XMPP Council - 2012-01-25

  1. stpeter has joined
  2. Tobias has left
  3. stpeter has left
  4. linuxwolf has joined
  5. linuxwolf has left
  6. linuxwolf has joined
  7. linuxwolf has left
  8. Kev has joined
  9. Tobias has joined
  10. Tobias has left
  11. linuxwolf has joined
  12. stpeter has joined
  13. Tobias has joined
  14. stpeter sends a five minute warning via identi.ca
  15. Kev Thanks.
  16. Kev I got caught up, forgot to send a mail to the list.
  17. stpeter nods
  18. ralphm has joined
  19. Zash has joined
  20. ralphm Hello Fans!
  21. Kev Howdy.
  22. Kev 1minute to ...
  23. Kev No minutes to go.
  24. Kev I don't see a MattJ here or in my roster.
  25. Tobias hi
  26. Kev Right.
  27. Kev 1) Roll call
  28. Kev IIIIIII'm here.
  29. linuxwolf presente
  30. ralphm too, for a change
  31. linuxwolf gasps
  32. stpeter aha
  33. stpeter apologizes to linuxwolf
  34. linuxwolf ??
  35. stpeter for PM pokage when you were already here :)
  36. Kev 2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-uri.html Accept as Experimental?
  37. linuxwolf hehe
  38. Kev I'm -1 on this on the basis that Board have recommended we talk to IETF folks first.
  39. ralphm Kev: that
  40. ralphm Kev: also, I wonder if this couldn't be done within the current xmpp schema
  41. Kev ralphm: Possibly, although not easily, perhaps.
  42. ralphm Kev: wait what?
  43. ralphm Kev: xmpp:pubsub.ik.nu?;node=test;id=itemid
  44. Kev I said only perhaps.
  45. Kev I'm aware there are simple cases for which it's blindingly obvious how to do it :)
  46. Zash Doesn't the proposed format conflict with full jids?
  47. ralphm oh, it's 'item', not 'id'
  48. stpeter I tend to agree with Ralph -- we have a way to do this using the existing scheme
  49. linuxwolf and I'm loathe to add to the scheme registry
  50. ralphm XEP-0060 examples 225-228
  51. Kev Zash: I don't remember, I read it yesterday, I've forgotten it by now.
  52. Zash :)
  53. Kev Oh, yes, I remember being unclear whether it'd end up with legal URIs or not.
  54. Kev Anyway, -1 for now.
  55. Kev Moooving on.
  56. Kev 3) http://doomsong.co.uk/extensions/render/xep-0311.html Accept as Experimental?
  57. Kev I updated the not-quite-a-XEP-0311 so it doesn't now say "and here I stopped writing".
  58. Kev I think it's now ok to push.
  59. stpeter oh yes, the one I screwed up by publishing
  60. linuxwolf I've no objections to publishing as now-actually-311
  61. ralphm +1
  62. Tobias +1 on that too
  63. Kev Cool. My empire expands.
  64. stpeter :)
  65. Kev 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0077-2.4.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0077/diff/2.3/vs/2.4rc1
  66. Kev This just adds a disco identity, I think, which I'm fine with.
  67. ralphm Kev: maybe you can occupy Brussels and make it a fun place :-P
  68. linuxwolf exactly
  69. Kev It doesn't address questions of what advertising that entity *means*.
  70. linuxwolf +1 on −0077#2.4
  71. Tobias yeah..+1 on that change too.. a lot services do it that way anyway already
  72. Kev (i.e. M-Link would advertise it because it allows password changing, but it doesn't allow open registration)
  73. Kev (In fact, I think M-Link *does* advertise, although I might misremember)
  74. linuxwolf a lot do advertise
  75. stpeter Kev: right, if you support that protocol in any way, you can advertise the feature
  76. Kev I think for Peter's use case, which is finding if it supports registration, the stream feature is the way to go, FWIW.
  77. Kev ralphm: Everywhere I go is a fun place.
  78. Kev Almost by definition. Just not necessarily for me :)
  79. Kev Anyway, who're we missing? Ralph, I think we need your +-[01] still.
  80. ralphm Whereas for things other than IM servers, it means different every time. I'd say it just advertises understanding the protocol, nothing more.
  81. ralphm +1
  82. stpeter well, the server directory use case has other means of figuring out whether another server supports IBR, but I still think we need a way to discover jabber:iq:register support in any case
  83. linuxwolf /nod
  84. Kev stpeter: Yes, although mostly for password changing, I think.
  85. Kev Ok, all +1 on 77.
  86. Kev 5) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0114-1.6.html http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0114/diff/1.5/vs/1.6rc1
  87. linuxwolf I'd rather do a new protocol than try to fix more of −0077 for those "what does support mean"
  88. linuxwolf anyhoo
  89. stpeter linuxwolf: true indeed
  90. ralphm my comment was mostly about things like MUC and pubsub services and gateways that also support this namespace
  91. Kev hands linuxwolf a tinopener and a can labeled "not worms, honest guv".
  92. Kev ralphm: Understood.
  93. linuxwolf ralphm: right … which is kind of my point
  94. linuxwolf and which I now realize I shouldn't have said anything (-:
  95. Kev I'm +1 on (5)
  96. ralphm I think disco rarely explains exactly what a 'feature' means. It just says 'I support this protocol'
  97. linuxwolf sleeping dogs left to lie
  98. linuxwolf anyhow
  99. linuxwolf +1 on −0114#1.6
  100. Kev pokes MattJ
  101. ralphm +1 on 0114
  102. Zash pokes MattJ
  103. Kev Tobias: ?
  104. Tobias yeah...+1
  105. Kev 6) Date of next meeting.
  106. MattJ has joined
  107. Kev (now) usual slot?
  108. Tobias hi MattJ
  109. MattJ Gaah, sorry, time confusal :/
  110. stpeter heh
  111. linuxwolf I have a conflict at this time next week
  112. stpeter I've never seen the word "confusal" before, I like it!
