XSF Discussion - 2013-12-04

00:12:30 Lance has joined
00:38:17 tato has left
00:38:20 tato has joined
00:40:55 Lance has joined
02:03:14 bear has left
02:05:32 Lance has left
06:02:29 SouL has left
06:17:15 Alex has joined
06:17:35 Alex has left
06:17:35 Alex has joined
06:51:27 Alex has left
07:16:22 jabberjocke has joined
07:18:38 SouL has joined
07:53:09 Simon has joined
07:56:05 jabberjocke has left
07:59:52 Simon has left
08:01:31 Simon has joined
08:06:53 Simon has left
08:09:10 Simon has joined
08:11:07 dwd has joined
08:39:58 jabberjocke has joined
08:42:53 Simon has joined
08:52:08 stpeter has joined
08:53:29 stpeter has left
09:08:44 Simon has left
09:10:23 Simon has joined
09:15:37 Zash has joined
09:29:08 Ashley Ward has joined
09:34:03 Zash has left
09:36:41 Simon has joined
09:37:14 Zash has joined
09:42:07 Simon has left
09:49:45 Simon has joined
12:00:14 Simon has joined
12:14:44 SouL has left
12:16:16 SouL has joined
12:21:27 SouL has left
12:21:58 SouL has joined
12:40:18 SouL has left
12:46:54 tato has left
12:51:54 jabberjocke has left
13:03:27 Alex has joined
13:17:52 Simon has left
13:21:34 Simon has joined
13:29:43 Simon has joined
13:52:24 stpeter has joined
13:54:02 stpeter has left
14:14:26 SouL has joined
14:43:53 intosi has left
14:45:10 intosi has joined
14:59:24 Zash has left
15:10:19 stpeter has joined
15:10:25 stpeter has left
15:10:25 stpeter has joined
15:31:34 Laura has joined
15:31:46 Zash has joined
15:42:45 bear has joined
15:56:53 fippo http://webrtchacks.com/trickle-ice/
15:57:02 fippo "Things get complicated for SIP because it has neither of the above: it has neither the reliable discovery mechanisms of XMPP, nor the mandatory support for trickling that WebRTC comes with."
15:57:06 fippo poor old sip
15:57:16 MattJ :'(
15:59:22 stpeter heh
16:01:19 stpeter speaking of which, would it be helpful to finish off the Server IP Check XEP?
16:03:47 Zash Oh, hadn't seen that there was a new version of that
16:04:44 stpeter newish, anyway
16:05:21 stpeter all it really does is give you a hint that your IP address might not be what you think it is, thus the acronym "sic" ;-)
16:10:29 MattJ Clever :)
16:12:05 stpeter I love clever acronyms -- maybe I should've gone into marketing or advertising ;-)
16:23:47 intosi has left
16:23:55 intosi has joined
16:24:05 Alex has left
16:24:42 bear Board meeting in 5 minutes, I suspect it may be a fast one
16:25:46 stpeter why do you suspect so? ;-)
16:26:10 bear i'm just being an optimist
16:28:31 dwd We can soon correct that one, though.
16:29:25 stpeter http://webrtchacks.com/trickle-ice/ mentions Jingle Relay Nodes -- another spec we need to update
16:30:42 dwd grabs thinking-pencil
16:31:10 dwd What with SRTP-DTLS and stuff, a relay is unable to snoop on the conversation, I suppose?
16:31:12 bear you can buy those!?!
16:32:15 dwd bear, Don't know, but you should be able to. Then again, I also want a hex bit pencil and pen set, and I can't find those anywhere.
16:32:21 bear checks for quorum
16:32:39 bear ralphm, simon, dwd, laura?
16:32:41 dwd waves appendages.
16:32:45 Simon is here
16:32:52 ralphm hi
16:33:03 Laura Here
16:33:25 bear sweet! everyone ready to start?
16:33:40 ralphm go
16:33:41 stpeter wow, cool, text from Laura appeared before she joined the chatrom
16:33:47 stpeter +o
16:34:01 dwd stpeter, Then your client had a MUC sync failure.
16:34:02 bear yea, I just noticed she was not in the admin affiliates list
16:34:18 bear so made the change just as she was responding
16:34:22 dwd stpeter, You saw the role change as a entry.
