XMPP Council - 2011-11-23

  1. linuxwolf has left

  2. linuxwolf has joined

  3. linuxwolf has left

  4. linuxwolf has joined

  5. linuxwolf has left

  6. linuxwolf has joined

  7. linuxwolf has left

  8. linuxwolf has joined

  9. linuxwolf has left

  10. Tobias has joined

  11. Tobias has left

  12. Tobias has joined

  13. Tobias has left

  14. Tobias has joined

  15. Tobias has left

  16. Tobias has joined

  17. Tobias has left

  18. Tobias has joined

  19. ralphm has left

  20. Tobias has left

  21. Zash has joined

  22. linuxwolf has joined

  23. ralphm has joined

  24. Zash has joined

  25. stpeter has joined

  26. linuxwolf has left

  27. linuxwolf has joined

  28. Tobias has joined

  29. MattJ has joined

  30. MattJ

    The IETF is like one long roadshow

  31. ralphm


  32. MattJ

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

  33. ralphm

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

  34. stpeter

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

  35. MattJ

    They wouldn't have t-shirts large enough

  36. stpeter

    MattJ: has a meeting in London been announced?

  37. MattJ

    stpeter, not that I'm aware of

  38. stpeter


  39. stpeter


  40. waqas has joined

  41. Kev


  42. Kev

    Shall we have a meeting then? :)

  43. Tobias


  44. Kev

    1) Roll call

  45. Kev

    I'm here.

  46. linuxwolf


  47. linuxwolf


  48. linuxwolf

    here even

  49. MattJ


  50. MattJ


  51. Kev

    ralphm: ?

  52. stpeter notes that linuxwolf is supposed to be on vacation right now

  53. Kev

    Bad linuxwolf, bad.

  54. linuxwolf notes that XSF doesn't feel quite like work work

  55. MattJ


  56. linuxwolf

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

  57. Kev pokes Ralph.

  58. ralphm


  59. Kev


  60. Kev

    2) Selection of a new Chair.

  61. MattJ


  62. Kev

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

  63. Kev

    Anyone fancy cat herding?

  64. MattJ

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

  65. linuxwolf


  66. Tobias

    same here

  67. stpeter

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

  68. MattJ

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

  69. MattJ

    So it's best Kev stays

  70. linuxwolf


  71. Kev

    stpeter: Benevolent.

  72. stpeter

    Kev: natch :)

  73. linuxwolf

    mostly benevolent (-;

  74. Kev

    linuxwolf: Benevolent when it's in my interests.

  75. linuxwolf


  76. ralphm

    +1 for kev

  77. ralphm

    also, I am experiencing a lot of lag

  78. Kev rubs his hands with evil glee

  79. stpeter


  80. linuxwolf

    can I change my vote? (-;

  81. Kev

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

  82. ralphm


  83. Kev


  84. Kev

    3) XEP-0068 Accept new version?

  85. Kev

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

  86. stpeter


  87. stpeter

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

  88. Kev

    I don't, thanks.

  89. MattJ

    I do :)

  90. MattJ

    Looking for it

  91. Kev

    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.

  92. MattJ

    and... where's HAL, hmm

  93. stpeter


  94. MattJ

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

  95. MattJ

    Oh, you're faster than he is :)

  96. MattJ

    Ah yes, memory jogged

  97. Kev

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

  98. Kev

    So as to reduce the chance of conflicts.

  99. linuxwolf

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

  100. Kev

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

  101. linuxwolf

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

  102. stpeter

    there are some recommendations in the xdash I-D

  103. Kev

    stpeter: Right, but not in -68.

  104. stpeter


  105. stpeter

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

  106. stpeter

    there's not big hurry

  107. Kev

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

  108. stpeter

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

  109. Kev

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

  110. Kev

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

  111. stpeter

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

  112. MattJ

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

  113. Kev

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

  114. ralphm

    what linuxwolf said

  115. ralphm

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

  116. ralphm

    damn lag

  117. linuxwolf


  118. MattJ

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

  119. Kev

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

  120. linuxwolf

    Kev: +1

  121. Kev

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

  122. linuxwolf

    (to your suggestions)

  123. MattJ

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

  124. stpeter


  125. Tobias

    Kev, sounds reasonable..so yes

  126. MattJ

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

  127. stpeter


  128. Kev

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

  129. linuxwolf

    that's not a bad idea, actually

  130. MattJ

    I think you have

  131. stpeter notes that some RFCs contain "IESG Note" sections

  132. Kev

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

  133. linuxwolf

    that sounds like an AOB item to me (-:

  134. Kev

    Golly, time is getting on.

  135. MattJ


  136. bear has joined

  137. Kev

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

  138. Kev

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

  139. linuxwolf

    ah, less controversial items

  140. MattJ


  141. Kev

    linuxwolf: Possibly :)

  142. linuxwolf


  143. Kev

    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.

  144. Kev

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

  145. MattJ

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

  146. MattJ

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

  147. Kev

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

  148. linuxwolf

    can you provide me a link to fmuc?

  149. MattJ

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

  150. Kev


  151. linuxwolf

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

  152. ralphm

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

  153. linuxwolf


  154. MattJ

    There are two, mine, and everyone else's

  155. Kev

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

  156. linuxwolf

    oh, FMUC expires next week

  157. Kev

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

  158. Tobias

    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

  159. MattJ

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

  160. Kev

    It does message forwarding not using the message forwarding spec.

