XMPP Council - 2012-07-25

  1. stpeter has left

  2. bear has joined

  3. bear has left

  4. m&m has left

  5. Kev has joined

  6. Tobias has joined

  7. Tobias has left

  8. Tobias has left

  9. Tobias has joined

  10. Tobias has left

  11. Tobias has joined

  12. Tobias has left

  13. Tobias has left

  14. Tobias has left

  15. m&m has joined

  16. Zash has joined

  17. Tobias has joined

  18. Tobias has left

  19. Tobias has joined

  20. Tobias has left

  21. Tobias has joined

  22. m&m

    t - 05:00

  23. Kev

    Yep, ta.

  24. Kev

    Just finished some (internal) patch review ready.

  25. m&m

    that was mostly a self check (-:

  26. Kev

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

  27. m&m


  28. m&m

    I still haven't finished my slides for next week

  29. Kev

    That's /next/ week :)

  30. m&m

    yes, but the chairs need them "now"

  31. m&m


  32. Kev

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

  33. m&m

    I was planning to review that on the plane

  34. MattJ has joined

  35. m&m

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

  36. Kev

    Hope you get the 0.6 version.

  37. m&m

    me, too

  38. m&m

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

  39. m&m

    ding ding ding

  40. Kev


  41. Kev

    1) Roll call

  42. Kev

    I'm here!

  43. Kev


  44. m&m

    what, you go all TRON on us?

  45. m&m


  46. Kev

    MattJ, Tobias: *ping*

  47. MattJ


  48. Tobias


  49. Tobias


  50. Kev

    Ralph has been pinged.

  51. Kev

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

  52. m&m


  53. Florob has joined

  54. Tobias


  55. Kev

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

  56. m&m


  57. MattJ


  58. m&m

    There's Exodus (-:

  59. Tobias

    psi does also xhtml-im

  60. Tobias


  61. MattJ

    Pidgin, Gajim, etc.

  62. Zash

    and Gajim

  63. Kev

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

  64. MattJ

    Pandion, iChat!

  65. m&m

    there's a bunch of clients

  66. MattJ

    Kev, it can produce

  67. m&m

    Adium also does it, at least every other version

  68. Kev

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

  69. Kev

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

  70. Kev

    Although possibly not.

  71. Kev


  72. Kev

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

  73. MattJ

    Gajim says pink

  74. m&m

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

  75. m&m

    (re 308)

  76. Kev

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

  77. m&m


  78. MattJ

    Do we have two implementations?

  79. m&m

    no (-:

  80. Kev

    MattJ: Swift and Jitsi.

  81. m&m

    no objections to −308 LC

  82. MattJ

    Ah, forgot Jitsi

  83. MattJ

    Yeah, I'm fine with LC

  84. Tobias

    im fine with it too

  85. 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.

  86. MattJ

    I'm fine with that

  87. m&m

    I'm fine with that

  88. m&m


  89. 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).

  90. MattJ


  91. ralphm has joined

  92. Kev

    Evening Ralph.

  93. m&m

    we need a jinx protocol extension

  94. ralphm


  95. ralphm

    no objection to 0308 LC

  96. Tobias

    on XEP-0301: +1 on LC for draft

  97. 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)

  98. ralphm

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

  99. MattJ

    Don't try :)

  100. ralphm

    I do know that the discussion is flooding the list

  101. 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.

  102. Kev

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

  103. m&m


  104. ralphm

    if it is just for the label, well, ok

  105. m&m

    layer 9 interjected into layer 7

  106. Kev


  107. Kev

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

  108. Kev

    5) Date of next meeting.

  109. Kev


  110. m&m


  111. MattJ


  112. Tobias

    fine with that

  113. Kev


  114. Kev

    I'll take that as a yes :)

  115. Kev

    6) Any other business?

  116. MattJ

    Not here

  117. MattJ


  118. m&m

    just a note that IETF is next week

  119. MattJ


  120. ralphm


  121. Kev

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

  122. Kev

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

  123. MattJ

    Sure, np

  124. Kev

    Unless that one's urgent.

  125. m&m

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

  126. m&m

    XMPP WG meeting that is

  127. MattJ

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

  128. Kev

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

  129. m&m


  130. Kev

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

  131. m&m

    just letting everyone know (-:

  132. Kev

    Yeah, ta.

  133. MattJ

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

  134. Kev

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

  135. Kev

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

  136. MattJ


  137. Kev

    Anything else?

  138. m&m

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

  139. m&m

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

  140. m&m

    nothing else from me

  141. MattJ

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

  142. ralphm nodss

  143. ralphm


  144. m&m

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

  145. MattJ

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

  146. Kev

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

  147. m&m


  148. m&m

    my reading comprehension is down today

  149. m&m


  150. Kev

    Cool, I think we're done.

  151. Kev

    Thanks all, minutes to follow.

  152. m&m

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

  153. MattJ


  154. MattJ

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

  155. Kev

    MattJ: We've done it in the past.

  156. m&m

    its like antidisestablishmentarianism

  157. Kev

    Many times.

  158. Kev

    m&m: Yes, only completely different :)

  159. m&m


  160. Kev bangs the gavel.

  161. m&m goes off to figure out how to fake intelligence for the rest of today

  162. MattJ

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

  163. m&m

    we'll see how it goes

  164. Tobias has left

  165. Florob has left

  166. Tobias has joined

  167. Tobias has joined

  168. m&m has left

  169. m&m has joined

  170. MattJ has left

  171. m&m has left

  172. m&m has joined

  173. Kev has left

  174. Tobias has left

  175. Kev has joined

  176. Tobias has joined

  177. Neustradamus has joined

  178. m&m has left

  179. ralphm has left

  180. Zash has left

  181. Zash has joined