XMPP Council - 2014-01-08

  1. Kev

    Right, 1 minute. Time to grab a water.

  2. ralphm


  3. Kev

    Water has been fetched :)

  4. Kev

    1) Roll call.

  5. Kev

    I am here.

  6. MattJ

    Breakfast grabbed

  7. MattJ

    I think, therefore I am here

  8. fippo


  9. Kev

    Tobias / Lance: piiing.

  10. Tobias


  11. Lance


  12. Lance


  13. ralphm


  14. stpeter

    MattJ: do you live on Pacific Time?

  15. Kev

    No-one sent anything more for the agenda, so I guess we're just on the two items.

  16. MattJ

    stpeter, I'm calling it jetlag

  17. Kev

    2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-dtls.html Accept?

  18. MattJ

    But I haven't travelled anywhere since the last summit

  19. Tobias

    i'm +1 for accept

  20. MattJ

    +1 also

  21. Lance

    +1, but it will likely need some more work as the sdp stuff for it gets hammered out

  22. fippo

    i'm +1 for accepting this. it needs more work, but that is because the datachannels are still somewhat in flux

  23. Kev

    I need to give it a better glance before not objecting, but I'm anticipating it being fine to publish.

  24. Kev

    I'll post on list once I've done so.

  25. Kev

    3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0152.html

  26. Kev

    I think, if i read xep1 correctly, we don't need to vote on an LC for this, and it's automatically given one because of the Council change.

  27. Kev

    stpeter (if you're paying attention, but I see you're on a call so maybe not), that sound about right?

  28. stpeter


  29. Kev


  30. stpeter

    just finished the call

  31. Kev

    The new Editor-Team can sort that out, then :)

  32. ralphm


  33. Kev

    (Assuming Board are about to ratify that)

  34. Kev

    4) Date of next.

  35. stpeter


  36. ralphm

    I'm sure it's on the agenda.

  37. stpeter

    I need to write up a charter for the Editor Team

  38. Peter Waher

    event logging and dynamic forms?

  39. Kev

    The reason I used to have to move it from 16:00 to 16:10 isn't an issue any more, so we could move back to 16:00, if people like.

  40. Kev

    Or we can keep it as the current 20mins, which is usually fine but sometimes tight.

  41. stpeter

    Peter Waher: I think the objections periods for those have ended, so I think they can be published now

  42. ralphm

    +1 on 16:00

  43. Peter Waher


  44. ralphm

    so that we can start board at 16:30

  45. Tobias

    +1 on the time change too

  46. MattJ

    +1 for 16:10

  47. fippo

    16:00 works for me.

  48. MattJ


  49. stpeter


  50. Peter Waher

    I've updated them and answered to all objections. Should be fine.

  51. Dave Cridland

    I would prefer to have a short gap before the board meeting, anyway. There's often a few minutes of interesting chatter after the council.

  52. MattJ

    I didn't mean that!

  53. MattJ

    +1 for 16:00

  54. Lance

    +1 16:00

  55. ralphm

    MattJ: I call Jetlag.

  56. MattJ

    Meetings before breakfast

  57. Kev

    Ok, so 16:00 next Wed, then?

  58. Tobias


  59. MattJ


  60. fippo


  61. Lance


  62. Kev

    5) Any other business?

  63. Dave Cridland

    Kev, Yeah.

  64. Kev

    I immediately regret asking :)

  65. MattJ


  66. Dave Cridland

    Kev, In a discussion I had recently, the subject of the late and lamented tech review work team was mentioned.

  67. Dave Cridland

    Kev, Would the Council like an effort to reinstantiate that?

  68. Peter Waher

    you agree to publish the event logging and dynamic forms XEPs, latest revisions?

  69. Kev

    Peter Waher: My understanding was that those had passed Council. I can double-check later.

  70. Peter Waher

    they're not published yet

  71. Kev

    Peter Waher: See the ongoing discussion about the XEP Editor being overworked.

