- m&m has joined
- Neustradamus has left
- Neustradamus has joined
- m&m has left
- bear has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- bear has joined
- bear has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- ralphm has left
- Kev has left
-
Kev
Ralph: Thanks.
-
Kev
Reminding everyone that we're starting 10mins later today (and limiting ourselves to 20mins).
- ralphm has joined
- m&m has joined
- Tobias has joined
- stpeter has joined
- ralphm waves
-
m&m
T - 6 minutes?
-
ralphm
affirmative
-
m&m
hmm … the XSF calendar doesn't reflect it
-
stpeter
no, I didn't update the calendar
-
stpeter
yet
-
Kev
T - 4 minutes.
- waqas has joined
-
Kev
It is time.
-
Kev
1) Roll call
-
Kev
I'm here!
-
stpeter
Harpier cries, 'tis time, 'tis time!
-
m&m
presente
-
ralphm
aye
-
MattJ
I'm here
-
Kev
I can't see a Tobias to poke.
-
m&m
we still have quorum
-
Kev
We have.
-
Kev
2) HTTP over XMPP.
-
Kev
I didn't catch up on this (RTT took me a while!) will vote on list.
-
ralphm
No objections.
-
MattJ
No objection here either
-
MattJ
But I'm waiting for UPnP over XMPP
-
m&m
I've no objections to Experimental
-
Kev
OK.
-
Kev
3) Chat Markers Discuss Kev's concerns
-
ralphm
MattJ: I'm pretty sure I remember people doing exactly that.
-
Kev
So, I wanted to discuss this because I'm surprised that everyone else is OK with it :)
-
MattJ
I'm not, I'm rather behind on the new stuff
-
Kev
MattJ: You've 'no objectioned it', I thought?
-
MattJ
Markers?
-
Kev
Yes.
- MattJ loads a previous week's brain dump
-
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.
-
MattJ
Ok, yes
-
MattJ
I did, and I did read the new version, I somehow forgot that
-
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 :)
-
MattJ
On the basis that it's in the style of XEP-0184, but doing things that 184 cannot?
-
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.
-
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.
-
stpeter
Kev: as in, define 184+ which covers "read" instead of "delivered"? or augment existing 184 to add "read">
-
Kev
It's not the overlappingness that bothers me with this one, it's that it's broken.
-
MattJ
Oh, right - you have a point... in that if we mandate Carbons+MAM as part of the solution, XEP-0184 can work?
-
Kev
stpeter: Either way. But exactly 184 syntax other than s/delivered/read/.
- stpeter nods to Kev
-
MattJ
I think there was some justification of this on the list
-
Kev
MattJ: 184 can work, as can s184/delivered/read/
-
Kev
And that these /would/ work, while the proposal doesn't.
-
waqas
Chat Markers is also tied to UI interaction, which is extremely rare for a XEP
-
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
-
stpeter
MattJ: right
-
Kev
Please don't say I've volunteered myself :/
-
MattJ
Too late :)
-
m&m
you're the one objecting the strongest
-
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.
-
Kev
True. I'm not entirely sure why everyone else isn't, which is what bothers me.
-
Kev
i.e. am I wrong about it being broken?
-
m&m
I am in the same position as Ralph
-
stpeter
I admit that I haven't paid close attention to the Chat Markers discussion
- Lance has joined
-
m&m
And I don't see this being fundamentally broken
-
ralphm
m&m: right
-
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.
-
m&m
I think is false
-
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
-
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.
-
Kev
You either need to enumerate what you've seen, or ack individually (like 184).
-
Kev
Otherwise you have the situation of something like
-
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?
-
ralphm
hash it out
-
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'
- Peter Waher has joined
-
MattJ
Kev, but it's not designed for ensuring reliability...
-
MattJ
I think that's better left to other parts of the stack
-
Kev
MattJ: You're confirming that you have read a message.
-
Kev
MattJ: That's the strongest form of assertion that a stanza has been delivered.
-
stpeter
hmmmm
-
Peter Waher
Sorry I'm late. If there are any questions/comments on the HTTP over XMPP XEP proposal, I'm happy to answer
-
stpeter
clearly I need to look at Chat Markers more carefully
-
stpeter
not that I have a vote :-)
-
MattJ
Kev, then it's enough to satisfy your concerns with a note in the XEP that it depends on reliable delivery?