16:34:34 stpeter anyway
16:34:38 stpeter topics for today?
16:34:43 Simon Bear: I'd like to add a discussion about the XSF involvement with the securing of XMPP to the agenda.
16:35:00 bear on the agenda:
16:35:02 dwd Simon, Good call.
16:35:07 bear GSoC update
16:35:12 bear FOSDEM quick update
16:35:31 bear Google outreach response/update
16:35:45 dwd needs to largely vanish at 1700UTC (ie, 30 mins) to go cook the children's food.
16:35:52 bear and XSF being active with the XMPP ubiquitous security thingy
16:36:04 bear ok, first item - GSoC
16:36:19 bear let's make this a Kev inspired meeting then - 30 minutes and done
16:36:27 bear i'll do minutes later tonight
16:36:38 bear the mailing list had quite a response
16:36:39 Simon +1 for a fast meeting.
16:36:51 bear so I want to make sure tonight the gsoc wiki page has items
16:36:58 bear and then poke the responders to start updating it
16:37:00 ralphm yeah, looks good
16:37:04 bear i'll do that tonight
16:37:14 Simon then we should mail out to the list(s) too?
16:37:21 dwd It'd be nice to get some concrete support and suggestions.
16:37:29 Simon +1
16:37:48 Simon ok -happy to start adding concrete when the page is ready.
16:37:50 jabberjocke has joined
16:37:51 bear yes, if you all want, email me what lists I should target and I'll do them (or volunteer to help cover them)
16:38:07 bear yea, that is better, update the wiki wth the lists and then we can coordinate
16:38:18 bear anything else on GSoC ?
16:38:34 stpeter (as to agenda items, I'd like to chat briefly about the various liaison relationships that might be forming)
16:38:46 bear adds to agenda
16:38:55 Simon Bear: happy with that for GSOC / nothing else
16:38:55 ralphm isn't that like g outreach?
16:39:15 bear ok, next item - google outreach results
16:39:37 bear my take is that we are hitting a possible political stonewall ?
16:39:43 dwd Well, no.
16:39:51 Simon Update: Email doesn't reach google people/ G+ does. Ade pinged a couple of people inside google and "they are aware of what is happening" was the most I could get out.
16:39:51 dwd The wheels of Google grind slowly, etc.
16:40:15 Simon I'd tried to email quite a few people including their head of open souce Chris DiBona. Nothing back.
16:40:26 dwd It's not so much a political stonewall, it's just the momentum of the juggernaut is hard to change.
16:40:45 fippo i'd note https://twitter.com/juberti/status/401971677321367552 as well
16:41:38 stpeter I did reach out to Justin Uberti and he said he would find out if it's possible / feasible for them to support s2s encryption
16:41:38 Simon What about we take a different approach - of asking that they enable TLS without cert checking. But at this point I'm somewhat inclinded to say fuckit.
16:41:48 bear ok, so my question would be this then: do we continue with another round of polite-behind-the-scenes contacts or do we start getting noisier on the G+ scene?
16:41:58 dwd Simon, I don't think we've got anywhere close to that yet.
16:42:13 stpeter Simon: that is what I suggested to Justin as a good place to start
16:42:18 dwd bear, I'm nervous about becoming confrontational in public.
16:42:20 fippo stpeter: they have it implemented. It worked a couple of years ago
16:42:30 stpeter but, to Dave's point, we don't even know if they have anyone working on Talk any longer
16:42:39 stpeter fippo: ah, I had forgotten about that
16:42:42 dwd bear, I think the counter-reaction would be bad, basically.
16:43:01 SouL has left
16:43:06 stpeter I see no reason for a confrontation
16:43:15 dwd What might be interesting is to try to get Google participation from the Chris DiBona/Ade types at the SUmmit.
16:43:32 bear I wasn't suggesting bashing
16:43:34 stpeter ideally we can bring along Google, although IMHO it might not happen as quickly as we'd like
16:43:42 SouL has joined
16:43:43 bear I was suggesting just taking some of the questions to G+ and starting a dialog
16:43:45 dwd I know it'll be too late for the 4th Jan test day, but getting to chat face to face might prove much more effective.
16:43:59 stpeter and BTW it's not just Google -- other providers like GMX and Dreamhost are relevant here, too
16:44:14 fippo stpeter: i'll poke some people about GMX again.
