XMPP Council - 2011-09-28

  1. dwd has left
  2. dwd has joined
  3. Kev has left
  4. Kev has joined
  5. Kev has left
  6. Kev has joined
  7. linuxwolf has left
  8. Kooda has joined
  9. linuxwolf has joined
  10. stpeter has joined
  11. linuxwolf T −20? just enough time to get caffeine!
  12. Kev Yep.
  13. stpeter gosh, the identi.ca XMPP interface just seems to be dead, eh?
  14. Kev I don't know, I've not dented via XMPP for a long time.
  15. stpeter I gave up denting, for the most part
  16. stpeter because there's no XMPP interface any longer
  17. stpeter might as well just use Twitter at that point
  18. dwd I was astonished at how much more productive I became when I turned the XMPP feed off.
  19. stpeter dwd: you've become productive?!?
  20. dwd stpeter, More productive. Relative, not absolute.
  21. dwd Reminds me, I should probably update my Board application, given I have become even more managerial as of today. :-)
  22. stpeter dwd: congrats, I hope
  23. dwd stpeter, As "VP Engineering (XMPP)", I need that as a Form 538/B, in triplicate.
  24. dwd Mind you, no point in updating my board application if nobody else is standing. :-/
  25. stpeter dwd: recruitment in progress behind the scenes
  26. stpeter I'm also poking people about standing for Council
  27. vt100 has joined
  28. Kev I'll be filling out a Council app at some point.
  29. 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
  30. Kev That'd be nice.
  31. Kev Get a XEP published and I imagine we'd be interested in putting support in Swift :)
  32. MattJ has joined
  33. Kev Ouch. Kindles just got silly-cheap. So very tempting.
  34. 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
  35. stpeter did they?
  36. Kev stpeter: Right. I was assuming OTR would be RFCd, and then a XEP would explain how to use it for XMPP.
  37. stpeter Kev: yes
  38. Kev I don't much care if an RFC defines how to use it for XMPP instead.
  39. stpeter Kev: or, probably
  40. Kev Just that there's an implementable spec.
  41. stpeter right :)
  42. Kev The article I'm reading says the base Kindle just became $79.
  43. Kev Had that happened a fortnight ago I'd have come home with one.
  44. stpeter I do think we'd want to at least define more Jabberish ways to discover support for OTR, but that's easy
  45. dwd Kev, UK prices haven't appeared to change.
  46. Kev dwd: Why would they? :)
  47. stpeter perhaps the price change hasn't take effect yet, still $114 at the website
  48. ralphm has joined
  49. stpeter tries to finish an email to the hybi@ietf.org list before the Council meeting
  50. MattJ You're brave
  51. stpeter I'm the responsible AD so I'm trying to be responsible :)
  52. Kev And ... ding.
  53. Kooda has joined
  54. Kev So.
  55. Kev 1) Roll call
  56. Kev I'm here.
  57. linuxwolf presente
  58. ralphm and me
  59. MattJ me too
  60. Kev Excellents.
  61. Kev 2) 258-to-Draft.
  62. ralphm eh
  63. ralphm agenda?
  64. Kev ralphm: Mail thread was called 'Meeting 20110928'.
  65. ralphm heh
  66. ralphm I meant I want to bash it
  67. MattJ Ha
  68. ralphm adding FOSDEM to it
  69. MattJ AOB? :)
  70. Kev Oh. We decided some weeks ago not to bash agendas in the meetings anymore, as you can do that on list prior.
  71. Kev Leave it for AOB :)
  72. stpeter by "258-to-Draft" you mean "issuing a Last Call", not voting, right?
  73. Kev stpeter: I do.
  74. linuxwolf (-:
  75. MattJ Great, I'm +1 then
  76. linuxwolf +1 also
  77. Kev Or, rather, I mean "The Author's requested we consider it for advancement to Draft, so we should vote on Last Calling it".
  78. MattJ Security labels may become one of my favourite XEPs
  79. MattJ I have favourite XEPs, wow.
  80. ralphm +1
  81. Kev I have a long-standing grumble about hierachies being a nuisance to represent, but I'm +1 on LCing.
  82. ralphm MattJ: that took a while
  83. MattJ Heh
  84. ralphm Kev: nod
  85. stpeter this will force me to finally read it carefully
  86. linuxwolf heh
  87. dwd MattJ, How can you like 258? Not even a prime number.
  88. linuxwolf goes to kill a branch
  89. Kev Ok.
  90. Kev 3) MUC-unique.
  91. MattJ Yes...
  92. ralphm linuxwolf: you hate trees?
  93. linuxwolf well, it's certainly started a conversation at least
  94. linuxwolf ralphm: yes, and I demonstrate it by printing XEPs and RFCs
  95. MattJ How about we publish it as experimental, and have people put their code where their mouth is? :)
  96. linuxwolf I've no objections to accepting it
  97. Kev I think I'm the last person who wanted to keep it, and I've finally accepted that it can die.
  98. linuxwolf heh
  99. Kev But I've no objection to accepting it.
  100. 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
  101. MattJ It's already implemented in places, so having that document would be useful regardless
  102. Kev It does offer things that client-generated things don't.
  103. linuxwolf /nod
  104. linuxwolf eh
  105. ralphm +1 on accepting MUC-unique
  106. dwd FWIW, M-Link implements MUC-unique, but I don't think it needs to be in the core spec.
