XMPP Council - 2022-02-16


  1. marc0s has left

  2. marc0s has joined

  3. pprrks has left

  4. pprrks has joined

  5. neox has left

  6. pprrks has left

  7. pprrks has joined

  8. ncahuilla has joined

  9. pprrks has left

  10. pprrks has joined

  11. ncahuilla has left

  12. pprrks has left

  13. pprrks has joined

  14. pprrks has left

  15. pprrks has joined

  16. pprrks has left

  17. pprrks has joined

  18. pprrks has left

  19. pprrks has joined

  20. pprrks has left

  21. pprrks has joined

  22. ncahuilla has joined

  23. pprrks has left

  24. pprrks has joined

  25. SouL has joined

  26. ncahuilla has left

  27. pprrks has left

  28. pprrks has joined

  29. pprrks has left

  30. pprrks has joined

  31. pprrks has left

  32. pprrks has joined

  33. pprrks has left

  34. pprrks has joined

  35. ncahuilla has joined

  36. ncahuilla has left

  37. pprrks has left

  38. pprrks has joined

  39. ncahuilla has joined

  40. ncahuilla has left

  41. SouL has left

  42. pprrks has left

  43. pprrks has joined

  44. ncahuilla has joined

  45. pprrks has left

  46. pprrks has joined

  47. ncahuilla has left

  48. pprrks has left

  49. pprrks has joined

  50. pprrks has left

  51. pprrks has joined

  52. pprrks has left

  53. pprrks has joined

  54. ncahuilla has joined

  55. pprrks has left

  56. pprrks has joined

  57. ncahuilla has left

  58. pprrks has left

  59. pprrks has joined

  60. pprrks has left

  61. pprrks has joined

  62. ChronosX88 has joined

  63. pprrks has left

  64. pprrks has joined

  65. pprrks has left

  66. pprrks has joined

  67. daniel has left

  68. daniel has joined

  69. SouL has joined

  70. menel has joined

  71. ncahuilla has joined

  72. ncahuilla has left

  73. msavoritias has joined

  74. msavoritias has left

  75. msavoritias has joined

  76. marc0s has left

  77. marc0s has joined

  78. ncahuilla has joined

  79. pprrks has left

  80. pprrks has joined

  81. Tobias has joined

  82. pprrks has left

  83. ncahuilla has left

  84. ChronosX88 has left

  85. ChronosX88 has joined

  86. ncahuilla has joined

  87. ncahuilla has left

  88. pprrks has joined

  89. me9 has joined

  90. pprrks has left

  91. pprrks has joined

  92. pprrks has left

  93. pprrks has joined

  94. ncahuilla has joined

  95. ncahuilla has left

  96. me9 has left

  97. dwd has joined

  98. ncahuilla has joined

  99. dwd has left

  100. ncahuilla has left

  101. pprrks has left

  102. pprrks has joined

  103. ncahuilla has joined

  104. ncahuilla has left

  105. pprrks has left

  106. ncahuilla has joined

  107. ncahuilla has left

  108. pprrks has joined

  109. pprrks has left

  110. marc0s has left

  111. marc0s has joined

  112. pprrks has joined

  113. marc0s has left

  114. marc0s has joined

  115. marc0s has left

  116. marc0s has joined

  117. marc0s has left

  118. marc0s has joined

  119. ncahuilla has joined

  120. marc0s has left

  121. marc0s has joined

  122. debacle has joined

  123. ncahuilla has left

  124. menel has left

  125. neox has joined

  126. pprrks has left

  127. ncahuilla has joined

  128. alex11 has left

  129. pprrks has joined

  130. ncahuilla has left

  131. pprrks has left

  132. pprrks has joined

  133. pprrks has left

  134. ncahuilla has joined

  135. ncahuilla has left

  136. pprrks has joined

  137. pprrks has left

  138. ncahuilla has joined

  139. ncahuilla has left

  140. pprrks has joined

  141. pprrks has left

  142. marc0s has left

  143. marc0s has joined

  144. pprrks has joined

  145. pprrks has left

  146. ncahuilla has joined

  147. marc0s has left

  148. marc0s has joined

  149. ncahuilla has left

  150. Wojtek has joined

  151. pprrks has joined

  152. pprrks has left

  153. pprrks has joined

  154. ncahuilla has joined

  155. pprrks has left

  156. ncahuilla has left

  157. pprrks has joined

  158. pprrks has left

  159. pprrks has joined

  160. Wojtek has left

  161. ncahuilla has joined

  162. pprrks has left

  163. Wojtek has joined

  164. pprrks has joined

  165. ncahuilla has left

  166. pprrks has left

  167. pprrks has joined

  168. larma has left

  169. pprrks has left

  170. menel has joined

  171. pprrks has joined

  172. ncahuilla has joined

  173. ncahuilla has left

