-
Tobias
Kev, why was the agenda titled 17-12-2013?
-
Kev
Because it was the 17th when I wrote it, and I'm not very smart.
-
Tobias
ahh..ok
-
Tobias
i'll probably have to leave shortly after begin of the meeting. i'll post my votes on the list
-
Kev
Ta.
-
stpeter
howdy
-
stpeter
bbiaf, need tea
-
Tobias
fippo, what's latching?
-
fippo
tobias: similar to TURN, i.e. a relay in the media path
-
Tobias
ahh..ok
-
stpeter
hi Ralph!
-
ralphm
hi!
-
stpeter
and bear! :-)
-
bear
morning
-
ralphm
bear: better train your cat
- stpeter fires up some Glenn Gould to start the work day
- bear teleports to Peter's house
-
bear
ralph, he's about as trained as you can make a cat - he no longer orders from Amazon via 1-click
-
stpeter
heehee
-
ralphm
:-)
-
Kev
Nearly time, it is.
-
Kev
'tis time, 'tis time.
-
stpeter
are we almost there yet? ;-)
-
ralphm
Jingle on!
-
Kev
1) Bread products()
-
Kev
I'm here.
-
Lance
here
-
ralphm
Croissant.
-
fippo
semmel
-
Kev
Tobias / MattJ.
-
Tobias
I'm not
-
MattJ
Here
-
Kev
2) http://fippo.github.io/customxeps/extensions/jingle-sources.html Accept?
-
Kev
+1
-
MattJ
+1
-
Lance
+1
-
fippo
oh, this still says the example was taken from 5576
-
fippo
I can fix that before publication
-
Kev
I thought I checked the diff and it didn't any more.
-
Kev
Oops.
-
MattJ
I trusted you, fippo!
-
stpeter
trust, but verify!
-
Kev
Anyway, yes, please remove before publication.
-
Kev
3) http://fippo.github.io/customxeps/extensions/jingle-grouping.html Accept?
-
Lance
+1
-
Kev
+1
-
MattJ
+1
-
Kev
I'm casually assuming fippo is +1
-
fippo
kev: thanks (-:
-
Kev
4) Date of next.
-
ralphm
8
-
Kev
8th Jan?
-
Lance
lgtm
-
fippo
WFM
-
Peter Waher
I wonder what is missing for eventlogging to be approved as experimental and get a number?
-
MattJ
wfm
-
Kev
Peter Waher: That's done, isn't it?
-
MattJ
sorry, my ethernet cable fell out
-
Kev
Ah, no.
-
Peter Waher
well, it hasn't been published
-
Kev
Needs Fippo and Matt to not object.
-
stpeter
Kev: I think we were waiting for Council members to vote
-
Kev
There's another week for them to do so.
-
fippo
kev: no objections
-
fippo
(didn't I say that before?)
-
Kev
fippo: Not in response to the minutes, at least.
-
Kev
Just MattJ, then.
-
Kev
5) AOB?
-
stpeter
I mentioned another vote on XEP-0152
-
fippo
any new votes on colibri?
-
MattJ
Sorry, didn't know that was waiting on me - though I know BOSH is
-
MattJ
I'll get to it
-
stpeter
the previous Council did not complete its voting, and I made changes to address Council feedback
-
Kev
stpeter: I think the procedure, given xep1, is for another if Council doesn't finish voting by the end of term.
-
fippo
stpeter: is 0152 referenced by cusax?
-
Kev
Although I'm happy to skip that if everyone else is.
-
stpeter
fippo: yes
-
stpeter
Kev: yes, another vote for sure
-
MattJ
I'm happy with 152
-
Kev
fippo: No, that's still pending me to review it (colibri), I have a TODO.
-
Lance
+1 on 152
-
stpeter
but that can wait until the next meeting, I think (for 152)
-
Kev
stpeter: There was an "LC" missing from that sentence.
-
fippo
i'll review 0152 tomorrow, but it looked good
-
stpeter
Kev: ah, that I'm not completely sure of, but either way is fine with me
-
stpeter
and yes, it is referenced by RFC 7081
-
Kev
That is - I think xep1 says to LC again if Council doesn't finish voting by the end of term, but I'm not opposed to skipping it if everyone's happy to.
-
stpeter
(informationally, anyway)
-
Kev
Shall we schedule to vote on it on the 8th?
-
stpeter
Kev: you are right... If the XMPP Council does not complete voting on a XEP before the end of its term, the XMPP Extensions Editor shall issue a new Last Call on the Standards list and the newly-elected Council shall vote anew on the XEP after completion of the Last Call. This provides an opportunity for any member of the previous Council who had voted -1 to voice his or her concerns in a public forum before the new Council votes on the XEP.
-
ralphm
Did we even start voting?
-
stpeter
so let's follow our process :-)
-
Kev
stpeter: WFM.
-
Kev
Any other AOB?
