XMPP Council - 2011-09-28

  1. linuxwolf

    T −20? just enough time to get caffeine!

  2. Kev


  3. stpeter

    gosh, the identi.ca XMPP interface just seems to be dead, eh?

  4. Kev

    I don't know, I've not dented via XMPP for a long time.

  5. stpeter

    I gave up denting, for the most part

  6. stpeter

    because there's no XMPP interface any longer

  7. stpeter

    might as well just use Twitter at that point

  8. dwd

    I was astonished at how much more productive I became when I turned the XMPP feed off.

  9. stpeter

    dwd: you've become productive?!?

  10. dwd

    stpeter, More productive. Relative, not absolute.

  11. dwd

    Reminds me, I should probably update my Board application, given I have become even more managerial as of today. :-)

  12. stpeter

    dwd: congrats, I hope

  13. dwd

    stpeter, As "VP Engineering (XMPP)", I need that as a Form 538/B, in triplicate.

  14. dwd

    Mind you, no point in updating my board application if nobody else is standing. :-/

  15. stpeter

    dwd: recruitment in progress behind the scenes

  16. stpeter

    I'm also poking people about standing for Council

  17. Kev

    I'll be filling out a Council app at some point.

  18. stpeter

    OT: 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

  19. Kev

    That'd be nice.

  20. Kev

    Get a XEP published and I imagine we'd be interested in putting support in Swift :)

  21. Kev

    Ouch. Kindles just got silly-cheap. So very tempting.

  22. stpeter

    Kev: 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

  23. stpeter

    did they?

  24. Kev

    stpeter: Right. I was assuming OTR would be RFCd, and then a XEP would explain how to use it for XMPP.

  25. stpeter

    Kev: yes

  26. Kev

    I don't much care if an RFC defines how to use it for XMPP instead.

  27. stpeter

    Kev: or, probably

  28. Kev

    Just that there's an implementable spec.

  29. stpeter

    right :)

  30. Kev

    The article I'm reading says the base Kindle just became $79.

  31. Kev

    Had that happened a fortnight ago I'd have come home with one.

  32. stpeter

    I do think we'd want to at least define more Jabberish ways to discover support for OTR, but that's easy

  33. dwd

    Kev, UK prices haven't appeared to change.

  34. Kev

    dwd: Why would they? :)

  35. stpeter

    perhaps the price change hasn't take effect yet, still $114 at the website

  36. stpeter tries to finish an email to the hybi@ietf.org list before the Council meeting

  37. MattJ

    You're brave

  38. stpeter

    I'm the responsible AD so I'm trying to be responsible :)

  39. Kev

    And ... ding.

  40. Kev


  41. Kev

    1) Roll call

  42. Kev

    I'm here.

  43. linuxwolf


  44. ralphm

    and me

  45. MattJ

    me too

  46. Kev


  47. Kev

    2) 258-to-Draft.

  48. ralphm


  49. ralphm


  50. Kev

    ralphm: Mail thread was called 'Meeting 20110928'.

  51. ralphm


  52. ralphm

    I meant I want to bash it

  53. MattJ


  54. ralphm

    adding FOSDEM to it

  55. MattJ

    AOB? :)

  56. Kev

    Oh. We decided some weeks ago not to bash agendas in the meetings anymore, as you can do that on list prior.

  57. Kev

    Leave it for AOB :)

  58. stpeter

    by "258-to-Draft" you mean "issuing a Last Call", not voting, right?

  59. Kev

    stpeter: I do.

  60. linuxwolf


  61. MattJ

    Great, I'm +1 then

  62. linuxwolf

    +1 also

  63. Kev

    Or, rather, I mean "The Author's requested we consider it for advancement to Draft, so we should vote on Last Calling it".

  64. MattJ

    Security labels may become one of my favourite XEPs

  65. MattJ

    I have favourite XEPs, wow.

  66. ralphm


  67. Kev

    I have a long-standing grumble about hierachies being a nuisance to represent, but I'm +1 on LCing.

  68. ralphm

    MattJ: that took a while

  69. MattJ


  70. ralphm

    Kev: nod

  71. stpeter

    this will force me to finally read it carefully

  72. linuxwolf


  73. dwd

    MattJ, How can you like 258? Not even a prime number.

  74. linuxwolf goes to kill a branch

  75. Kev


  76. Kev

    3) MUC-unique.

  77. MattJ


  78. ralphm

    linuxwolf: you hate trees?

  79. linuxwolf

    well, it's certainly started a conversation at least

  80. linuxwolf

    ralphm: yes, and I demonstrate it by printing XEPs and RFCs

  81. MattJ

    How about we publish it as experimental, and have people put their code where their mouth is? :)

  82. linuxwolf

    I've no objections to accepting it

  83. Kev

    I think I'm the last person who wanted to keep it, and I've finally accepted that it can die.

  84. linuxwolf


  85. Kev

    But I've no objection to accepting it.

  86. MattJ

    It'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

  87. MattJ

    It's already implemented in places, so having that document would be useful regardless

  88. Kev

    It does offer things that client-generated things don't.

  89. linuxwolf


  90. linuxwolf


  91. ralphm

    +1 on accepting MUC-unique

  92. dwd

    FWIW, M-Link implements MUC-unique, but I don't think it needs to be in the core spec.