  174. Wojtek has left

  175. msavoritias has left

  176. msavoritias has joined

  177. ncahuilla has joined

  178. ncahuilla has left

  179. dwd has joined

  180. pprrks has left

  181. Syndace has left

  182. Syndace has joined

  183. pprrks has joined

  184. pprrks has left

  185. larma has joined

  186. Wojtek has joined

  187. kusoneko has left

  188. kusoneko has joined

  189. pprrks has joined

  190. dwd has left

  191. marc0s has left

  192. marc0s has joined

  193. pprrks has left

  194. ChronosX88 has left

  195. ChronosX88 has joined

  196. marc0s has left

  197. marc0s has joined

  198. marc0s has left

  199. marc0s has joined

  200. marc0s has left

  201. marc0s has joined

  202. pprrks has joined

  203. ncahuilla has joined

  204. ncahuilla has left

  205. me9 has joined

  206. ncahuilla has joined

  207. ncahuilla has left

  208. Wojtek has left

  209. marc0s has left

  210. marc0s has joined

  211. ncahuilla has joined

  212. ncahuilla has left

  213. Wojtek has joined

  214. moparisthebest

    FYI for https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1158 I intend to vote +0 and unless everyone else thinks it should go through as-is change it up to not Obsolete it, just remove DNS method (and mention it in security considerations for posterity) and change it to only add urn:xmpp:alt-connections:xbosh, I'd appreciate a indication whether you all think this is the right way forward or not

  215. ncahuilla has joined

  216. ncahuilla has left

  217. daniel

    i literally just now walked into my hotel room and got connected to the internet...

  218. Ge0rG

    Yay!

  219. daniel

    1) roll call

  220. moparisthebest

    o/

  221. Ge0rG

    /o\

  222. Wojtek has left

  223. moparisthebest

    (that shoulder injury looks painful!)

  224. daniel

    the lady at the check in desk asked me to give a sales pitch for Conversations. that was unexpected and slowed me down...

  225. jonas’

    present

  226. moparisthebest

    haha awesome

  227. daniel

    do we have a larma?

  228. larma

    Somewhat

  229. Ge0rG

    daniel: did you arrive with a huge poster?

  230. daniel

    i did not unfortunatly. but i was registered as a business travel to not pay tourism tax

  231. daniel

    2) Agenda bashing

  232. daniel

    none

  233. daniel

    3) Editors update

  234. daniel

    jonas’, published the xep4 and 60 changes we voted on last week

  235. daniel

    and a new proto xep that we are going to vote on later

  236. jonas’

    do we need to add ownership changes for muji to the agenda, larma?

  237. jonas’

    i.e. did you get a reply from the authors in that regard?

  238. daniel

    i have not seen public emails? did i miss them?

  239. larma

    I haven't had time to write a mail to ML yet, which we agreed to do first.

  240. jonas’

    ack, I was confused then. carry on.

  241. daniel

    4) Items for voting

  242. daniel

    a) Obsolete XEP-0156 and add warnings https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1158

  243. jonas’

    I can live with that. +1

  244. Wojtek has joined

  245. Ge0rG

    We are removing DNS but also HTTP Lookup Method, right?

  246. daniel

    just to be clear. this essentially makes bosh obsolete?

  247. moparisthebest

    so http lookup is already defined in the RFC

  248. jonas’

    no, HTTPS is delegated to RFC 7395

  249. daniel

    because you can’t discover bosh any more?

  250. moparisthebest

    but this removes bosh, so my alternate proposal is remove everything else but adding bosh

  251. jonas’

    ah

  252. moparisthebest

    hence my +0 vote

  253. jonas’

    I did not realize this removes BOSH, I thought that was also covered by RFC 7395

  254. moparisthebest

    (see my comment right before the meeting)

  255. jonas’

    in that case, -1, because we should keep BOSH discoverable

  256. moparisthebest

    I didn't either until it was pointed out

  257. Ge0rG

    yeah, -1 because of BOSH

  258. daniel

    i'm on board with getting rid of dns and getting rid of http

  259. moparisthebest

    cool, I'll rework the PR for next week

  260. daniel

    but i do think we need to keep bosh

  261. daniel

    -1

  262. jonas’

    moparisthebest, thank you :)

  263. daniel

    do you want to vote on this as well larma ?

