XMPP Council - 2012-07-25

t - 05:00

Yep, ta.

Just finished some (internal) patch review ready.

that was mostly a self check (-:

This week is a killer. Got lots on at work, plus 301 is absolutely deadly.

dude

I still haven't finished my slides for next week

That's /next/ week :)

yes, but the chairs need them "now"

d-:

Oh well. Once you've got those done you can review 301 :)

I was planning to review that on the plane

I started to Sunday, and decided I'd rather enjoy my weekend (-:

Hope you get the 0.6 version.

me, too

I don't leave until 15:00 Saturday, so there's time

ding ding ding

Righty.

1) Roll call

I'm here!

Physically.

what, you go all TRON on us?

presente

MattJ, Tobias: *ping*

Present

present ✏

Ralph has been pinged.

2) XHTML-IM: Issue call for experience? (For move to Final)

+1

+1

I'm +1, although someone needs to present two implementations to us :)

heh

+1

There's Exodus (-:

psi does also xhtml-im

IIRC

Pidgin, Gajim, etc.

and Gajim

Tobias: I don't think that's true. I think it /renders/ it, but won't produce it.

Pandion, iChat!

there's a bunch of clients

Kev, it can produce

Adium also does it, at least every other version

And how many of these are actually doing -71, rather than just shoving junk in the namespace? :)

MattJ: Are you sure? I'd think I'd remember something like that.

Although possibly not.

Anyway.

3) XEP-0308 (Correction) - Last Call? (For Draft)

Gajim says pink

Given the discussion, I'd like to see 0.6 come out first

(re 308)

m&m: Are you sure you're on the right item?

/sigh

Do we have two implementations?

no (-:

MattJ: Swift and Jitsi.

no objections to −308 LC

Ah, forgot Jitsi

Yeah, I'm fine with LC

im fine with it too

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.

I'm fine with that

I'm fine with that

heh

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).

heh

Evening Ralph.

we need a jinx protocol extension

hi

no objection to 0308 LC

on XEP-0301: +1 on LC for draft

(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)

Kev: I'm ok with a LC on 301, although I don't understand the urgency.

Don't try :)

I do know that the discussion is flooding the list

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.

Which seems like a borderline acceptable reason to me, but I'm trying to support them as best I can.

/nod

if it is just for the label, well, ok

layer 9 interjected into layer 7

Right.

So, that's everything I had on my agenda list thing.

5) Date of next meeting.

Fortnight?

WFM

wfm

fine with that

ralphm:?

I'll take that as a yes :)

6) Any other business?

Not here

Wait

just a note that IETF is next week

297?

wfm

m&m: That's why I proposed skipping a week.

MattJ: I wanted to give that a check-over before LCing it, if that's OK>

Sure, np

Unless that one's urgent.

meeting is at 15:20-07:00 on 07/31

XMPP WG meeting that is

Kev, not at all, you just said on the list you were +1 to LC :)

Yeah, that time's not going to happen to me.

(-:

MattJ: I think I said I wasn't opposed, didn't I?

just letting everyone know (-:

Yeah, ta.

Kev, ok, if they're different... :)

But anything that close to midnight can get in line somewhere after sleep.

MattJ: I'm not opposed to the thought, but I'd like to check it first :)

:)

Anything else?

re 297, I'd like to see the new revision before non-objecting to its LC

since we're not dealing with layer 9 issues there (-:

nothing else from me

m&m, you too? You proposed the LC...

-s

well, If Kev says there's a new revision coming, then I want to hold off

No, just that he's going to review the current one

I didn't know there was a new revision coming.

heh

my reading comprehension is down today

/sigh

Cool, I think we're done.

Thanks all, minutes to follow.

well, I'm pre-emptively non-objecting to LCing the current −297

Thanks

m&m, I think this pre-non-objecting could be going somewhere :)

MattJ: We've done it in the past.

its like antidisestablishmentarianism

Many times.

m&m: Yes, only completely different :)

(-:

If I can manage, I'm sure you can't go far wrong

we'll see how it goes