  113. linuxwolf but just next week
  114. Kev See if you can backlog skim and vote before we decide on date and AOB.
  115. MattJ Do I still have time to reject MFR again? :P
  116. Kev linuxwolf: Next week is bad for me anyway, so I'm happy to skip.
  117. Kev MattJ: You have.
  118. ralphm I will be in Brussels next week already
  119. MattJ Well I'm +1 on it, you'll be glad to know
  120. MattJ Just loading log now
  121. Kev Shall we do fortnight today?
  122. ralphm who will not be there next week?
  123. linuxwolf Kev: wfm
  124. linuxwolf I will not
  125. ralphm linuxwolf: SAD!
  126. Tobias k
  127. linuxwolf too much traveling at the end of last year … still recovering
  128. Kev I'll be at the summit et al.
  129. Kev I'll take that as a +1 from everyone on this time in a fortnight.
  130. Kev 7) AOB
  131. stpeter I'll be jet-lagged :)
  132. Kev Anyone?
  133. stpeter but probably functional
  134. linuxwolf "silence is acquiescence" is what I always say (-:
  135. linuxwolf none here
  136. Kev I'll be trainlagged, but I'll probably cope :)
  137. stpeter heh
  138. stpeter I need to capture votes on XEP 45
  139. stpeter and those from today
  140. Kev Oh. Sorry.
  141. Kev I said I'd add it to agendaness and didn.t
  142. MattJ 1) present, 2) -1 (afaik this is already possible with the current scheme), 3) +1 (thanks Kev), 4) +1 (Prosody already does this iirc), 5) +1 (and this), 6) +1, 7) ...
  143. Kev 5b) Everyone ok on the new version of MUC now?
  144. Kev +1
  145. MattJ +1
  146. linuxwolf I need to read it through one more time … sorry
  147. ralphm +1
  148. stpeter in fact http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/tenth-council/ is the last voting page, so I need to create one for the eleventh council :)
  149. linuxwolf will have a new vote before the next meeting
  150. Kev linuxwolf: Thanks.
  151. Kev Tobias: ?
  152. ralphm I just sent my -1 comment to standards@
  153. Kev ralphm: Thanks.
  154. Tobias Kev, kev?
  155. Tobias yeah..ok
  156. Kev "5b) Everyone ok on the new version of MUC now?"
  157. Tobias +1
  158. Kev Ta.
  159. Kev Now we're really done then, I think.
  160. Tobias yay
  161. linuxwolf w00t
  162. Kev I'll send minutes.
  163. linuxwolf goes back to e2e
  164. Kev Thanks all.
  165. ralphm woah, 22 min.
  166. Kev bangs gavel order go words out the so the of
  167. ralphm Kev: good luck with that
  168. stpeter http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/eleventh-council/
  169. Kev Ta.
  170. stpeter double-checks the voting record
  171. stpeter I wonder why 114 is Historical
  172. ralphm because it existed before XMPP was formalised
  173. stpeter yeah I know
  174. stpeter but still, it's so widely used
  175. stpeter ah well :)
  176. Kev Which is the exact definition of Historical :)
  177. stpeter yeah yeah yeah
  178. stpeter I'm sure it's my fault for writing XEP #1 :)
  179. ralphm We'll just drink to that next week
  180. stpeter sounds good!
  181. linuxwolf (-:
  182. stpeter OK, http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/eleventh-council/ is up to date
  183. linuxwolf grazie
  184. Tobias has joined
  185. Tobias has joined
  186. stpeter you know, I'm looking forward to our advancing XEP-0045 to Final :)
  187. Kev We may have a way to go for that...
  188. Kev My recent review was, largely, only of your proposed changes for the new version, not a complete readthrough, for one thing :)
  189. stpeter well, my proposed changes were the result a complete readthrough :)
  190. stpeter that's something
  191. stpeter it did advance to Draft on 2002-11-21 ;-)
  192. stpeter Kev: did you check your changes to 311 into git? I'm probably not looking in the right branch :)
  193. Kev I *thought* I'd pushed them up to master.
  194. stpeter checks
  195. Kev My local repo tells me I've no uncommitted changes, and no commits that haven't been pushed.
  196. stpeter does http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0311/diff/0.0.1/vs/0.1 look right to you?
  197. Kev It does.
  198. stpeter OK
  199. stpeter thanks
  200. Kev Thanks :)
  201. stpeter I got thrown off because is said "ProtoXEP"
  202. stpeter thanks to Tobias as always for his work on the diff tool!
  203. stpeter fixes the status
  204. Tobias still suboptimal i think...changed numbering (footnotes and stuff) etc. aren't that interesting
  205. Kev I think having a diff of everything that changed is useful.
  206. ralphm has left
  207. stpeter http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0311.html updated
  208. Kev Thanks muchly.
  209. Zash has left
  210. Zash has joined
  211. Tobias has left
  212. Kev has left
  213. linuxwolf has left