XMPP Council - 2013-01-02

  1. ralphm waves

  2. Kev

    Hi Ralph.

  3. Tobias


  4. Kev

    m&m: You here?

  5. Kev

    It is time.

  6. m&m

    I am now

  7. MattJ


  8. Kev

    Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this year's first installment of ... The EX EM PEE PEE Council.

  9. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  10. Kev

    I'm here.

  11. m&m


  12. Tobias


  13. Kev

    ralphm: Still here?

  14. ralphm


  15. Kev


  16. Kev

    2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mep.html Accept as XEP?

  17. Kanchil

    Kev: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/mep.html: XEP-XXXX: MUC Eventing Protocol

  18. m&m

    no objections

  19. ralphm


  20. Kev

    I had a couple of niggles with this, but nothing blocking.

  21. MattJ


  22. Kev

    (Niggles like the Note: box being wrong, and a typo of MEP becoming NEP)

  23. ralphm

    Kev: sure thing

  24. Tobias


  25. MattJ

    Sorry, I have a bad connection atm, may pop in and out

  26. MattJ

    Kev, oh good, just editorial?

  27. MattJ

    Of the various approaches to MEP that we've ever had, this has always been my favourite

  28. Kev

    I think so, although I'm shattered today so maybe I've just forgotten.

  29. Kev

    It's the only approach that can fundamentally work, I think - although there are lots of things that need to be cleared up.

  30. Kev

    When room history is limited to stuff a day old, MEP should be limited as well, it interacts with Fast Reconnect, etc.

  31. ralphm

    I still have to read it in detail, and a great thing to discuss in a few weeks

  32. Kev

    And when you publish to your PEP node, that should be autopushed to your MEP nodes, presumably.

  33. stpeter

    happy new year

  34. Kev

    But yes, clearing this stuff up in Brussels would be a good use of time there.

  35. Kev

    Hi Peter, HNY.

  36. Kev

    3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hats.html Accept as Experimental?

  37. Kanchil

    Kev: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hats.html: XEP-xxxx: Hats

  38. ralphm


  39. ralphm

    good to see this in writing now

  40. m&m

    also no objections

  41. Kev

    I don't have any fundamental objections to this, although I think that (3) is probably the wrong choice for the format.

  42. MattJ

    +1 to hats

  43. Kev

    I'm glad it doesn't cover some of the madnessess that I've heard discussed for hats over the years.

  44. stpeter

    ralphm: it took only 2 or 3 years, I think

  45. m&m


  46. Kev

    3, I think.

  47. ralphm

    I had been thinking of a wrapper around the custom element, but I still have to think that over

  48. stpeter

    ralphm: yeah, I need to give it some more thought too

  49. Kev

    I think you have to assume that clients aren't going to understand the hats themselves in most circumstances.

  50. Tobias

    the example form maps a hat to nicknames? shouldn't it map hats to real jids?

  51. ralphm

    Kev, right

  52. Kev

    Tobias: A reasonable question.

  53. stpeter

    Tobias: quite possibly

  54. Tobias

    stpeter, when removing a had, you at least remove by jid in your example

  55. Kev

    Tobias: Is that blocking?

  56. waqas

    I had a whole bunch of minor questions and issues, but those can go on the ML after these get published :)

  57. ralphm

    Another fine topic for discussion in Brussels

  58. waqas

    (I was attempting to implement both the specs)

  59. Tobias

    Kev, nope..could be fixed during experimental imo

  60. Tobias

    waqas, in which client? ;)

  61. waqas

    Tobias: Servers have to do everything first

  62. ralphm

    For hats I expect many application-specific hats, that generic clients won't do much with, except maybe show their name.

  63. Tobias

    waqas, mimimimi.....

  64. stpeter

    waqas: I'm not surprised -- I wrote the hats spec in a hurry and haven't touched it in several weeks

  65. ralphm

    Like for games

  66. Kev

    OK, so that's everyone happy with this, I think.

  67. Tobias

    could be combined with bits of binary to add small icons for hats, etc.

  68. Kev

    Tobias: No, I think that's MEP :)

  69. Kev


  70. Kev

    4) Date of next meeting.

  71. Kev

    Next Wed, usual time?

  72. Tobias


  73. MattJ


  74. ralphm


  75. Kev


  76. m&m

    double-you eff em

  77. Kev

    5) Any other business?

  78. waqas

    m&m: That could be interpreted incorrectly..

  79. m&m

    none from me

  80. stpeter updates the calendar

  81. Kev

    stpeter: Thanks.

  82. stpeter wanders off for tea, brb

  83. Kev

    OK, with no other business I guess we're done.

  84. m&m

    same here

  85. Kev

    Thanks all.

  86. m&m

    tea, that is

  87. Kev bangs the gavel.

  88. ralphm


  89. MattJ

    Oh, note... stpeter wrote in the call for talks that council would select from submissions

  90. MattJ

    I haven't personally had time to review them yet, shall we aim to do that next week?

  91. ralphm


  92. Kev

    I'm completely not on top of FOSDEM stuff.

  93. Kev

    I'm happy to review stuff (although don't recall seeing enough submissions for stuff to not fit anyway), but I'd greatly appreciate if someone could tell me what to review :)

  94. ralphm

    I think with the start of the new year we should give this new attention

  95. ralphm

    I believe the submission deadline for the FOSDEM flyer is nearing

  96. ralphm looks that up

  97. ralphm

    oh we set a deadline of 31 December

  98. MattJ


  99. Kev

    Have we got enough talks to fill the time?

  100. Kev

    I'm happy enough to put a talk in if we're short and someone can think of anything interesting for me to say.

  101. Kev

    But have nothing particularly burning to say.

  102. Kev

    I'm guessing we'll start with the usual XMPP 101 with some combination of Remko/Peter/me one way or another.

  103. Tobias

    those are for FOSDEM right?

  104. Tobias

    not for summit, the talks

  105. Kev


  106. Tobias


  107. ralphm

    I count 7 proposals on the summit ml

  108. ralphm

    not sure if people have sent requests directly to peter

  109. MattJ

    How much time do we have in the devroom this year?

  110. ralphm looks

  111. ralphm


  112. ralphm

    and the hard dead-line for the submission of our schedule for the devroom is January 10

  113. MattJ

    So we have plenty of room I gather

  114. ralphm


  115. ralphm

    it is nice to not have to cram things in a schedule

  116. MattJ

    Some years we fill gaps with lightning talks, which generally get filled

  117. MattJ

    People always have something to say when given the chance :)

  118. stpeter wanders back in after much IRL discussion