16:44:17 dwd bear, I think it'd end up a disaster, TBH. We just cannot control how other people pitch into a public conversation.
16:44:24 Simon I can go an know on GMX's door here in Munich.
16:44:31 stpeter Simon: :-)
16:44:37 Simon is serious.
16:44:40 ralphm dwd: agreed
16:44:52 bear ok, so the push back i'm hearing is that we keep it direct until the first test day is over?
16:44:56 bear and then regroup?
16:45:22 stpeter that seems reasonable
16:45:27 dwd Right, but I'd reiterate that if we can ply some Googlers with beer in Brussels I think it'd lubricate more than throats.
16:45:28 jabberjocke has left
16:45:35 stpeter :)
16:45:42 fippo dwd: and london :-)
16:45:45 ralphm the point is that we are effectively not having a conversation, not even no-comment
16:45:59 Simon Sounds good. A nice report from the first test day explaining how we've tried to reach out to some of the larger providers wouldn't go amiss too.
16:46:11 dwd ralphm, Well, we've had a to, and a fro. It's not great, but it's a start.
16:46:13 ralphm those googlers we are talking to are not involved
16:46:16 stpeter ralphm: methinks I'll post on +
16:46:23 stpeter dwd: agreed
16:46:31 Simon My post on G+ got an instant reaction.
16:46:35 stpeter Simon: yes
16:46:55 ralphm dwd: I chat with Ade all the time, that's easy
16:47:18 bear ok, so the status is "still poking" with more pokes to happen and to keep it on a one-to-one level for now and let the sleeping giant that is our awesome membership quiet for the moment?
16:47:30 Simon posting and linking to http://xmpp.net/result.php?domain=gmail.com&type=server (when it's finished testing).
16:47:31 stpeter heh
16:47:52 fippo simon: use google.com instead
16:48:12 dwd Hmmm. xmpp.net isn't over https. No irony there.
16:48:22 stpeter it doesn't force https
16:48:22 ralphm heh
16:48:29 stpeter we can fix that
16:48:39 ralphm let's
16:48:53 dwd But I digress...
16:49:02 bear ok, moving on
16:49:03 stpeter ok, done with that topic?
16:49:17 stpeter (I will try to resurrect some DreamHost contacts)
16:49:21 bear ralphm - can you give a quick FOSDEM update?
16:49:46 ralphm no change
16:50:00 Simon I'd like us to talk about the security effort though as part of the XSF. This security stuff is important to get right. At the moment we spoke about it at the summit, in the board meetings and in the mailing lists. If it's purely Peter's manifesto and the XSF isn't endorsing that, then we look indecicive. And this stuff is important and we should be endorsing it.
16:50:15 bear nicely quick - thanks ralph
16:50:28 bear passes the mic to simon
16:50:49 Kev Simon: FWIW, I don't think the manifesto as it stands is 'right'.
16:51:00 Simon I can't think of a more important cause that we should be focusing on and championing.
16:51:56 bear kev - what part of the manifesto do you not agree with?
16:52:01 dwd Simon, I'd be concerned that too many of the operators are not committed to it - in part because of the Google (and GMX, and ... ) issues.
16:52:03 bear the non-technical bits?
16:52:07 Simon Or put another way, is there anything more important than focusing on security right now?
16:52:12 Kev I've sent an Isode position to Peter a few weeks back to give him a chance to comment before making such a thing publicly.
16:52:18 dwd Simon, Think of the children.
16:52:21 stpeter personally I'm not really a fan of manifesto as communication method, but it's been good as a way to start the conversation and set some goals
16:52:32 Kev But my personal position, which may or may not be similar to Isode's, is that it states the requirements too firmly without nuance.
16:52:42 bear i.e., can we endorse the testing and interoperability of the Security Test Day without waving the manifesto as our flag?
16:53:03 dwd bear, Not really. Or at least, we can, but nobody will understand that.
16:53:18 Kev There are significant (non-Internet) deployments that do not need, or should not have, TLS, and the manifesto simply says they need to use TLS. If the XSF endorses that, it's saying it doesn't recognise any of these deployments as valid, and that was Not Be Good.