  72. Kev

    Dave Cridland: I'm not desperate to start a new work team unless there's actually a bunch of people who would want to be on it.

  73. ralphm

    Kev: agreed

  74. Kev

    Dave Cridland: If it's one person who wants to do some reviews, I don't see any problem with an informal arrangement.

  75. Kev

    If there /are/ a group of people who want to be reviewing stuff ~formally, then I'm not strictly opposed to reinstating it.

  76. ralphm

    Kev: in that case, the team is basically standards@ subscribers

  77. Kev

    It's a fine idea to have one.

  78. Kev

    ralphm: That's a nice idea, but I'm pretty sure most of standards@ subscribers aren't reviewing stuff muc.

  79. Kev

    Heh, Freudian slip. *much*

  80. Kev

    Dave Cridland: Do you think there's general interest in a formal team for doing reviews?

  81. ralphm

    Kev: I think we are in agreement

  82. Kev

    ralphm: An excellent place to be.

  83. Dave Cridland

    I don't know. I am vaguely under the impression there's a certain degree of interest members in doing *something*, and capitalizing on that might yield a work team.

  84. ralphm

    It might even be better to ask (to volunteer) specific people for specific documents

  85. MattJ

    What does a review team add over the council?

  86. Kev

    MattJ: The Council is a last resort.

  87. Dave Cridland

    But even the formation of such a team would involve effort, so I'm wondering if the Council see that as a laudable goal or not.

  88. Kev

    MattJ: It would be much better for document authors to have feedback earlier than "No, we're not letting this go to Draft".

  89. Dave Cridland

    MattJ, More eyeballs.

  90. Kev

    Dave Cridland: I'm not opposed. If it happened and worked it would be a Fine Thing. I'd be inclined to start by asking if there are actually people who want to participate in such a thing, rather than trying to formalise the flagpole and then see if anyone salutes.

  91. Dave Cridland

    Kev, Meaning COuncil needn't always be the Bad Guys.

  92. Kev

    There is that, although it's not really my concern in this.

  93. Dave Cridland

    Kev, It's not entirely clear to me if we already have the work team, with nobody actually doing anything with it. That is, the formal aspects might actually be done already.

  94. Kev

    But, for Experimental XEPs, for example. Council generally let stuff through that is fine to start, but they know is a long way off Draft quality. A review team could help with the interim.

  95. Dave Cridland

    But anyway, I'm good with the advice I have from Council.

  96. Kev

    Dave Cridland: I don't much care about the formality. If there are people wanting to do this, it'd be great for it to happen.

  97. Kev

    Anyone with anything else for anything else?

  98. fippo

    i just noted that peter requested 0279 as another agenda item

  99. fippo


  100. Kev

    Oh, oops.

  101. Kev

    Re-ordering a little, then

  102. Kev

    3b) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0279.html LC?

  103. MattJ


  104. Lance

    +1 LC

  105. Tobias


  106. fippo

    i'm fine with LC

  107. Kev

    I don't mind a Last Call. I still wonder on this XEP and whether it's useful compared to STUN, but that's an LC comment.

  108. Lance

    though it does have a typo in example 2

  109. Kev

    5) Any other business? :)

  110. Tobias

    none here

  111. Kev

    OK, I think we're done then.

  112. Kev

    Thanks all :)

  113. fippo

    i think I (with my authors hat) want some pending votes on colibri as well, but i'll check the archives and post to the list

  114. Kev bangs the gavel.

  115. Kev

    fippo: Didn't I send mine?

  116. Kev

    I vaguely remember ticking off that TODO.

  117. fippo

    kev: you said "OK."

  118. Kev

    Sorry, Isode patch review habit.

  119. Kev

    OK = +1.

  120. MattJ

    I read "hobbit"

  121. Dave Cridland

    You always responded "Oh Kay" to mine.

  122. ralphm

  123. Kev

    MattJ: Having patch review hobbits might be interesting.

  124. ralphm

    Kev: you have shires around, right?

  125. Kev

    Something like that.