  107. 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
  108. ralphm Although I wondered if we shouldn't just make an iq set for creating the room
  109. MattJ linuxwolf, in 99.9999999999% of cases it would be less efficient than the client just making up a room name
  110. linuxwolf ralphm: that boat sailed many years ago…unless we work on MUC-NG (-:
  111. ralphm linuxwolf: I don't see how it would interfere with XEP-0045
  112. 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.
  113. linuxwolf MattJ: slightly less efficient (-:
  114. ralphm now rooms are simply created implicitly
  115. Kev In any case. We've all agreed to accept it, so yay.
  116. 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
  117. ralphm and there would be no reason add protocol to create rooms explicitly
  118. Kev 4) Date of next meeting. Peter said he wasn't around next week, I think. Do we want a meeting regardless?
  119. linuxwolf I should know, I've implemented that to customers' satisfaction in the past
  120. linuxwolf (-:
  121. ralphm expecially if you need to do something special for creating unique ones
  122. ralphm especially, too
  123. MattJ I've no objection to meeting without stpeter if there's stuff to discuss
  124. linuxwolf regarding next meeting, next still works for me…if we have something to do
  125. stpeter right, I shan't be online then
  126. MattJ if stpeter has no objection to us meeting without him, which I suspect he won't :)
  127. Kev Ok, shall we plan for next week, and skip it if we lack things that need action.
  128. linuxwolf stpeter: staycation afficianado!
  129. ralphm +1
  130. stpeter MattJ: no objections here
  131. MattJ +1
  132. linuxwolf +1
  133. Kev SBTSBC, then.
  134. Kev 6) AOB.
  135. Kev FOSDEM!
  136. stpeter I'll add the meeting to the calendar
  137. Kev Thanks.
  138. ralphm I'll request a room
  139. linuxwolf has left
  140. linuxwolf has joined
  141. MattJ Thanks
  142. Kev Thanks.
  143. Kev Anything else?
  144. linuxwolf nay from me
  145. MattJ Me neither
  146. ralphm Who's planning on going"?
  147. dwd To FOSDEM? I will be.
  148. linuxwolf I'll have to see
  149. Kev I imagine I'll be, short of fluishness.
  150. MattJ I'll be going
  151. stpeter not sure yet
  152. MattJ Kev, it wasn't the same without you... :)
  153. linuxwolf (-:
  154. Kev I'm sure. 'Not the same' covers a multitude of sins.
  155. Kev Ok, I think we're done then.
  156. MattJ Heh
  157. Kev Thanks all.
  158. linuxwolf grazie
  159. Kev bangs the gavel.
  160. vt100 has left
  161. linuxwolf waves
  162. ralphm rides the waves
  163. MattJ Thanks
  164. linuxwolf has left
  165. linuxwolf has joined
  166. Kev Re: New Kindles.
  167. Kev Sems they've now hit the .com and .co.uk websites.
  168. Kev So .com now offers for $79
  169. Kev and .co.uk now offers for £89.
  170. dwd Indeed... I wonder how much the 3G version is.
  171. Kev £149
  172. MattJ Spotify Premium UK: £10, Spotify Premium US: $10
  173. Kev According to the homepage.
  174. Kev MattJ: Yes, that's fairly normal.
  175. Kev Costing *more* in absolute GBP than USD is quite impressive, though.
  176. stpeter yep, http://www.amazon.com/ has been updated here too
  177. dwd Oh, I see - this is a new keyboard-less kindle.
  178. stpeter which, the Touch?
  179. Kev Both.
  180. stpeter finishes his email to the hybi wg
  181. Kev Or all three, rather.
  182. MattJ FWIW a Kindle died on me last night
  183. MattJ to make matters worse, it wasn't mine
  184. stpeter erk
  185. linuxwolf /-:
  186. MattJ The screen has failed somehow, half of it is frozen and won't update
  187. linuxwolf my nookColor is still going strong
  188. MattJ I prefer e-ink :)
  189. stpeter the books I read never experience screen failure
  190. linuxwolf MattJ: I learned to give up and love the LCD (-:
  191. linuxwolf it works well enough for me on the bus and at bus stops
  192. MattJ stpeter, that's the first thing someone said to me :)
  193. linuxwolf which are largely outdoors
  194. stpeter :P
  195. MattJ Unfortunately the books I wanted to take with me to the US wouldn't fit in my suitcase
  196. stpeter MattJ: yeah, there is that
  197. stpeter thinks of his upcoming trip to Taipei
  198. linuxwolf /nod
  199. stpeter email sent, tweet posted :P
  200. linuxwolf has left
  201. linuxwolf has joined
  202. stpeter aha, if you want the cheaper prices on the Kindles then you must agree to receive "special offer" screensavers -- advertising FTW
  203. MattJ Ha
  204. ralphm has left
  205. MattJ has left
  206. MattJ has joined
  207. ralphm has joined
  208. ralphm no such thing as a free lunch
  209. stpeter TANSTAAFL, baby!
  210. linuxwolf more bikesheds!
  211. stpeter well it looks like I'll be around for next week's Council meeting, change of PTO plans...
  212. linuxwolf oh no
  213. ralphm let's paint it red
  214. stpeter bbiaf
  215. ralphm has left
  216. linuxwolf has left