16:53:28 stpeter Kev: likely something is lost in my inbox and I need to reply, sorry about that
16:53:28 Simon a) write a manifesto b) decide that security is an important selling point for XMPP c) XSF announces secure connections on the network test days. d) XMPP is secure.
16:53:30 Laura What about seeing the manifesto as a work-in-progress?
16:53:36 ralphm Maybe we can change the effort to an informational XEP and then have XSF announce test days
16:53:38 Laura Look for engagement through involevemt?
16:54:03 stpeter Laura: I definitely see it that way, but it perhaps hasn't been presented properly
16:54:04 Kev stpeter: I think you replied saying "Will look at this", and then lost it, then :)
16:54:14 dwd I personally see the manifesto as a kind of bargaining position. It's a statement of our ideal for internet services.
16:54:33 dwd The trouble is, the way it's worded leaves little compromise.
16:54:38 Laura Does it say that clearly? "This is a statement of our ideal…" etc?
16:54:43 Kev dwd: But because it places requirements on software, not just deployment, that is not clear.
16:54:50 stpeter Kev: as to non-Internet deployments, the manifesto doesn't talk about those since it's about the public XMPP network
16:54:57 bear I can get behind the XSF creating a best-practices XEP and then starts to support interop testing to implement it
16:55:00 Simon Kev: The manifesto calls for securing public servers that interconnect - don't think it mentions "behind the firewall" installs.
16:55:03 Kev stpeter: No, it's about software too.
16:55:11 dwd And I think that lack of compromise is seen as worrying by a considerable portion of the deployed servers out there.
16:55:38 stpeter Kev: yes, we need the software to support the features and configuration options that make it possible for public XMPP services to encrypt traffic
16:55:55 Kev stpeter: Yes, but some of the software points are not 'support', they're 'do'.
16:55:59 Simon I see it more as "if you want to talk to my users, you jolly well ought to take their privacy seriously and use TLS"
16:56:12 dwd Simon, Right, but that's not what it says.
16:56:14 Kev I am not opposed to the ideas in the manifesto, but the wording is Not Quite Right to my eye.
16:56:22 Kev stpeter: You have some comments on this in your inbox :)
16:56:27 Laura Please tell me it actually uses the phrase "you jolly well ought to"
16:56:37 Simon :)
16:56:45 stpeter Kev: I'm sure
16:56:46 stpeter anyway
16:56:47 dwd Laura, No, it says "you must and I will not compromise".
16:56:51 dwd THough I paraphrase.
16:57:04 Laura Scary
16:57:22 Laura What about "we will help you to…"?
16:57:26 stpeter Kev: the only "do" I see is "no more SSLv2 and SSLv3", but I think the "and SSLv3" can be removed -- it's SSLv2 that is bad
16:57:26 Laura More encouraging?
16:57:46 stpeter in any case, this is not the place to wordsmith
16:57:58 stpeter and 27 minutes have gone by in this meeting :-)
16:58:20 Kev stpeter: Are you happy for me to share the mail more widely, or would you like to read it first?
16:58:21 stpeter action item for me is to review all feedback and propose changes to the manifesto
16:58:25 Kev OK.
16:58:41 Simon My original point is that the XSF needs to be seizing this moment to fix security on s2s links (I don't care what you do on your c2s links)
16:58:43 stpeter Kev: I'm fine with public discussion -- transparency is always better IMHO
16:58:47 dwd stpeter, Right. But I think the point is that it's not clear that the XSF can wholeheartedly support it in its current form, which is unfortunate, because the goals of it seem very well aligned.
16:59:20 bear can we get some wordsmithing on this in the lists and take this up again next week?
16:59:24 stpeter dwd: I'm not sure what it means for the XSF to support such a thing -- does that mean the membership needs to vote, or can the Board voice its support?
16:59:27 stpeter bear: sure
16:59:44 dwd Simon, "Do this or go home" has the unfortunate problem that many people seem happy enough to take the latter option, judging by the lists.
17:00:17 stpeter the idea is very much to give us some aspirational goals, *not* to split the network!!
17:00:17 dwd stpeter, I would argue that the Board shoudl probably judge consensus, rather than ask for a formal vote in most cases.
17:00:34 Simon dwd: I was thinking about that. And yes, there are some vocal opponents. But I think we risk loosing the voice of the vast majority of silent suporters that would like secure connections.