-
Kev
Most people don't need that sort of assertion, and those that do would presumably be unhappy if it was unreliable.
-
Kev
MattJ: That it can only be used if 184 is also used for every message? That would work, but boy is it ugly.
-
Kev
Anyway. 3 minutes to go. I'll send objections to the list
-
Kev
Peter Waher: Thanks. I need to vote onlist on that.
-
MattJ
Great :)
-
Kev
4) RTT - move to Draft
-
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.
-
m&m
exactly what ralphm says
-
Kev
I'd like to see the current discussion resolved before we move to Draft, as normative language is involved.
- stpeter is always in favor of publishing stuff as Experimental
-
stpeter
Kev: fine with me
-
ralphm
Kev: above comments were still on Chat Markers
-
Kev
I'm in favour of publishing most stuff to Experimental, unless it's obviously broken, which I think this is.
-
Kev
Yes, I gathered :)
-
Kev
Anyone else want to express an opinion on RTT?
-
stpeter
so hopefully the RTT discussion can be completed soon and then the Council can have a vote
-
ralphm
As for RTT, I think the recent comments on the list should result in an extension of the LC phase.
-
Kev
WFM.
-
m&m
agreed
-
stpeter
nod
-
Kev
Fab.
-
Kev
5) Date of next
-
Kev
Same 15:10 time, next wek?
-
Kev
+e
-
stpeter
fine here
-
ralphm
Should we set a new date for LC?
-
m&m
let's just assume that's the case
-
MattJ
+1
-
stpeter
ralphm: not needed, I think
-
Kev
OK.
-
ralphm
stpeter: ok
-
Kev
6) AOB?
-
ralphm
I'm ok with this time
-
m&m
as long as it gets into the calendar!
-
m&m
(-:
-
ralphm
I'll just show up around 15:00UTC as before
-
ralphm
And then wait until a chair shows up
-
m&m
I need my 10-minute warning bell
-
Peter Waher
What was the conclusion about the HTTP over XMPP proposal?
-
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?
- stpeter checks
-
m&m
Peter Waher: Kevin still needs to weigh in
-
MattJ
Peter Waher, all accepted but Kev, who will vote on the list
-
m&m
which he will do on list
-
stpeter
oh, time for a conference call here, will check later
-
Peter Waher
ok
-
MattJ
Have fun
-
ralphm
As a minor side project I worked on some CSS thingies for a nice side ribbon for XEPs
-
Kev
ralphm: Lovely.
-
Kev
stpeter: Ta, bibi.
-
m&m
back to the official meeting — I've got no AOB
-
Kev
Excellent.
-
ralphm
nothing else from me
-
Kev
Ta.
- m&m awaits to gavel to get back to JSON
-
Kev
I think we're done then.
- Kev bangs the gavel
-
Kev
Thanks all.
-
MattJ
Thanks Kev
-
m&m
grazie
-
ralphm
Thanks!
-
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?
-
Kev
ralphm: Yes.
-
ralphm
awesome
-
ralphm
Looks like next FOSDEM will be under a new King.
-
ralphm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23167525
- Peter Waher has left
- Peter Waher has joined
- Peter Waher has left
- Lance has joined
- bear has joined
- Lance has joined
- Neustradamus has left
- Neustradamus has joined
- Lance has joined
- Lance has joined
- Tobias has joined
- m&m has left
- m&m has joined
- Lance has left
- m&m has left
- m&m has joined
- bear has left
- bear has joined
- waqas has left
- bear has left
- bear has joined
- stpeter has left
- m&m has left
- m&m has joined
- Neustradamus has left
- Neustradamus has joined
- m&m has left
- bear has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- bear has joined
- bear has left
- Tobias has left
- Tobias has joined
- ralphm has left
- Kev has left
- ralphm has joined
- m&m has joined
- Tobias has joined
- stpeter has joined
- waqas has joined
- Lance has joined
- Peter Waher has joined
- Peter Waher has left
- Peter Waher has joined
- Peter Waher has left
- Lance has joined
- bear has joined
- Lance has joined
- Neustradamus has left
- Neustradamus has joined
- Lance has joined
- Lance has joined
- Tobias has joined
- m&m has left
- m&m has joined
- Lance has left
- m&m has left
- m&m has joined
- bear has left
- bear has joined
- waqas has left
- bear has left
- bear has joined
- stpeter has left
- m&m has left