-
stpeter
(BTW I also plan to ask the Council for a LC on XEP-0279)
-
stpeter
one AOB
-
stpeter
or 2 perhaps
-
ralphm
(i.e. 0152 is not listed in the tally for the 12th council)
-
stpeter
(1) are we OK with accepting proposals (like Philipp's) that have not gone through the inbox?
-
Kev
stpeter: Not in general, no.
-
fippo
stpeter: the xml is in the inbox actually
-
Peter Waher
So, am I waiting for input on eventlogging to continue?
-
MattJ
What practical difference does it make?
-
MattJ
Peter Waher, yes
-
MattJ
(from me, it seems)
-
Peter Waher
when can I expect this input?
-
Kev
Peter Waher: Within a week.
-
ralphm
Section 5 of XEP-0001 clearly shows that it is not ok.
-
stpeter
(2) see discussion about the liaison relationship with UPnP Forum, but that's before the XSF membership right now so no action required for the Council
-
Peter Waher
thanks
-
Kev
(People who don't vote in a meeting get a fortnight to do so on-list before they're DNV)
-
stpeter
MattJ: it doesn't make a practical difference, so I think it's fine to have people request publication in a less formal way, I just want to make sure we're all clear that this is fine :-)
-
ralphm
Although I am no longer on the council, I prefer we stick to the procedure
-
MattJ
If I can see rendered versions easily before voting, I'm not too concerned about what the URL is :)
-
ralphm
because it is a single location and notification to the standards@ list is part of it
-
Kev
I think this was a special case, as it was put in inbox, and there was a non-technical change needed when Council voted on it.
-
Kev
But in just about all cases, I think it should go through the inbox+Peter.
-
ralphm
I thought this was about the generic case, not this one.
-
Peter Waher
the tables in IM discussion, I would also appreciate some feedback on this issue
-
Kev
(I note we sometimes pre-approve stuff, too, which is ~= the same as this case)
-
stpeter
(as to inbox+Peter, I was thinking last night that we might want to turn the editor's role into a standing XSF Work Team, but I'll ponder that a bit more before suggesting it to the membership... :-)
-
Peter Waher
especially from Peter, since he's the author of XHTML-IM, and recommended a separate XEP in favor of using XHTML-IM
-
Kev
stpeter: That seems like a sensible thing to do.
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: yes, I will review your proposal and the email thread after the Board meeting
-
Kev
Peter Waher: I'll try to get to it when I'm trying to clear out my XSF stuff when I get back from holiday in the new year.
-
Peter Waher
excellent, thanks :)
-
ralphm
Lance mentioned some confusement on his part regarding tables, and I have the same.
-
Kev
I think we're done for the Council meeting, then?
-
ralphm
Was it really suggested it would not be another profile of XHTML in a different XEP?
-
stpeter
Kev: yes
-
Kev
Marvellous, thanks all.
- Kev bangs the gavel.
-
MattJ
Thanks Kev
-
Kev
ralphm: I thought the suggestion (I've not looked at that thread in a while) was to have a discoverable feature that meant "And I also accept xhtml-im tables", and that was about it.
-
ralphm
Kev: right
-
Lance
Kev: ok, that was my take away too
- stpeter nods
-
ralphm
Kev: so I don't really understand why Peter Waher went for a separate thing.
-
Kev
I've not looked at it in a while, I need to catch up.
-
Peter Waher
I understood it that way
-
Peter Waher
because so many did not want to change the XHTML-IM implementation
-
Peter Waher
thinking it was too complex
-
Peter Waher
with rendering
-
Kev
I don't think it was a case of complexity, it was a case of not shoving new stuff into a Draft XEP.
-
Kev
Or, at least, that would be my complaint.
-
ralphm
IMO we could amend XHTML-IM to allow for (discoverable) extensions and then have the XHTML Basic Tables Module.
-
stpeter
ralphm: quite possibly, yes
-
Kev
ralphm: Although XHTML-IM itself doesn't need to allow for discoverable extensions, I think, if another XEP just says "If you advertise feature X, also accept tables".
-
ralphm
Kev: the XEP forbids it currently
-
ralphm
so at least some word smithing is in order
-
Kev
Nothing is forbidden by negotiation :)
-
Peter Waher
the problem with the XHTML table module is that it is rather complex, and there was a desire to have a reduced set also
-
Peter Waher
and then there was the discussion about blacklisting vs. whitelisting which made me feel the XHTML-IM was a topic some didn't want to touch
-
Lance
the black/whitelisting issue is mainly just client implementation details we've found to occur in practice (where using only a blacklist is insecure against creative attackers). we just have to ensure that things work when only a whitelist is in use, since that's the safer route
-
ralphm
People will otherwise simply map the new stuff to HTML. Badly.
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: well, we have "profiled" the other modules (some of which are also complex), so I don't see that as a showstopper
-
Peter Waher
ok
-
Peter Waher
so, if you could revise the previous communication and then let me know in detail how you would like to see this extended, I can write an extension accordingly
-
Peter Waher
if you feel the proposal is not in accordance to what you prefer
-
stpeter
Peter Waher: yes, I will look at it in more detail here very soon
-
Peter Waher
(y)