17:00:55 stpeter but the text in the manifesto about unauthenticated encryption seems to make this uncontroversial
17:01:21 dwd stpeter, " the idea is very much to give us some aspirational goals" - right, totally behind you on this. I think it's the absolutism, as it were, that's causing the discomfort.
17:01:38 bear looks at the time
17:01:46 bear ok, if we can get the wordsmithing fixed
17:01:57 stpeter dwd: OK, I will revisit the text and see if I can propose some scrubbing to remove any remaining traces of absolutism
17:02:01 Simon I think the manifest is right - this is a network and at some point one has to force the issue - it's been many years now and the state of XMPP security has rumbled on in an insecure hodgepodge.
17:02:10 bear then we will have a chance next week to talk about what/how we as the board can get the membership to support the effort?
17:02:36 stpeter Simon: yes, *but* IMHO we should be able to at least get to unauthenticated encryption using even anonymous DH
17:02:39 stpeter bear: yes
17:02:45 dwd stpeter, +1.
17:02:45 stpeter shuts up about security
17:02:56 ralphm heh
17:03:00 bear that sounds like a best-practices XEP for sure
17:03:15 bear so people can be pointed to it as a HOW-TO once they get their F from xmpp.net
17:03:16 fippo bear: i pestered dwd about starttls+dialback already
17:03:21 dwd If we're done with this, does that mean we're done-done?
17:03:27 Simon (peter: what's happening on Jabber.org's upgrade?)
17:03:36 bear ok, that was the last agenda item
17:03:39 Simon moves soapbox to the side.
17:03:39 stpeter quick update about the liaison agreements
17:03:40 bear any agenda bashing?
17:03:53 bear moves box to peter's side
17:04:03 stpeter I have received communication from the UPnP Forum about a liaison agreement with them
17:04:16 stpeter I'm working on this with someone from Cisco who is involved in UPnP Forum
17:04:33 stpeter we'll do a bit of back and forth in the next day or two
17:04:42 stpeter then I think I can send a proposed document to the Board
17:04:53 stpeter they have a template for such things, we just need to fill in some of the details
17:05:15 stpeter I haven't really reviewed it yet, just received it yesterday
17:05:19 stpeter but it's in the works
17:05:28 stpeter and you saw my note about their UPnP Cloud initiative
17:05:34 stpeter so that's all good, I think
17:05:51 stpeter I need to follow up with both ISO TC 122 and IEC TC 57
17:05:59 stpeter I apologize for taking last week off ;-)
17:06:00 ralphm any more text on that?
17:06:13 stpeter that = ISO and IEC?
17:06:29 ralphm upnp+xmpp
17:06:36 bear smacks peter with the "you should take more time off" bat
17:06:43 ralphm apart from the news page
17:06:59 stpeter oh, BTW, UPnP Forum is very interested in conformance / compliance testing and might be able to contribute code in this area for XMPP stuff
17:07:06 dwd stpeter, Do we have to approve your vacation time as your management?
17:07:37 stpeter ralphm: I have two presentations (PPT format) that I can probably share -- the rest has all been verbal chats I've had with some folks at UPnP Forum
17:07:46 ralphm right
17:07:57 stpeter they've had quite a few technical questions about MUC, pubsub, security, naming, etc.
17:08:14 stpeter even Jingle stuff
17:08:30 stpeter I think they basically want to accomplish the vision that Dirk Meyer was working on a few years ago
17:08:46 ralphm cool
17:08:48 stpeter yep
17:08:49 dwd My children are hungry; but I think we just ask the Council to select some folk in readiness on the assumption Peter will sort out the legal mumbo jumbo.
17:09:03 stpeter yes
17:09:05 bear cool, sounds like a +1 to peter's plan
17:09:08 stpeter we can discuss more next week
17:09:12 stpeter I just wanted to provide a quick update
17:09:16 bear next week, same time and place?
17:09:21 dwd Someone (COuncil or us) should put out a call for volunteers to serve on these things.
17:09:30 dwd (to members@)
17:09:30 stpeter seems like a Council thing
17:09:34 dwd bear, Yes.
17:09:42 stpeter let's put that on their agenda for next week's Council meeting :-)
17:09:44 dwd stpeter, Happy for it to be Council, they're doing the selection.
