XMPP Council - 2013-10-02

ah nice, I found a room called "Solace" :-)

:-D

T - 5 minutes

And ding.

1) Roll call.

I'm here!

presente

invited mattj

Tobias: By just dragging him to the window? :)

here

Kev, how else would one do it? :)

Right.

But in his absence...

2) XEP-0301. Move to Draft?

I think everyone's comments have now been addressed and this needs a revote.

And I need to give it a re-read first.

it's the re-XEP -- review, revise, repost, reread

I did re-read, and I'm +1

Excellent.

i'm +1 too, my issue got addressed

I'm not going to nit any further; I'll send the list to the XEP editor

things like using typographer's quotes

m&m: Requiring them to change the English grammar for American was just harsh :p

super ultra mega minor

ASCII should have been good enough for everyone! (-:

yeah I can clean up some of the minor issues

ralphm: ?

Yeah, it looks good to me. +1

Fab.

I think that was our only voting item.

3) Date of next.

SBTSBC WFM

Excellent.

stpeter: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/twelfth-council/: Twelfth Council – The XMPP Standards Foundation

4) AOB.

wfm

OB

I have an outstanding +1 from 297, which I'll leave here.

the Council and Board nominees are still light

Kev: you are +1 on 297?

stpeter: Yes.

Tobias: did you vote on 220?

i'll add mine till the end of the week

stpeter, didn't i reply on list?

Tobias: maybe I missed it

Matt and Tobias both said they were intending standing for Council and haven't yet.

I don't recall, but I think Ralph said the same?

yes

Lance still hasn't completed the form (-:

stpeter, you even replied to the mail :)

Tobias: ouch

but you probably replied to a lot mails that day

:)

ah, i see, yes

n/m then

m&m: Were you suggesting there's something Council needs to do about the lists standing?

just make sure you fill out your nomination if you're running again

proxy voting starts in less than a fortnight!

m&m: come on man, I still have 12 days!

OK. AOAOB?

m&m: keeping things exciting

voting tally updated again, will process those documents today

stpeter: thank you

stpeter: Thanks.

sure thing

OK, we're done then?

Thanks all.

seems so

ciao

adiós

thanks!

houdoe!

Tobias: actually, I had advanced XEP-0220 but neglected to update the tally page ;-)

I still don't know why I'm an author in 297 :P

I guess Matt added you.

I guess I might remove myself ;-)

hehe

stpeter: You're an author because you added yourself in version 0.5, commit 67282456 :)

Although I suspect the diff was Matt's, given the changelog.

nod

I wrote the schema

but that's trivial

stpeter: If you /want/ to, you can fake other people's authorship of commits in Git.

So if people send you a patch, but you have to apply it, you can do so in their name.

true, although I could fake a lot of stuff if I wanted to

I meant that this might be a useful thing to fake :)

actually XEP-0297 is missing the registrar section

Kev: but wait, git has a feature that makes it possible to differentiate between author and committer. No need to fake.

ralphm: I don't think you're addressing the use case that I was suggesting.

The problem isn't knowing that it was Peter who pushed other people's Git patches. It's knowing who sent the diff when Peter has to apply a diff and create a git commit from it.

(Because people send Peter diffs, rather than the result of git format-patch)

If people send git format-patch, then all is well with the world.

Kev: git commit --author

Indeed. Which is the faking of the author of a commit that I was suggesting Peter does.

It would have been quicker to say "I agree with Kev" :D

that's not faking, that's setting the metadata properly

see what I object to?

you call it faking, I am saying this feature was explicitly created for this use case

Yes. You're agreeing with me, but arguing with the words I used to express the opinion you agree with :D

Kev: yeah, that's what I do.

Kev: should sound familiar :-D

As long as we're agreed on that.