  264. Ge0rG

    maybe we can get rid of 0156 if we put BOSH into some other adequate place?

  265. larma

    I don't think we need to keep BOSH forever, but probably still need it today, so -1

  266. daniel

    thank you

  267. daniel

    wrt BOSH i think it's interesting that w3c eventsource is still around too (even though websocket exist)

  268. daniel

    but that's a discussion for another day probably

  269. daniel

    b) Obsolete and update Security Considerations for XEP-0138 and XEP-0229 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1159

  270. moparisthebest

    I think I'll remove httppoll too unless people think it's useful..

  271. moparisthebest

    +1 on this one

  272. larma

    +1 on b)

  273. jonas’

    (I would like to point out that writing a MUST NOT in an obsolete document seems kinda pointless :))

  274. Ge0rG

    I agree with obsoleting, but "this method is deemed insecure and MUST NOT be used" is a normative change and we MUST NOT enforce policy with protocol

  275. daniel

    ironcially we just deployed compression on a big project last week

  276. Sam

    I'm torn on this; I get the reasoning, but I also have deployed it on large projects and found it *extremely* beneficial

  277. larma

    Ge0rG: if you implement it, you must not use it ;)

  278. moparisthebest

    lots of insecure things are useful

  279. jonas’

    moparisthebest, I think I would be happier if, instead of changing the normative text, we add a huge security notice to the top of the document and the place where you'd change the normative text instead

  280. jonas’

    otherwise, it seems that the "MUST NOT" thing is, in fact, obsolete.

  281. moparisthebest

    the rationale behind putting the "MUST NOT" in regard to the *method* specifically is because I expect a new compression method to come along and resurrect the negotiation

  282. jonas’

    right, but at the same time, you're obsoleting that standard, including the MUST NOT

  283. jonas’

    that seems off

  284. Ge0rG

    -1 because of the MUST NOT

  285. moparisthebest

    I'm not married to it, happy to change as you all see fit

  286. Ge0rG

    I'd be okay with just obsoleting and adding a fat red warning in the security considerations

  287. jonas’

    what Ge0rG says.

  288. daniel

    yeah i think i'm -1 too. either just obsolete it (and put exi or zstd or whatever in a new xep). or just add a security warning

  289. jonas’

    -1 to b: what Ge0rG says :).

  290. Sam

    *thinks outloud* maybe it would be good to have an "editorial notes" section at the top of the XEP that's non-normative and doesn't require any update to the version because it's not actually part of the xep.

  291. jonas’

    Sam, unrelated to this, because stuff like that should definitely be versioned (thinking attic)

  292. moparisthebest

    I'll update this one too for next week :)

  293. Sam

    Nah, it would be versioned in Git and would be something the editor or council or whomever could update. Maybe call it "Editor Notes" and "Council Notes" or something. We don't version every website page in the attic

  294. Sam

    But anyways, not a discussion fo rhere

  295. ncahuilla has joined

  296. Sam

    Just throwing the idea out while a relevant thing is being discussed.

  297. jonas’

    moparisthebest, thank you very much

  298. daniel

    c) XEP-0045: Remove some more mentions of GC 1.0 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1163

  299. daniel

    on list

  300. daniel

    it'll probably be fine. just want to double check later

  301. Ge0rG

    I think that "[citation needed]" is not appropriate in a XEP

  302. Ge0rG

    also on-list

  303. larma

    Same as daniel

  304. jonas’

    on list, also what Ge0rG says, I'll leave an editorial note

  305. daniel

    d) Obsolete some deferred XEP (0008, 0038, 0051) https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/727/

  306. moparisthebest

    yea I'd be +1 if not for [citation needed]

  307. jonas’

    daniel, can we split that vote?

