XMPP Council - 2013-07-03

  1. m&m has joined
  2. Neustradamus has left
  3. Neustradamus has joined
  4. m&m has left
  5. bear has left
  6. Tobias has left
  7. Tobias has left
  8. Tobias has joined
  9. bear has joined
  10. bear has left
  11. Tobias has left
  12. Tobias has joined
  13. ralphm has left
  14. Kev has left
  15. Kev Ralph: Thanks.
  16. Kev Reminding everyone that we're starting 10mins later today (and limiting ourselves to 20mins).
  17. ralphm has joined
  18. m&m has joined
  19. Tobias has joined
  20. stpeter has joined
  21. ralphm waves
  22. m&m T - 6 minutes?
  23. ralphm affirmative
  24. m&m hmm … the XSF calendar doesn't reflect it
  25. stpeter no, I didn't update the calendar
  26. stpeter yet
  27. Kev T - 4 minutes.
  28. waqas has joined
  29. Kev It is time.
  30. Kev 1) Roll call
  31. Kev I'm here!
  32. stpeter Harpier cries, 'tis time, 'tis time!
  33. m&m presente
  34. ralphm aye
  35. MattJ I'm here
  36. Kev I can't see a Tobias to poke.
  37. m&m we still have quorum
  38. Kev We have.
  39. Kev 2) HTTP over XMPP.
  40. Kev I didn't catch up on this (RTT took me a while!) will vote on list.
  41. ralphm No objections.
  42. MattJ No objection here either
  43. MattJ But I'm waiting for UPnP over XMPP
  44. m&m I've no objections to Experimental
  45. Kev OK.
  46. Kev 3) Chat Markers Discuss Kev's concerns
  47. ralphm MattJ: I'm pretty sure I remember people doing exactly that.
  48. Kev So, I wanted to discuss this because I'm surprised that everyone else is OK with it :)
  49. MattJ I'm not, I'm rather behind on the new stuff
  50. Kev MattJ: You've 'no objectioned it', I thought?
  51. MattJ Markers?
  52. Kev Yes.
  53. MattJ loads a previous week's brain dump
  54. Kev It seems to me that the current proposal is kinda broken, and that just doing what 184 does but s/delivered/read/, combined with MAM/carbons would solve the discussed issues.
  55. MattJ Ok, yes
  56. MattJ I did, and I did read the new version, I somehow forgot that
  57. Kev I'd like to block it on this basis, so would like everyone else who wants to publish it to tell me I'm wrong :)
  58. MattJ On the basis that it's in the style of XEP-0184, but doing things that 184 cannot?
  59. Kev MattJ: On the basis that it's doing stuff similar to 184, in a different way to 184, such that the proposed way is broken and just copy/paste of 184 wouldn't be.
  60. ralphm Kev: I'm not sure what you mean with 'OK with it'. I make a pretty big distinction between allowing a proposal become experimental and moving it to Draft. We have had multiple (slightly overlapping) proposals on several topics before, and I am entirely fine with that.
  61. stpeter Kev: as in, define 184+ which covers "read" instead of "delivered"? or augment existing 184 to add "read">
  62. Kev It's not the overlappingness that bothers me with this one, it's that it's broken.
  63. MattJ Oh, right - you have a point... in that if we mandate Carbons+MAM as part of the solution, XEP-0184 can work?
  64. Kev stpeter: Either way. But exactly 184 syntax other than s/delivered/read/.
  65. stpeter nods to Kev
  66. MattJ I think there was some justification of this on the list
  67. Kev MattJ: 184 can work, as can s184/delivered/read/
  68. Kev And that these /would/ work, while the proposal doesn't.
  69. waqas Chat Markers is also tied to UI interaction, which is extremely rare for a XEP
  70. MattJ Then I guess the next step is for some more concrete proposals (even just to the list) on how XEP-0184 could be used/adapted for this purpose
  71. stpeter MattJ: right
  72. Kev Please don't say I've volunteered myself :/
  73. MattJ Too late :)
  74. m&m you're the one objecting the strongest
  75. ralphm So yeah, maybe this spec currently doesn't do the most desirable thing (if at all). I awarded it no objections, because of the attempt to solve a problem people are experiencing. It might very well be that indeed using XEP-0184 is better a approach combined with Carbons+MAM. This could be done either in an updated version of this spec or as modifications to XEP-0184.
  76. Kev True. I'm not entirely sure why everyone else isn't, which is what bothers me.
  77. Kev i.e. am I wrong about it being broken?
  78. m&m I am in the same position as Ralph
  79. stpeter I admit that I haven't paid close attention to the Chat Markers discussion
  80. Lance has joined
  81. m&m And I don't see this being fundamentally broken
  82. ralphm m&m: right
  83. m&m particularly the assumption that: you're always going to be sending them to a contact you're already in a chat with, and therefore will be bound to the full JID.
  84. m&m I think is false
  85. MattJ I'm in the same position as m&m and Ralph, but I do think Kev's proposal has merit, it just needs a bit more elaboration
  86. Kev OK, but that wasn't the fundamental brokenness. The fundamental brokenness was saying "I have seen everything up to X" - when you have no idea what was up to X.