  161. MattJ

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

  162. linuxwolf

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

  163. stpeter has been thinking about distributed chat again recently but hasn't had time to update his DMUC spec

  164. Kev

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

  165. ralphm


  166. Kev

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

  167. linuxwolf

    I may be misinformed also

  168. Kev

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

  169. Kev

    So we've got two AOB items.

  170. Kev

    5) Date of next meeting.

  171. linuxwolf

    it does … although ...

  172. Kev

    Does this time next week work for everyone?

  173. linuxwolf

    gah, slow down there TEx

  174. stpeter


  175. Tobias


  176. stpeter


  177. Kev

    linuxwolf: Only 9minutes left!

  178. linuxwolf

    -1 to next week

  179. MattJ


  180. ralphm

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

  181. linuxwolf

    I'm in China

  182. linuxwolf


  183. Kev

    Everyone ok for the same time in a fortnight?

  184. MattJ

    linuxwolf, council meetings too democratic to join from China?

  185. MattJ


  186. linuxwolf

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

  187. linuxwolf

    are we still looking at 1700 UTC?

  188. ralphm

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

  189. stpeter

    poor linuxwolf will be flying across the big lake again soon

  190. linuxwolf


  191. Tobias

    in two weeks works for me too

  192. linuxwolf

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

  193. Kev

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

  194. Kev

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

  195. stpeter

    IMHO, week after

  196. Kev

    (Or leave it until we have something to discuss)

  197. linuxwolf

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

  198. linuxwolf

    my trip is 11/29 to 12/09

  199. Kev

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

  200. ralphm

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

  201. stpeter will get busy on XEPs again now that he has completed his penultimate IETF meeting with IESG responsibilities

  202. Kev

    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.

  203. MattJ

    stpeter, congratulations :)

  204. linuxwolf

    sounds good to me

  205. MattJ

    Kev, +1

  206. linuxwolf


  207. Kev


  208. linuxwolf

    wow … burst of lag

  209. Tobias

    Kev, +1

  210. Kev

    Ok, then.

  211. Kev

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

  212. stpeter


  213. Kev

    6) Any other business

  214. Kev

    Council note in XEPs and GSoC from Peter.

  215. MattJ

    Yes, I haven't congratulated Tobias yet :)

  216. linuxwolf

    I think 1700 UTC is 0100 CST

  217. ralphm

    I am not opposed to that

  218. Tobias

    isn't GSoC something for the board?

  219. Kev

    Tobias: Council typically is heavily involved.

  220. Kev

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

  221. ralphm


  222. Tobias

    Kev, ahh..okay... -)

  223. linuxwolf


  224. Kev

    But Council are part of voting on projects.

  225. stpeter will have time to help with GSoC in 2012

  226. Kev

    stpeter: What did you want to discuss?

  227. linuxwolf

    stpeter: 4 more months? (-:

  228. ralphm

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

  229. stpeter

    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

  230. linuxwolf

    ralphm: heh, we'll have to see

  231. stpeter

    Kev: we can discuss at a future meeting

  232. linuxwolf

    consider us tickled?

  233. stpeter


  234. Kev

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

  235. stpeter

    I'll bring it up again at the next meeting

  236. Kev

    So, the other thing was Council notes in XEPs.

  237. linuxwolf

    +1 from me

  238. stpeter

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

  239. ralphm

    For the record, we have a FOSDEM devroom

  240. linuxwolf


  241. Kev

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

  242. ralphm

    and will be talking about it in 1.5h

  243. Kev

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

  244. linuxwolf

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

  245. Tobias

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

  246. Kev

    Lovely, action item for linuxwolf.

  247. Kev

    And for Tobias.

  248. Kev

    Anything else?

  249. stpeter

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

  250. ralphm

    or is it 20:00 UTC?

  251. Kev

    stpeter: WFM.

  252. MattJ


  253. linuxwolf

    yeah, right when I have a doc appt

  254. ralphm

    my train is pulling into the station

  255. ralphm


  256. Kev

    Ok, I think we're done.

  257. linuxwolf

    talking about me becoming a cyborg

  258. Kev

    Thanks all :)

  259. Kev does the first gavel banging of the new term.

  260. Kev

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

  261. ralphm


  262. stpeter


  263. linuxwolf


  264. stpeter

    thanks, guys

  265. Kev

    Speaking of that, are the room logs working again?

  266. Kev


  267. MattJ

    They were broken?

  268. linuxwolf

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

  269. Kev

    Have been since the upgrade, yes.

  270. linuxwolf


  271. stpeter wanders off to do some PTO things during his paid time off, but will be back in time for the FOSDEM chat

  272. Tobias

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

  273. MattJ

    I'll take a look at that too then

  274. Kev

    Thanks Tobias.

  275. Kev

    Thanks MattJ.

  276. stpeter

    I hadn't realized the logs were gone

  277. Kev

    HTTP 500.

  278. linuxwolf


  279. Kev

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

  280. Kev

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

  281. Tobias has joined

  282. Tobias has joined

  283. linuxwolf has left

  284. ralphm has left

  285. waqas has left

  286. stpeter has left

  287. Tobias has left

  288. Tobias has joined

  289. linuxwolf has joined

  290. linuxwolf has left

  291. Tobias has left