  308. daniel

    yes we can

  309. jonas’

    I'd like to vote +1 on obsoleting 0008, but I don't have an immediate opinion on the other two

  310. Ge0rG

    on-list

  311. daniel

    right. let me call them seperatly

  312. Ge0rG

    but I agree we should vote per-XEP

  313. daniel

    your votes on obsoleting 0008

  314. daniel

    on list

  315. larma

    I'm +1 on all of them

  316. Ge0rG

    +1

  317. moparisthebest

    +1 on obsoleting 0008

  318. jonas’

    +1 on obsoleting 0008

  319. jonas’

    (using the silence: I also have an AOB)

  320. daniel

    yes give me a second. i'm live editing the spreadsheet on a notebook screen :-)

  321. jonas’

    shall I take over?

  322. jonas’

    (for editing, that is)

  323. jonas’

    (well, I just filled in a few blanks)

  324. daniel

    ok. your votes on obsoleting 0038 now please

  325. jonas’

    on-list

  326. daniel

    larma's vote has been recorded already

  327. moparisthebest

    +1 on obsoleting 0038

  328. Ge0rG

    +1, but I'd like to have a XEP for mapping ASCII smiley to Unicode

  329. daniel

    i'm on list

  330. jonas’

    Ge0rG, that sounds more like a thing for modernxmpp / client UI

  331. pep.

    Ge0rG, jabber:x:data

  332. daniel

    next vote: obsolete 0051

  333. moparisthebest

    I'm +1 with prejudice on obsoleting 0051 because it needs major security considerations and just has "To follow" yikes.... fyi the very important security considerations are covered by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6120#section-4.9.3.19

  334. Ge0rG

    it's been deferred for over a decade, but is there anybody using it?

  335. jonas’

    +1, I think this is best addressed with <see-other-host/> stream error in RFC 6120, which also talks about the corresponding security considerations.

  336. jonas’

    (which I've actually seen in the wild)

  337. daniel

    i'm on list for this one too

  338. Ge0rG

    alright, given <see-other-host> I'm +1 on obsoleting

  339. moparisthebest

    I sure hope no one is using it, or if they are, I hope they are using it in a secure way... :/

  340. daniel

    ok thank you

  341. daniel

    moving on

  342. daniel

    e) ProtoXEP: MUC Affiliations Versioning https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/muc-affiliations-versioning.html

  343. daniel

    have we ever done attribute namespaces?

  344. daniel

    last time there was a huge debate about them. but i dont recall the outcome

  345. pep.

    Yes

  346. daniel

    pep where?

  347. jonas’

    the outcome is that some people whose XML library can't deal with them don't like them

  348. pep.

    103? Referenced in the stickers thing

  349. Sam

    FWIW, I have seen multiple implementations (not just my own) that this will break even though technically I'm using an XML parser with namespace read support

  350. jonas’

    on-list for the protoxep

  351. larma

    I'm +1 on this

  352. Ge0rG

    can't we put a child element into the <x/>?

  353. moparisthebest

    I'm on-list, my gut reaction is to run from attribute namespaces

  354. pep.

    I'm not sure why that would be a blocker for experimental anyway

  355. Ge0rG

    on-list as well

  356. daniel

    attribute namespaces aside i'm thinking that we might want to think this bigger and version presences/roles as well

  357. jonas’

    pep., I agree, it shouldn't be a blocker for experimental

  358. daniel

    and not just affiliations?

  359. Ge0rG

    daniel: fully agree

  360. pep.

    daniel, there's already two XEPs for presence, doing about the same thing

  361. larma

    daniel, for presences there are 311 and 436

  362. Ge0rG

    it'd be awesome to get a differential membership update mechanism for huge MUCs

  363. daniel

    but yes personal opinions aside I agree that those aren’t blockers for experimental

  364. daniel

    i'm +1

  365. Ge0rG

    on-list

  366. jonas’

    I still need to read it, so I'll stay with on list

  367. daniel

    ok. thank you everyone

  368. daniel

    5) Pending votes

  369. daniel

    a) Georg on 'Proposed XMPP Extension: PubSub Type Filtering'

  370. Ge0rG

    +1

  371. daniel

    6) Date of Next

  372. daniel

    +1w wfm

  373. moparisthebest

    +1w wfm

  374. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  375. daniel

    7) AOB

  376. larma

    +1w wfm

  377. daniel

    jonas’, mentioned one but we are out of time

  378. daniel

    is everyone fine with extending by 10mins?

  379. moparisthebest

    Yes

  380. jonas’

    we can also move it to next week, it's not urgent

  381. Ge0rG

    I'm still semi-here, so ok

  382. jonas’

    ok, really quick

  383. daniel

    ok jonas’ go ahead

  384. jonas’

    the past two years with pandemic and so on have advanced the A/V technology and probably increase most of ours exposure to that.

