XMPP Council - 2011-11-23

The IETF is like one long roadshow

Heh

When they perform in London I'm going to buy tickets

Do they have T-shirts with all venues and their dates, yet?

ralphm: for those who've attended all the meetings, yes

They wouldn't have t-shirts large enough

MattJ: has a meeting in London been announced?

stpeter, not that I'm aware of

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html

nope

Righty.

Shall we have a meeting then? :)

yup

1) Roll call

I'm here.

Jeebus

her

here even

Hair

*Here

ralphm: ?

Bad linuxwolf, bad.

!

kids decided to start pestering me just as Kev bangs the start gavel

here

Excellent.

2) Selection of a new Chair.

ETOOMANYMEETINGS

I'm happy to do this again, or happy for someone else to.

Anyone fancy cat herding?

I'm happy for you to if you're happy to

ditto

same here

another year of the Kev dictatorship?!? ;-)

For the record if I was chair, the 30 minute meeting rule would be on the block

So it's best Kev stays

heh

stpeter: Benevolent.

Kev: natch :)

mostly benevolent (-;

linuxwolf: Benevolent when it's in my interests.

heh

+1 for kev

also, I am experiencing a lot of lag

heehee

can I change my vote? (-;

ralphm: That's ok, you've done the important bit now, you can vote for everything else on-list :D

hehe

Right.

3) XEP-0068 Accept new version?

This was the x- stuff in http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0068-1.2.html, as I recall

yes

do you guys need the diff again? I posted it to the council@ list a while back

I don't, thanks.

I do :)

Looking for it

So, I was reading this earlier, and while I'm not opposed to dropping x-, especially if those smart IETF guys want us to, I'd like some more guidance in -68 about what to do instead, I think, to avoid conflicts.

and... where's HAL, hmm

http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1

HAL says this one: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1

Oh, you're faster than he is :)

Ah yes, memory jogged

stpeter: I was wondering about maybe something like suggesting people use project-specific (or similar) names.

So as to reduce the chance of conflicts.

at one point, I thought we'd suggested using Clark-notation with your own namespace

Or is that, too, in opposition to the X-Dash

e.g. {http://example.com/protocol/foo}myfield

there are some recommendations in the xdash I-D

stpeter: Right, but not in -68.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash

sure, I'd be fine with adding those to -68 as well

there's not big hurry

I wonder if updating to match xdash is premature, too.

I just don't to publish an RFC about how x- is bad while -68 says the opposite :)

stpeter: Duplication isn't strictly necessary, but some sort of onward pointer seems to be.

(Beyond the proposed "Don't use x- because xdash says not to)

Kev: we could certainly wait at least until after the WGLC in the APPSAWG @ IETF

"SHOULD identify a convention to allow local or implementation-specific extensions, and reserve delimeters for such uses as needed."

Excellent. My first vote of term is a -1. I feel good.

what linuxwolf said

alternatively, we have existing 'scoping' with pubsub# and muc#

damn lag

(-:

Ok, idea... a note in -0068 about xdash potentially being the future?

So, agreement to hold off until a) WGLC and b) some suggestions for alternatives in a new 1.2?

Kev: +1

I'm happy with a note saying "xdash looks like the future" right now, if people would rather that, yes.

(to your suggestions)

That way we acknowledge the xdash movement, without committing to it

WFM

Kev, sounds reasonable..so yes

We need a "council note" element in XEPML :)

heh

MattJ: I've suggested that before, I think.

that's not a bad idea, actually

I think you have

(I say "I think", but what I really mean is "I'm very sure I have")

that sounds like an AOB item to me (-:

Golly, time is getting on.

Heh

So, I think we've discussed this to death.

4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc3.html Accept as Experimental

ah, less controversial items

Heh

linuxwolf: Possibly :)

</sarcasm>

So, my reading of this was (a few weeks ago) that it's a fourth DMUC spec, using pretty much the approach of the third (FMUC) with some uglies.

And that, given FMUC's mine, I'll pretty much defer to the rest of Council on whether to accept or not.

Would you highlight the uglies (in an email if many)?

I think I'll vote on list after reviewing both specs

That'd mean me re-reading. Let me scan now, I've not re-read this week.

can you provide me a link to fmuc?

