guarantee unique room names, if it so wishes.
linuxwolfMattJ: slightly less efficient (-:
ralphmnow rooms are simply created implicitly
KevIn any case. We've all agreed to accept it, so yay.
linuxwolfKev: sure, I get that, but it's not like a client can't make the same guarantees before it displays the room GUI
ralphmand there would be no reason add protocol to create rooms explicitly
Kev4) Date of next meeting.
Peter said he wasn't around next week, I think. Do we want a meeting regardless?
linuxwolfI should know, I've implemented that to customers' satisfaction in the past
linuxwolf(-:
ralphmexpecially if you need to do something special for creating unique ones
ralphmespecially, too
MattJI've no objection to meeting without stpeter if there's stuff to discuss
linuxwolfregarding next meeting, next still works for me…if we have something to do
stpeterright, I shan't be online then
MattJif stpeter has no objection to us meeting without him, which I suspect he won't :)
KevOk, shall we plan for next week, and skip it if we lack things that need action.
linuxwolfstpeter: staycation afficianado!
ralphm+1
stpeterMattJ: no objections here
MattJ+1
linuxwolf+1
KevSBTSBC, then.
Kev6) AOB.
KevFOSDEM!
stpeterI'll add the meeting to the calendar
KevThanks.
ralphmI'll request a room
linuxwolfhas left
linuxwolfhas joined
MattJThanks
KevThanks.
KevAnything else?
linuxwolfnay from me
MattJMe neither
ralphmWho's planning on going"?
dwdTo FOSDEM? I will be.
linuxwolfI'll have to see
KevI imagine I'll be, short of fluishness.
MattJI'll be going
stpeternot sure yet
MattJKev, it wasn't the same without you... :)
linuxwolf(-:
KevI'm sure. 'Not the same' covers a multitude of sins.
KevOk, I think we're done then.
MattJHeh
KevThanks all.
linuxwolfgrazie
Kevbangs the gavel.
vt100has left
linuxwolfwaves
ralphmrides the waves
MattJThanks
linuxwolfhas left
linuxwolfhas joined
KevRe: New Kindles.
KevSems they've now hit the .com and .co.uk websites.