  93. linuxwolf

    it would be more efficient than what a client can do by itself, but it is possible to do unique rooms with only a client

  94. ralphm

    Although I wondered if we shouldn't just make an iq set for creating the room

  95. MattJ

    linuxwolf, in 99.9999999999% of cases it would be less efficient than the client just making up a room name

  96. linuxwolf

    ralphm: that boat sailed many years ago…unless we work on MUC-NG (-:

  97. ralphm

    linuxwolf: I don't see how it would interfere with XEP-0045

  98. Kev

    linuxwolf: 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.

  99. linuxwolf

    MattJ: slightly less efficient (-:

  100. ralphm

    now rooms are simply created implicitly

  101. Kev

    In any case. We've all agreed to accept it, so yay.

  102. linuxwolf

    Kev: sure, I get that, but it's not like a client can't make the same guarantees before it displays the room GUI

  103. ralphm

    and there would be no reason add protocol to create rooms explicitly

  104. Kev

    4) Date of next meeting. Peter said he wasn't around next week, I think. Do we want a meeting regardless?

  105. linuxwolf

    I should know, I've implemented that to customers' satisfaction in the past

  106. linuxwolf


  107. ralphm

    expecially if you need to do something special for creating unique ones

  108. ralphm

    especially, too

  109. MattJ

    I've no objection to meeting without stpeter if there's stuff to discuss

  110. linuxwolf

    regarding next meeting, next still works for me…if we have something to do

  111. stpeter

    right, I shan't be online then

  112. MattJ

    if stpeter has no objection to us meeting without him, which I suspect he won't :)

  113. Kev

    Ok, shall we plan for next week, and skip it if we lack things that need action.

  114. linuxwolf

    stpeter: staycation afficianado!

  115. ralphm


  116. stpeter

    MattJ: no objections here

  117. MattJ


  118. linuxwolf


  119. Kev

    SBTSBC, then.

  120. Kev

    6) AOB.

  121. Kev


  122. stpeter

    I'll add the meeting to the calendar

  123. Kev


  124. ralphm

    I'll request a room

  125. MattJ


  126. Kev


  127. Kev

    Anything else?

  128. linuxwolf

    nay from me

  129. MattJ

    Me neither

  130. ralphm

    Who's planning on going"?

  131. dwd

    To FOSDEM? I will be.

  132. linuxwolf

    I'll have to see

  133. Kev

    I imagine I'll be, short of fluishness.

  134. MattJ

    I'll be going

  135. stpeter

    not sure yet

  136. MattJ

    Kev, it wasn't the same without you... :)

  137. linuxwolf


  138. Kev

    I'm sure. 'Not the same' covers a multitude of sins.

  139. Kev

    Ok, I think we're done then.

  140. MattJ


  141. Kev

    Thanks all.

  142. linuxwolf


  143. Kev bangs the gavel.

  144. linuxwolf waves

  145. ralphm rides the waves

  146. MattJ


  147. Kev

    Re: New Kindles.

  148. Kev

    Sems they've now hit the .com and .co.uk websites.

  149. Kev

    So .com now offers for $79

  150. Kev

    and .co.uk now offers for £89.

  151. dwd

    Indeed... I wonder how much the 3G version is.

  152. Kev


  153. MattJ

    Spotify Premium UK: £10, Spotify Premium US: $10

  154. Kev

    According to the homepage.

  155. Kev

    MattJ: Yes, that's fairly normal.

  156. Kev

    Costing *more* in absolute GBP than USD is quite impressive, though.

  157. stpeter

    yep, http://www.amazon.com/ has been updated here too

  158. dwd

    Oh, I see - this is a new keyboard-less kindle.

  159. stpeter

    which, the Touch?

  160. Kev


  161. stpeter finishes his email to the hybi wg

  162. Kev

    Or all three, rather.

  163. MattJ

    FWIW a Kindle died on me last night

  164. MattJ

    to make matters worse, it wasn't mine

  165. stpeter


  166. linuxwolf


  167. MattJ

    The screen has failed somehow, half of it is frozen and won't update

  168. linuxwolf

    my nookColor is still going strong

  169. MattJ

    I prefer e-ink :)

  170. stpeter

    the books I read never experience screen failure

  171. linuxwolf

    MattJ: I learned to give up and love the LCD (-:

  172. linuxwolf

    it works well enough for me on the bus and at bus stops

  173. MattJ

    stpeter, that's the first thing someone said to me :)

  174. linuxwolf

    which are largely outdoors

  175. stpeter


  176. MattJ

    Unfortunately the books I wanted to take with me to the US wouldn't fit in my suitcase

  177. stpeter

    MattJ: yeah, there is that

  178. stpeter thinks of his upcoming trip to Taipei

  179. linuxwolf


  180. stpeter

    email sent, tweet posted :P

  181. stpeter

    aha, if you want the cheaper prices on the Kindles then you must agree to receive "special offer" screensavers -- advertising FTW

  182. MattJ


  183. ralphm

    no such thing as a free lunch

  184. stpeter

    TANSTAAFL, baby!

  185. linuxwolf

    more bikesheds!

  186. stpeter

    well it looks like I'll be around for next week's Council meeting, change of PTO plans...

  187. linuxwolf

    oh no

  188. ralphm

    let's paint it red

  189. stpeter