  87. Kev You either need to enumerate what you've seen, or ack individually (like 184).
  88. Kev Otherwise you have the situation of something like
  89. ralphm Kev: so wouldn't it be great to have this proposal as a starting point and then has it out with the authors on the standards list?
  90. ralphm hash it out
  91. Kev <A> Man down, need evac. [gets lost] <A> And I fancy a cup of tea <B> I have seen every message up to 'cup of tea'
  92. Peter Waher has joined
  93. MattJ Kev, but it's not designed for ensuring reliability...
  94. MattJ I think that's better left to other parts of the stack
  95. Kev MattJ: You're confirming that you have read a message.
  96. Kev MattJ: That's the strongest form of assertion that a stanza has been delivered.
  97. stpeter hmmmm
  98. Peter Waher Sorry I'm late. If there are any questions/comments on the HTTP over XMPP XEP proposal, I'm happy to answer
  99. stpeter clearly I need to look at Chat Markers more carefully
  100. stpeter not that I have a vote :-)
  101. MattJ Kev, then it's enough to satisfy your concerns with a note in the XEP that it depends on reliable delivery?
  102. Kev Most people don't need that sort of assertion, and those that do would presumably be unhappy if it was unreliable.
  103. Kev MattJ: That it can only be used if 184 is also used for every message? That would work, but boy is it ugly.
  104. Kev Anyway. 3 minutes to go. I'll send objections to the list
  105. Kev Peter Waher: Thanks. I need to vote onlist on that.
  106. MattJ Great :)
  107. Kev 4) RTT - move to Draft
  108. ralphm While I welcome discussion on this spec, I'd rather have this done on the standards list, with a published first spec as basis.
  109. m&m exactly what ralphm says
  110. Kev I'd like to see the current discussion resolved before we move to Draft, as normative language is involved.
  111. stpeter is always in favor of publishing stuff as Experimental
  112. stpeter Kev: fine with me
  113. ralphm Kev: above comments were still on Chat Markers
  114. Kev I'm in favour of publishing most stuff to Experimental, unless it's obviously broken, which I think this is.
  115. Kev Yes, I gathered :)
  116. Kev Anyone else want to express an opinion on RTT?
  117. stpeter so hopefully the RTT discussion can be completed soon and then the Council can have a vote
  118. ralphm As for RTT, I think the recent comments on the list should result in an extension of the LC phase.
  119. Kev WFM.
  120. m&m agreed
  121. stpeter nod
  122. Kev Fab.
  123. Kev 5) Date of next
  124. Kev Same 15:10 time, next wek?
  125. Kev +e
  126. stpeter fine here
  127. ralphm Should we set a new date for LC?
  128. m&m let's just assume that's the case
  129. MattJ +1
  130. stpeter ralphm: not needed, I think
  131. Kev OK.
  132. ralphm stpeter: ok
  133. Kev 6) AOB?
  134. ralphm I'm ok with this time
  135. m&m as long as it gets into the calendar!
  136. m&m (-:
  137. ralphm I'll just show up around 15:00UTC as before
  138. ralphm And then wait until a chair shows up
  139. m&m I need my 10-minute warning bell
  140. Peter Waher What was the conclusion about the HTTP over XMPP proposal?
  141. stpeter ralphm: LC often gets "extended" -- in fact I think we have a few specs that the Council hasn't voted on yet and for which the last calls started months ago, right?
  142. stpeter checks
  143. m&m Peter Waher: Kevin still needs to weigh in
  144. MattJ Peter Waher, all accepted but Kev, who will vote on the list
  145. m&m which he will do on list
  146. stpeter oh, time for a conference call here, will check later
  147. Peter Waher ok
  148. MattJ Have fun
  149. ralphm As a minor side project I worked on some CSS thingies for a nice side ribbon for XEPs
  150. Kev ralphm: Lovely.
  151. Kev stpeter: Ta, bibi.
  152. m&m back to the official meeting — I've got no AOB
  153. Kev Excellent.
  154. ralphm nothing else from me
  155. Kev Ta.
  156. m&m awaits to gavel to get back to JSON
  157. Kev I think we're done then.
  158. Kev bangs the gavel
  159. Kev Thanks all.
  160. MattJ Thanks Kev
  161. m&m grazie
  162. ralphm Thanks!
  163. ralphm Kev: if you decide to -1 chat markers on list, could you just send your objections to the standards list to go with it?
  164. Kev ralphm: Yes.
  165. ralphm awesome
  166. ralphm Looks like next FOSDEM will be under a new King.
  167. ralphm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23167525
  168. Peter Waher has left
  169. Peter Waher has joined
  170. Peter Waher has left
  171. Lance has joined
  172. bear has joined
  173. Lance has joined
  174. Neustradamus has left
  175. Neustradamus has joined
  176. Lance has joined
  177. Lance has joined
  178. Tobias has joined
  179. m&m has left
  180. m&m has joined
  181. Lance has left
  182. m&m has left
  183. m&m has joined
  184. bear has left
  185. bear has joined
  186. waqas has left
  187. bear has left
  188. bear has joined
  189. stpeter has left
  190. m&m has left