  385. jonas’

    I was thinking whether we should or want to migrate this meeting to an audio-by-default, video-if-desired, chat-as-fallback format

  386. jonas’

    you can think on that in the week until the next meeting and maybe we can have a discussion then

  387. jonas’

    infrastructure won't be a problem (I have a Jitsi to spare)

  388. Ge0rG

    I'm very much -1, not only for auditability reasons

  389. daniel

    jonas’, i was actually considering proposing the same. although maybe on a monthly basis

  390. daniel

    like every first meeting in a month or something

  391. Zash

    Try Dino? 😉

  392. larma

    I wouldn't be entirely against, but I kinda don't like the idea of using not-standardized XMPP for this and I also don't think everyone wants to use Dino

  393. Sam

    The minutes would have to be written as the meeting goes on unless it's being recorded for auditability; that seems desirable though. Stuff gets missed when people do them afterwards.

  394. jonas’

    I'd volunteer to write proper online minutes for auditability

  395. jonas’

    (I've been doing that for various work meetings in the past two years and it's not a problem for me)

  396. Kev

    Didn't want to derail the meeting, but for 'editorial notes', I think they're a fine idea, but I also think there's no reason not to version them - numbers are cheap and we already have an editorial numbering scheme (the last number).

  397. pep.

    Judging by what minutes looked like in board (at the time) I'd hope that'd be worth it :/

  398. moparisthebest

    I also prefer text format as a standard, but I'm fine with audio if everyone else wanted it, or on a monthly basis or whatever

  399. daniel

    ok Ge0rG seems to be a hard no. but thank you for the suggestion. maybe something to think about or reconsider at a later date

  400. Sam

    I guess that's fine; versioning them as part of the XEP just means we have to bump a 10 year old final xep just because the editor wanted to add the note "by the way, this typo is incorrect in the example, please ignore it" or something

  401. jonas’

    I'd like to have a proper discussion including Ge0rG next week when we are not running out of time :)

  402. daniel

    ok

  403. daniel

    Close

  404. daniel

    thank you everyone

  405. jonas’

    thanks daniel!

  406. moparisthebest

    Thanks!

  407. pep.

    Not in council but that'd be a -1 from the floor. Maybe there can be trials to see how that'd go :x

  408. Kev

    re: Video/Voice/Text - High bandwidth is useful for Council themselves, if it's the only thing they're doing at the time and not e.g. on trains etc., while text is really useful for people following along, or reading up later. Maybe a poll of non-Council to see how many people actually take advantage of being able to read the raw logs would reveal that I'm the only person who does it, and there wouldn't be much value in keeping that if video was better for Council.

  409. Sam

    FWIW re video calls: I also thought about proposing something like this a few times when I was on the council. Having a face to face chat once a month or more would probably make things go smoother the rest of the time.

  410. daniel

    two years into the pandemic i figured out that i can hook up my full frame mirror less camera over usb and use it as a webcam (i had always assumed i needed a hdmi->usb capture device). but with gphoto it just works

  411. jonas’ out

  412. moparisthebest

    Also Zash some badxmpp that sends https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6120#section-4.9.3.19 or 0051 before auth or where the target has a bad certificate would be interesting

  413. Zash

    moparisthebest, topic for somewhere else, probably jdev@ tho

  414. Kev

    > I guess that's fine; versioning them as part of the XEP just means we have to bump a 10 year old final xep just because the editor wanted to add the note "by the way, this typo is incorrect in the example, please ignore it" or something That's true, but it's a bump where we already encode in the version number that the change was meaningless :)

  415. moparisthebest

    Just brought it up re: our vote here :)

  416. Sam

    Does bumping the version mean council has to weigh in for final XEPs? That seems to defeat the purpose

  417. moparisthebest

    I used to be strictly against audio and especially video in preference to text chat, but the last 2 years have shown me they can add some value when used periodically

  418. pep.

    « Kev> [..] how many people actually take advantage of being able to read the raw logs » I also do that often. Many things that get missed in minutes

  419. moparisthebest

    Sam: editorial changes don't need council, even if versions get bumped I think...

  420. daniel

    yes if anything we should probably start doing 1 in 4 meetings with A/V or something. see how people like it

  421. daniel

    (instead of every week)

  422. Zash

    (and do a Summit, so we remember there are actual humans attached to these nicknames/avatars)

  423. Kev

    > Sam: editorial changes don't need council, even if versions get bumped I think... This.