The scary thing is that none of these XEPs are the way I would do it :P

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0289.html

MattJ: the best thing about standards is there's so many of them

MattJ: submit a dmuc4 (we started at 0?)

grazie

There are two, mine, and everyone else's

MattJ: You may be solving a different problem - I think the drive for DMUC/FMUC at the moment is largely for slightly specialist deployments.

oh, FMUC expires next week

Anyway, dmuc3 does things like sending rosters in a new namespace, instead of re-using the current MUC notation, or the iq:roster notation.

i'd also be nice if new XEP on this topic would have a short section on comparison against the already existing approaches of nearly the same thing

Kev, indeed, most of these are designed around different (but similar) requirements

It does message forwarding not using the message forwarding spec.

By dropping some requirements you can vastly increase simplicity, which is where the divide comes from I think

Kev: I think that's because this may be documenting existing work … prior to your msg-fwd work

linuxwolf: Oh. That wasn't my understanding, I hadn't realised that.

linuxwolfnod

ralphm / linuxwolf: Do you know how long Trident have had this working for?

I may be misinformed also

Anyway, this is looking like it's moving to a discussion on list, doesn't it.

So we've got two AOB items.

5) Date of next meeting.

it does … although ...

Does this time next week work for everyone?

gah, slow down there TEx

WFM

WFM

heh

linuxwolf: Only 9minutes left!

-1 to next week

wfm

Kev I don't know, the document reads like an existing thing

I'm in China

again

Everyone ok for the same time in a fortnight?

linuxwolf, council meetings too democratic to join from China?

wfm

I think I can make it in two weeks … I'd have to compare the times

are we still looking at 1700 UTC?

I can do next week. I am in San Francisco from 6-15 dec

poor linuxwolf will be flying across the big lake again soon

/sigh

in two weeks works for me too

and I won't have any status until the way back

Will we have anything to discuss next week to make it worth having a meeting with linuxwolf voting onlist?

Or shall we do the week after and have Ralph vote onlist?

IMHO, week after

(Or leave it until we have something to discuss)

I'm pretty sure that I'll be in the air for next week

my trip is 11/29 to 12/09

By the time Ralph's back you're looking at 21st Dec, which is pretty close to the Christmas break.

Kev: sure. I might be able to attend, but it'll be my first full day at Mochi, so probably no.

Ok, so, I propose we leave it until we have something to discuss, and then have a meeting with 4 members and one onlist, whenever that is.

stpeter, congratulations :)

sounds good to me

Kev, +1

ping?

pong?

wow … burst of lag

Kev, +1

Ok, then.

(I'm assuming Ralph isn't opposed to not having meetings he can't make)

heh

6) Any other business

Council note in XEPs and GSoC from Peter.

Yes, I haven't congratulated Tobias yet :)

I think 1700 UTC is 0100 CST

I am not opposed to that

isn't GSoC something for the board?

Tobias: Council typically is heavily involved.

By which we really mean Kevin is typically heavily involved, and he's on Council :)

haha

Kev, ahh..okay... -)

heh

But Council are part of voting on projects.

stpeter: What did you want to discuss?

stpeter: 4 more months? (-:

linuxwolfisn't that perfect timing for when you get back from karaoke?

Kev: I had a tickler item on my calendar from months and months ago for us to get coordinated about GSoC earlier in the cycle this time

ralphm: heh, we'll have to see

Kev: we can discuss at a future meeting

consider us tickled?

yep

I was intending to tickle when Google announced GSoC '12 (assuming they do)

I'll bring it up again at the next meeting

So, the other thing was Council notes in XEPs.

+1 from me

Kev: I think we decided we wanted to think about it earlier

For the record, we have a FOSDEM devroom

yay

Is there anything for us to discuss? Does someone want to volunteer to update the stylesheet?

and will be talking about it in 1.5h

ralphm: Yes, that's great thanks. Sorry I can't make that meeting.

I can take a look at it, but no firm commit from me yet

and the XSL for the PDF publishing part... :)

Lovely, action item for linuxwolf.

And for Tobias.

Anything else?

Kev: that can be the first section of the document, doesn't need a special XML element, I think

or is it 20:00 UTC?

stpeter: WFM.

20:00

yeah, right when I have a doc appt

my train is pulling into the station

bang!

Ok, I think we're done.

talking about me becoming a cyborg

Thanks all :)

I'll send out minutes as per usual, delayed as per usual :)

yay

woot!

/nod

thanks, guys

Speaking of that, are the room logs working again?

No.

They were broken?

I think any meeting over the next two weeks will be difficult for me … so we'll see

Have been since the upgrade, yes.

ugh

k...see you guys later or so...heading home now

I'll take a look at that too then

Thanks Tobias.

Thanks MattJ.

I hadn't realized the logs were gone

HTTP 500.

eek

I only care because that's what I use for pulling the minutes off.

I should really try out this live minute taking thing Board do.