-
m&m
t - 05:00
-
Kev
Yep, ta.
-
Kev
Just finished some (internal) patch review ready.
-
m&m
that was mostly a self check (-:
-
Kev
This week is a killer. Got lots on at work, plus 301 is absolutely deadly.
-
m&m
dude
-
m&m
I still haven't finished my slides for next week
-
Kev
That's /next/ week :)
-
m&m
yes, but the chairs need them "now"
-
m&m
d-:
-
Kev
Oh well. Once you've got those done you can review 301 :)
-
m&m
I was planning to review that on the plane
-
m&m
I started to Sunday, and decided I'd rather enjoy my weekend (-:
-
Kev
Hope you get the 0.6 version.
-
m&m
me, too
-
m&m
I don't leave until 15:00 Saturday, so there's time
-
m&m
ding ding ding
-
Kev
Righty.
-
Kev
1) Roll call
-
Kev
I'm here!
-
Kev
Physically.
-
m&m
what, you go all TRON on us?
-
m&m
presente
-
Kev
MattJ, Tobias: *ping*
-
MattJ
Present
-
Tobias
pong✎ -
Tobias
present ✏
-
Kev
Ralph has been pinged.
-
Kev
2) XHTML-IM: Issue call for experience? (For move to Final)
-
m&m
+1
-
Tobias
+1
-
Kev
I'm +1, although someone needs to present two implementations to us :)
-
m&m
heh
-
MattJ
+1
-
m&m
There's Exodus (-:
-
Tobias
psi does also xhtml-im
-
Tobias
IIRC
-
MattJ
Pidgin, Gajim, etc.
-
Zash
and Gajim
-
Kev
Tobias: I don't think that's true. I think it /renders/ it, but won't produce it.
-
MattJ
Pandion, iChat!
-
m&m
there's a bunch of clients
-
MattJ
Kev, it can produce
-
m&m
Adium also does it, at least every other version
-
Kev
And how many of these are actually doing -71, rather than just shoving junk in the namespace? :)
-
Kev
MattJ: Are you sure? I'd think I'd remember something like that.
-
Kev
Although possibly not.
-
Kev
Anyway.
-
Kev
3) XEP-0308 (Correction) - Last Call? (For Draft)
-
MattJ
Gajim says pink
-
m&m
Given the discussion, I'd like to see 0.6 come out first
-
m&m
(re 308)
-
Kev
m&m: Are you sure you're on the right item?
-
m&m
/sigh
-
MattJ
Do we have two implementations?
-
m&m
no (-:
-
Kev
MattJ: Swift and Jitsi.
-
m&m
no objections to −308 LC
-
MattJ
Ah, forgot Jitsi
-
MattJ
Yeah, I'm fine with LC
-
Tobias
im fine with it too
-
Kev
4) 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.
-
MattJ
I'm fine with that
-
m&m
I'm fine with that
-
m&m
heh
-
Kev
I 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).
-
MattJ
heh
-
Kev
Evening Ralph.
-
m&m
we need a jinx protocol extension
-
ralphm
hi
-
ralphm
no objection to 0308 LC
-
Tobias
on 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)
-
ralphm
Kev: I'm ok with a LC on 301, although I don't understand the urgency.
-
MattJ
Don't try :)
-
ralphm
I do know that the discussion is flooding the list
-
Kev
ralphm: 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.
-
Kev
Which seems like a borderline acceptable reason to me, but I'm trying to support them as best I can.
-
m&m
/nod
-
ralphm
if it is just for the label, well, ok
-
m&m
layer 9 interjected into layer 7
-
Kev
Right.
-
Kev
So, that's everything I had on my agenda list thing.
-
Kev
5) Date of next meeting.
-
Kev
Fortnight?
-
m&m
WFM
-
MattJ
wfm
-
Tobias
fine with that
-
Kev
ralphm:?
-
Kev
I'll take that as a yes :)
-
Kev
6) Any other business?
-
MattJ
Not here
-
MattJ
Wait
-
m&m
just a note that IETF is next week
-
MattJ
297?
-
ralphm
wfm
-
Kev
m&m: That's why I proposed skipping a week.
-
Kev
MattJ: I wanted to give that a check-over before LCing it, if that's OK>
-
MattJ
Sure, np
-
Kev
Unless that one's urgent.
-
m&m
meeting is at 15:20-07:00 on 07/31
-
m&m
XMPP WG meeting that is
-
MattJ
Kev, not at all, you just said on the list you were +1 to LC :)
-
Kev
Yeah, that time's not going to happen to me.
-
m&m
(-:
-
Kev
MattJ: I think I said I wasn't opposed, didn't I?
-
m&m
just letting everyone know (-:
-
Kev
Yeah, ta.
-
MattJ
Kev, ok, if they're different... :)
-
Kev
But anything that close to midnight can get in line somewhere after sleep.
-
Kev
MattJ: I'm not opposed to the thought, but I'd like to check it first :)
-
MattJ
:)
-
Kev
Anything else?
-
m&m
re 297, I'd like to see the new revision before non-objecting to its LC
-
m&m
since we're not dealing with layer 9 issues there (-:
-
m&m
nothing else from me
-
MattJ
m&m, you too? You proposed the LC...
- ralphm nodss
-
ralphm
-s
-
m&m
well, If Kev says there's a new revision coming, then I want to hold off
-
MattJ
No, just that he's going to review the current one
-
Kev
I didn't know there was a new revision coming.
-
m&m
heh
-
m&m
my reading comprehension is down today
-
m&m
/sigh
-
Kev
Cool, I think we're done.
-
Kev
Thanks all, minutes to follow.
-
m&m
well, I'm pre-emptively non-objecting to LCing the current −297
-
MattJ
Thanks
-
MattJ
m&m, I think this pre-non-objecting could be going somewhere :)
-
Kev
MattJ: We've done it in the past.
-
m&m
its like antidisestablishmentarianism
-
Kev
Many times.
-
Kev
m&m: Yes, only completely different :)
-
m&m
(-:
- Kev bangs the gavel.
- m&m goes off to figure out how to fake intelligence for the rest of today
-
MattJ
If I can manage, I'm sure you can't go far wrong
-
m&m
we'll see how it goes