  424. Sam

    Hmm, I thought final couldn't be bumped at all and draft required council.

  425. Sam

    Anyways, the whole point in my mind is that it's *not* part of the XEP, it could just as easily be a separate wiki page it's just included at the top for convenience, but I don't really care either way.

  426. Kev

    And, I realise this might be a pointless idea, but I wonder if there are services where people will transcribe video meetings for you, and if the XSF might be willing to pay for such a service for Council meetings if they went video - that way those of us who like to read up would be no worse off than now, and Council could enjoy the extra bandwidth.

  427. Sam

    There are; I forget what the one I used in the past was called but it cost <a lot> (I forget that too, just that it was expensive)

  428. ncahuilla has left

  429. pep.

    A/V for crappy links isn't exactly great either fwiw. It'd be the case for me (if I were in council) but how many times have we heard Ge0r.G complain about his link :)

  430. Sam

    Although that was live transcription actually, so maybe it would be cheaper after the fact

  431. larma

    https://cloud.google.com/speech-to-text/pricing first 60 minutes free per month 😀

  432. pep.

    yay another google service

  433. Sam

    Seems reasonable

  434. Sam

    I forget this can be automated now.

  435. moparisthebest

    How do those do with accents I wonder?

  436. moparisthebest

    There are some even British accents that are completely incomprehensible to me

  437. Sam

    The robots are probably better at this than you, they have a larger training set :)

  438. Sam

    (that's a serious statement, not a joke)

  439. marc0s has left

  440. marc0s has joined

  441. moparisthebest

    Very possible, I never know if that's the case or whether 100% of their training data were people with California accents

  442. marc0s has left

  443. marc0s has joined

  444. mdosch has left

  445. mdosch has joined

  446. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: I think the problem won't be the accents but rather the slang.

  447. Ge0rG

    translation services are horrible at technical slang

  448. moparisthebest

    Probably true

  449. pep.

    Too Many TLAs

  450. jonas’

    I'll see if I can get a demo of a minutes file I created from an A/V meeting

  451. marc0s has left

  452. marc0s has joined

  453. pprrks has left

  454. marc0s has left

  455. marc0s has joined

  456. marc0s has left

  457. marc0s has joined

  458. pprrks has joined

  459. dwd has joined

  460. alex11 has joined

  461. daniel has left

  462. daniel has joined

  463. pprrks has left

  464. ncahuilla has joined

  465. ncahuilla has left

  466. ncahuilla has joined

  467. ncahuilla has left

  468. ncahuilla has joined

  469. ncahuilla has left

  470. marc0s has left

  471. marc0s has joined

  472. ncahuilla has joined

  473. ncahuilla has left

  474. me9 has left

  475. me9 has joined

  476. ncahuilla has joined

  477. marc0s has left

  478. marc0s has joined

  479. me9 has left

  480. me9 has joined

  481. ncahuilla has left

  482. Wojtek has left

  483. marc0s has left

  484. marc0s has joined

  485. ncahuilla has joined

  486. dwd has left

  487. ncahuilla has left

  488. me9 has left

  489. me9 has joined

  490. dwd has joined

  491. ncahuilla has joined

  492. ncahuilla has left

  493. marc0s has left

  494. marc0s has joined

  495. marc0s has left

  496. marc0s has joined

  497. ncahuilla has joined

  498. ncahuilla has left

  499. debacle has left

  500. debacle has joined

  501. dwd has left

  502. debacle has left

  503. debacle has joined

  504. ncahuilla has joined

  505. ncahuilla has left

  506. msavoritias has left

  507. pprrks has joined

  508. pprrks has left

  509. debacle has left

  510. debacle has joined

  511. Tobias has left

  512. me9 has left

  513. ChronosX88 has left

  514. ncahuilla has joined

  515. ncahuilla has left

  516. alex11 has left

  517. menel has left

  518. ncahuilla has joined

  519. ncahuilla has left

  520. marc0s has left

  521. marc0s has joined

  522. marc0s has left

  523. marc0s has joined

  524. ncahuilla has joined

  525. SouL has left

  526. ncahuilla has left

  527. paul has left

  528. ncahuilla has joined

  529. neox has left

  530. ncahuilla has left

  531. marc0s has left

  532. marc0s has joined