XMPP Council - 2014-02-19

  1. Lance has left
  2. Lance has joined
  3. Lance has left
  4. Lance has joined
  5. Lance has left
  6. Tobias has left
  7. Tobias do we have a meeting today? is there an agenda?
  8. stpeter has joined
  9. Dave Cridland has joined
  10. Kev We do, and...there will be within the next 6 minutes.
  11. Kev Odd. I was sure there was something, but I've not noted it.
  12. Kev Ah. I think it's that I was expecting the Editor team to ask for a vote on BOSH, but I don't think that team's off the ground yet.
  13. Lance has joined
  14. Kev Or, possibly, because there seems to be continuing discussion about BOSH on the list.
  15. Kev Well, I don't think we have anything for this week, then, but let's start anyway.
  16. Kev 1) Roll call.
  17. Kev I'm here.
  18. Kev Matt sent apologies.
  19. Lance here
  20. Tobias here
  21. Kev fippo?
  22. fippo here
  23. Kev Before we jump straight to Date, anyone know of anything we need to vote on (BOSH notwithstanding, that I'm not sure of the state of).
  24. fippo i think there was a new version of the two factor auth...?
  25. Kev Hmm. I don't see a mail about that in my inbox.
  26. fippo http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2014-February/028547.html
  27. fippo i don't think it was officially submitted to the editor though
  28. Kev Ah, not a submission yet, then.
  29. Dave Cridland Kev, As an AOB of sorts, I'd appreciate any views Council has on the Editor team being gathered for the Board.
  30. Kev Dave Cridland: Not understood, but noted.
  31. Kev OK.
  32. Kev 2) Date of next meeting.
  33. Kev SBTSBC?
  34. Lance wfm
  35. Tobias wfm
  36. fippo i'm unavailable next week
  37. Kev Matt expects to be back next week, so that makes four. fippo: Would you rather we didn't meet without you?
  38. Kev Otherwise I'd suggest we just go on and you vote on list.
  39. Lance for aob i do have a question on a xep-30 clarification
  40. fippo kev: go ahead, i'll vote on the list if there is anything.
  41. Kev Fab
  42. Kev 3) AOB.
  43. Kev Dave Cridland: What is it you want thoughts on?
  44. Dave Cridland Are there any from Council?
  45. Kev On what?
  46. Kev The Editor team is a Done Deal isn't it?
  47. Dave Cridland It should be setting itself up; I was thinking in terms of whether it's adequately doing so. I imagine it's too early to tell yet.
  48. Kev I assume that nothing's happened yet, I could be wrong.
  49. fippo the first meeting hasn't happened yet, or did i miss that?
  50. Dave Cridland I didn't *think* anything had happened.
  51. Dave Cridland But I'm on my travels, so I wasn't sure.
  52. Kev I think not.
  53. Kev So we done with that item?
  54. Dave Cridland Sounds like it.
  55. Dave Cridland I'll check back next week.
  56. Kev (I'm also waiting to see the charter of the UPnP team, so I can call for volunteers, but that's not really relevant here)
  57. Kev Lance: You're up.
  58. Lance So in XEP-0030 for requesting disco items without specifiying a node
  59. Lance it says 'The target entity then MUST either return its list of publicly-available items, or return an error'
  60. Lance however, publicly-available is ambiguous
  61. Lance does that mean all top-level items, or the full entire hierarchy of items
  62. Lance because if the latter, that eliminates the whole point of tree walking
  63. Kev Ah. I'm assuming we're talking direct children only, if we take the tree metaphor.
  64. Kev This is consistent with how MUC works. You query c.j.o to find rooms, you query jdev@cjo to see who's in it.
  65. Lance that's what i thought, but i had someone submit a patch to sleek that pulled in *everything* when no node is listed, citing this bit
  66. Dave Cridland I always assumed and implemented it as a first level search.
  67. Lance since child nodes are still 'publicly-accessible'
  68. Lance ok, any objections to me sending a patch to clarify that sentence?
  69. Kev None here.
  70. Kev And with that, I think we're done?
  71. Dave Cridland I think if we were expecting the full heirarchy to be returned, that wouldn't work when the tree crosses jid boundaries.
  72. fippo i think first-level was what made sense in the old jabberd1 architecture. not so much with more tightly integrated servers
  73. Kev I think, in any case, that seeing the patch would be a sensible start.
  74. Kev Unless fippo's saying he's fundamentally opposed to what I think is a clarification.
  75. Kev Not that I'm leading the discussion at all there...
  76. fippo not opposed, +1 on a patch
  77. Kev Fab. Lance: Let's see the patch :)
  78. Kev I think there's NOAOB, so...
  79. Kev bangs the gavel.
  80. Kev Thanks all.
  81. Tobias thanks Kev
  82. Zash has joined
  83. Tobias has left
  84. Tobias has joined
  85. bear has joined
  86. Lance has joined
  87. Lance has joined
  88. Tobias has left
  89. Tobias has joined
  90. bear has left
  91. Tobias has left
  92. Tobias has joined
  93. Lance has joined
  94. Zash has left
  95. Zash has joined
  96. Lance has joined
  97. Lance has joined
  98. Zash has left
  99. Zash has joined
  100. Lance has joined
  101. Tobias has left
  102. Tobias has joined
  103. Zash has left