XMPP Council - 2012-03-14

  1. Kev has joined

  2. Tobias has joined

  3. Kev has left

  4. Kev has joined

  5. Tobias has left

  6. linuxwolf has joined

  7. Zash has joined

  8. Zash has left

  9. Zash has joined

  10. linuxwolf has left

  11. linuxwolf has joined

  12. linuxwolf has left

  13. stpeter has joined

  14. MattJ has joined

  15. ralphm has joined

  16. ralphm waves

  17. MattJ laps at the shore

  18. Kev

    Oh good, we're going to have one of *those* meetings.

  19. stpeter


  20. Kev

    Right, it's time.

  21. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  22. Kev

    I don't see Tobias online.

  23. Kev

    But he sent apologies, so that's fine.

  24. Kev

    I also don't see a Matt Miller, who also sent apologies.

  25. MattJ


  26. Kev

    I do see a me.

  27. Kev


  28. Kev

    He was here five minutes ago!

  29. stpeter


  30. MattJ

    Give him until :05

  31. MattJ

    We don't have much on the agenda

  32. Kev


  33. ralphm

    I already waved

  34. Kev

    2) Message Forwarding

  35. Kev

    Last call's expired, I think, so we should vote on Draftness.

  36. MattJ

    Hmm, I read the feedback but it is out of my infamous short-term memory

  37. Kev

    The only feedback we had in the LC thread was Zash.

  38. Zash

    Noone but me replied?

  39. MattJ pulls it up

  40. MattJ

    Didn't MM?

  41. Kev

    Not in the LC.

  42. Kev

    There were previous threads (linked by Zash).

  43. MattJ

    Hmm, maybe he commented here when we voted on the LC

  44. Zash


  45. MattJ

    Ok, so we should poke him for his comments

  46. Kev

    And maybe we should provide some sort of guidance for uses of 197.

  47. Kev


  48. Kev

    MattJ: Shall I leave that to you? :)

  49. MattJ

    Ok :)

  50. Kev


  51. Kev

    Presumably we then LC it again.

  52. Kev

    ralphm: You happy with this plan?

  53. ralphm

    that sounds reasonable

  54. Kev

    3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0172/diff/1.0/vs/1.1rc1

  55. ralphm

    Although I'm not sure if another LC is needed

  56. Kev

    I'm +1

  57. Kev

    ralphm: I don't think it hurts, and we want to solicit opinion.

  58. MattJ


  59. ralphm


  60. Kev

    4) Date of next meeting. 4pm next Wednesday, UK time?

  61. MattJ

    I see what you did there :)

  62. MattJ


  63. stpeter

    UK time?

  64. stpeter

    is that the same as this time UTC?

  65. Kev

    stpeter: you claimed it was difficult because of DST, so I was being explicit.

  66. Kev

    Yes, it is for next week.

  67. stpeter

    Kev: wasn't difficult for me at all, but I'm more flexible than Matt is

  68. ralphm

    Just always use UTC.

  69. stpeter


  70. Kev

    1600 GMT it is :)

  71. ralphm

    I think the difficulty was in figuring out local time, not the actual time of day.

  72. Kev


  73. Kev

    Is it this Sunday they changed? :)

  74. ralphm

    1600 UTC for all others

  75. Kev

    No, the following.

  76. Kev

    So yes, 1600.

  77. Kev

    5) AOB?

  78. ralphm

    US changed a few days ago, we change last weekend of March

  79. stpeter

    a new verson of XEP-0301 will find its way to me soon, according to the author

  80. Kev


  81. MattJ

    Just a note that I have located the MAM XML, have reviewed it and know the changes I want to make, and have it open in an editor to make them

  82. Kev

    We don't need to do anything with that, I think.

  83. stpeter

    I need to address XEP-0047 call for experience feedback

  84. stpeter

    probably there are other tasks I need to complete, too

  85. Kev

    So no AOB, then?

  86. stpeter

    not really

  87. Kev


  88. Kev

    Thanks all.

  89. Kev bangs the gavel.

  90. stpeter


  91. MattJ


  92. stpeter


  93. MattJ

    Is there a board meeting today?

  94. Kev

    Oh, right - I submitted the XSF's application to GSoC btw.

  95. Kev

    We could do with more ideas, still.

  96. stpeter reloads the ideas page

  97. ralphm has left

  98. ralphm has joined

  99. ralphm

    stpeter: I think that byte-for-byte comparison of resourcepart is problematic.

  100. ralphm

    stpeter: e.g. in python, I get unicode objects from my parser

  101. ralphm

    i.e. the attribute values (where they usually appear) are already decoded from their UTF-8 representation

  102. dwd has joined

  103. dwd

    MattJ, Yes, there's a board meeting just starting.

  104. stpeter

    ralphm: feel free to post to the list about that -- I tend to agree, but I'm not decided yet

  105. dwd

    ralphm, I agree that actual byte-for-byte is wrong, but I don't think we need go further than codepoint comparison or perhaps canonicalization.

  106. ralphm

    dwd: right

  107. ralphm

    so I sent that message to the list

  108. stpeter

    so I saw, thanks

  109. Tobias has joined

  110. Kev has left

  111. linuxwolf has joined

  112. Zash has left

  113. stpeter has left

  114. stpeter has joined

  115. stpeter has left

  116. stpeter has joined

  117. linuxwolf has left

  118. ralphm has left