XMPP Council - 2014-02-26

  1. stpeter has joined

  2. stpeter has left

  3. Tobias has joined

  4. Kev

    By my reckoning (the editor team haven't responded to me asking if we're supposed to be voting on BOSH), our agenda today is roughly Roll/Date/AOB.

  5. Tobias has left

  6. Zash has joined

  7. m&m has joined

  8. stpeter has joined

  9. stpeter

    love those short meetings :-)

  10. stpeter


  11. Dave Cridland has joined

  12. fippo

    https://gist.github.com/jamesvnz/6756208 -- this makes me wonder if they seriously abuse the type attribute...

  13. m&m


  14. MattJ has left

  15. MattJ has joined

  16. fippo

    ah... they don't -- https://developer.android.com/google/gcm/ccs.html

  17. Lance has joined

  18. Kev


  19. Tobias


  20. Kev

    1) Are we rolls?

  21. Kev

    I'm here.

  22. Tobias


  23. MattJ


  24. Lance


  25. Kev

    And fippo's obviously not here, as he was talking a moment ago.

  26. Kev


  27. fippo

    errr... yes

  28. Kev

    Assuming I'm right about not having more stuff.

  29. Kev

    2) Date of next.

  30. Kev

    I can't do next Wednesday

  31. MattJ

    Hmm, not sure yet if I can

  32. Kev

    Can skip a week, move it, or have it without me.

  33. Kev

    I'd be inclined to skip a week, given IETF.

  34. Tobias


  35. Tobias

    the skipping

  36. fippo

    skip it

  37. Zash

    the skippening

  38. Lance

    wfm to skip

  39. Kev


  40. Dave Cridland skips about. Tra-la-la.

  41. Kev

    3) AOB?

  42. MattJ

    None here

  43. m&m

    I have one item to bring up

  44. m&m

    if I may

  45. Kev

    I note, not as directly business, that the Editors are now functional.

  46. Dave Cridland

    Can I ask the COuncil members in particular to look at my XEP-0001 change proposal?

  47. Kev

    m&m: Shoot.

  48. Kev

    Dave Cridland: Oh, about that, I note that Council /do/ vote on Humerous generally.

  49. Kev

    They just do it by pre-approving whatever the author is going to say.

  50. Kev

    Which is obviously a nonsense. But I don't see a reason to change it.

  51. m&m

    historically, we had a page that collected all of the protocols, and provided short information block on them

  52. m&m


  53. m&m

    however, that page (and its children) haven't been updated in several months — possibly years

  54. stpeter

    probably years

  55. m&m

    so my question is, does the council see value in keeping it?

  56. Kev

    A list of registered namespaces seems worthwhile. Pointing to the XEPs in which they're registered seems worthwhile. More than that seems not, to me.

  57. MattJ

    Is this from when we had pages at jabber.org/protocol/*?

  58. Dave Cridland

    Oh... So this probably made more sense when we used the http://jabber.org/protocol namespace.

  59. Kev

    MattJ: Yes.

  60. m&m


  61. MattJ

    To be honest it would be nice if we could preserve those links, but not necessary

  62. Dave Cridland

    Speaking from the floor, while the XMPP Registrar certainly needs to maintain a list of allocated namespaces, I see no particular reason for anyone else to dictate its form.

  63. m&m

    we already have the registrar list

  64. stpeter

    as I recall, the http://jabber.org/protocol/* namespaces all had pages like this and then we had redirects in place to point those to these pages at xmpp.org

  65. m&m

    this is, in some sense, duplicate information

  66. stpeter

    m&m: yes

  67. Zash has left

  68. Zash has joined

  69. Kev

    m&m: I think this was a straw poll rather than a Council action, right?

  70. Kev

    m&m: And that we've now done that?

  71. m&m

    it is, yes

  72. m&m

    well, I'm inclined to remove the landing page, and leave the existing directories in place

  73. m&m

    at least for http://jabber.org/protocol/* links

  74. m&m

    but not do any other updates

  75. Kev

    This seems sensible to me.

  76. Kev

    m&m: Happy that we're done?

  77. stpeter nods

  78. MattJ


  79. m&m


  80. Dave Cridland

    Kev, As for Humorous XEPs, I didn't *think* Coucil approved them in any meaningful sense. I couldn't remember voting on any, certainly. I'm happy with whatever; as usual I'm more interested in documenting what is done here.

  81. Kev


  82. Tobias


  83. Tobias

    none here

  84. Kev

    Dave Cridland: I remember voting on them, but only in a loose sense. I'm vaguely opposed to introducing a new approving body.

  85. stpeter

    Dave Cridland: the Editor would send them to the Council members (off-list, to retain some element of surprise)

  86. Kev

    I think this is outside Council discussion, so let's carry on after.

  87. Dave Cridland

    Kev, OK. Please post that to the list; it'll spark some debate.

  88. stpeter


  89. Kev

    I think we're done with Council.

  90. Kev

    Thanks all

  91. Kev bangs the gavel.

  92. Tobias

    thank you

  93. m&m


  94. Kev

    Dave Cridland: Yes, I'll look at them more thoroughly (like, at all), and post to the list.

  95. MattJ


  96. Tobias

    Lance, you've suggested adding tags/keyworks to XEPs, right?

  97. MattJ disappears back to 'IRL'

  98. Lance

    i have no memory of it, but it would be nice to group them, yes

  99. Tobias

    yeah..seems sensible, so what kind of groups did you have in mind?

  100. Tobias

    just to get a rough idea

  101. Lance

    pubsub, jingle, muc to start

  102. fippo

    c2s, s2s, im, presence, pubsub, muc, jingle would be the ones that come to my mind

  103. Tobias

    ah..yeah..those seem to make sense

  104. ralphm has joined

  105. Lance

    i'd like a very subjective 'this is a minimum you need to use to be a modern xmpp client', but that might be too subjective unless we do a compliance suite for it first

  106. Lance

    just something to avoid listing ~400 xeps at once when someone first lands on the page

  107. Tobias


  108. Zash

    Wouldn't that be the compliance suites?

  109. Tobias

    it sure would ease getting an overview...i'll see what i can do to integrate that in our publishing system

  110. Lance

    Zash presumably, yes. it would be nice to make the xep list filterable by those suites

  111. stpeter

    oh that's right we need to update the compliance suite(s) document

  112. Lance has left

  113. Lance has joined

  114. m&m

    fippo: editors of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna want your feedback posted to xmpp@ietf.org!

  115. Tobias

    they want you, NOW! ... maybe they'll even hang posters on the walls

  116. m&m

    ooo … that's a thought

  117. fippo

    m&m: actually that reminds me that I promised peter to re-review https://github.com/linuxwolf/xmpp-fed/pull/1

  118. m&m


  119. m&m is working through the slide ware

  120. Lance has joined

  121. Lance has joined

  122. Lance has joined

  123. Lance has joined

  124. Tobias has left

  125. Tobias has joined

  126. Lance has joined

  127. Lance has joined

  128. Neustradamus has left

  129. Neustradamus has joined

  130. Neustradamus has left

  131. Neustradamus has left

  132. Neustradamus has left

  133. Neustradamus has joined

  134. stpeter has left

  135. Zash has left

  136. Tobias has left

  137. Tobias has joined

  138. Lance has left

  139. Lance has joined

  140. Lance has left

  141. Lance has joined

  142. Lance has left

  143. Lance has joined

  144. Lance has left

  145. Lance has joined

  146. Lance has left

  147. stpeter has joined

  148. Lance has joined