Kev2) XHTML-IM: Issue call for experience? (For move to Final)
KevI'm +1, although someone needs to present two implementations to us :)
m&mThere's Exodus (-:
Tobiaspsi does also xhtml-im
MattJPidgin, Gajim, etc.
KevTobias: I don't think that's true. I think it /renders/ it, but won't produce it.
m&mthere's a bunch of clients
MattJKev, it can produce
m&mAdium also does it, at least every other version
KevAnd how many of these are actually doing -71, rather than just shoving junk in the namespace? :)
KevMattJ: Are you sure? I'd think I'd remember something like that.
KevAlthough possibly not.
Kev3) XEP-0308 (Correction) - Last Call? (For Draft)
MattJGajim says pink
m&mGiven the discussion, I'd like to see 0.6 come out first
Kevm&m: Are you sure you're on the right item?
MattJDo we have two implementations?
KevMattJ: Swift and Jitsi.
m&mno objections to −308 LC
MattJAh, forgot Jitsi
MattJYeah, I'm fine with LC
Tobiasim fine with it too
Kev4) XEP-0301 (RTT) - LC (for Draft)?
Now, for this I suggested that given the possibly significant changes to come out of the discussion of my review, we ask Council to approve the LC in advance, ready for it to be issued on 0.6.
MattJI'm fine with that
m&mI'm fine with that
KevI don't know if people are happy with that, but it seems a sensible approach to me (Mark seems to be in a rush and all, and I expect we won't Council next week).
m&mwe need a jinx protocol extension
ralphmno objection to 0308 LC
Tobiason XEP-0301: +1 on LC for draft
Kev(I do note that LCing 301 when it's in such a state of flux and seemingly so far off community consensus feels like a cheat - although expedient if we want these long-term specs using XMPP)
ralphmKev: I'm ok with a LC on 301, although I don't understand the urgency.
MattJDon't try :)
ralphmI do know that the discussion is flooding the list
Kevralphm: As I understand it, there are long-life specs under consideration elsewhere (for emergency services and things) whereby they'd like to use XMPP-RTT, but can't have an Experimental XEP in there.
KevWhich seems like a borderline acceptable reason to me, but I'm trying to support them as best I can.
ralphmif it is just for the label, well, ok
m&mlayer 9 interjected into layer 7
KevSo, that's everything I had on my agenda list thing.
Kev5) Date of next meeting.
Tobiasfine with that
KevI'll take that as a yes :)
Kev6) Any other business?
m&mjust a note that IETF is next week
Kevm&m: That's why I proposed skipping a week.
KevMattJ: I wanted to give that a check-over before LCing it, if that's OK>
KevUnless that one's urgent.
m&mmeeting is at 15:20-07:00 on 07/31
m&mXMPP WG meeting that is
MattJKev, not at all, you just said on the list you were +1 to LC :)
KevYeah, that time's not going to happen to me.
KevMattJ: I think I said I wasn't opposed, didn't I?
m&mjust letting everyone know (-:
MattJKev, ok, if they're different... :)
KevBut anything that close to midnight can get in line somewhere after sleep.
KevMattJ: I'm not opposed to the thought, but I'd like to check it first :)
m&mre 297, I'd like to see the new revision before non-objecting to its LC
m&msince we're not dealing with layer 9 issues there (-:
m&mnothing else from me
MattJm&m, you too? You proposed the LC...
m&mwell, If Kev says there's a new revision coming, then I want to hold off
MattJNo, just that he's going to review the current one
KevI didn't know there was a new revision coming.
m&mmy reading comprehension is down today
KevCool, I think we're done.
KevThanks all, minutes to follow.
m&mwell, I'm pre-emptively non-objecting to LCing the current −297
MattJm&m, I think this pre-non-objecting could be going somewhere :)
KevMattJ: We've done it in the past.
m&mits like antidisestablishmentarianism
Kevm&m: Yes, only completely different :)
Kevbangs the gavel.
m&mgoes off to figure out how to fake intelligence for the rest of today
MattJIf I can manage, I'm sure you can't go far wrong