17:10:13 stpeter WFM
17:10:21 bear k, i'll send an email to membership@ asking council to add it to agenda
17:10:31 bear ok, we are done then - thanks all!
17:10:35 dwd Doesn't that effectively act as a call for volunteers?
17:10:50 bear nope, just a public way of getting it on the council agenda
17:11:04 stpeter :)
17:11:10 Kev Yes, just make sure that anything going on Council agends reaches me via email please (either directly, to council@ or to members@ with a clear subject line) so I notice it.
17:11:20 bear +1
17:11:23 stpeter yay
17:11:39 bear k, i'll write up the minutes after work using the new Kev method
17:11:43 stpeter super
17:11:46 stpeter thanks, all!
17:11:50 stpeter good discussion
17:11:51 bear and the i'll do the calendar additions for next week
17:11:53 Simon thanks all
17:11:57 bear yep, thanks everyone
17:11:58 Laura Bye all
17:12:03 stpeter it's great to see such passion about XMPP after all these years :-)
17:12:09 bear +1
17:12:11 Kev So, post meeting...Board could use more bios :)
17:12:39 Kev I'm happy to put them in place if people send them to me, or everyone probably has access to do it themselves.
17:12:47 Laura Tried to log in to do mine but couldn\t get in. I have my password - is the user name email address?
17:12:58 Laura It didn't like me
17:13:04 Kev I don't believe so - who created your account?
17:13:07 Kev Bug them about it :)
17:13:19 bear looks at laura's account
17:14:11 bear laura: your username is "laura" and the email is listed as "laura.gill@surevine.com"
17:14:35 Laura Thank you bear
17:14:38 stpeter updates the Board calendar
17:14:42 Laura *makes note to do my homework*
17:15:15 stpeter Laura: hopefully these meetings aren't too crazy for you -- we have a certain style of communicating and it can be difficult to follow, I think :-)
17:15:43 bear it does take some getting used to
17:16:24 Kev At least we don't communicate by yelling (much) :)
17:16:26 stpeter hmph, I have a dentist appointment next Wednesday morning, I am not sure how I schedule such a thing at that time :(
17:16:47 bear do you want a schedule change before/after?
17:17:13 stpeter I can provide information by email beforehand and the Board can proceed, I think
17:17:18 bear k
17:17:28 stpeter maybe I can join via mobile or show up early and use their wifi
17:17:58 bear I'm up for sliding the meeting up an hour if the others are ok with it
17:20:25 stpeter I'm going to see if (a) the dentist has wifi or (b) I can move the appointment
17:20:41 Kev Hahahaha
17:20:50 stpeter if we have a 30-minute meeting, we should be fine :-)
17:20:53 Kev Sentences you never expect to see "I'm going to see if the dentist has wifi".
17:21:00 stpeter heh yeah
17:23:12 stpeter I'll work it out on my end
17:23:26 stpeter Board calendar updated
17:23:38 bear has sent email to members@ asking for council time
17:23:43 Kev Thanks bear.
17:23:46 bear yw
17:24:08 bear the gsoc wiki page has been created by jabberjocke - \o/
17:24:16 ralphm has left
17:24:59 bear proofreads the new page for typos and spelling
17:35:23 bear sends blurb to members@ about GSOC project ideas
17:51:31 Simon has left
18:06:50 Laura has left
18:06:58 Laura has joined
18:07:02 Simon has joined
18:07:53 Laura has left
18:19:28 Simon has joined
18:23:20 Alex has joined
18:24:51 Simon has left
18:37:18 Zash has left
18:51:05 Zash has joined
19:08:35 Ashley Ward has left
19:30:02 tato has joined
20:07:53 tato has left
20:08:06 tato has joined
20:08:24 tato has left
20:08:59 tato has joined
20:12:27 SouL has left
21:18:41 fippo kev: the agenda for the next meeting is going to be pretty heavy
21:19:12 fippo three submissions from me ;-)
21:32:29 tato has left
21:40:02 Kev Yay.
22:01:41 tato has joined
22:01:42 MattJ dwd, can you expand "with strong identity being considerably more prevalent that it was"? (assuming s/that/than/)
22:04:04 SM has joined
22:06:19 dwd We have a big push for proper certificates that seems to be working.
22:06:35 dwd But you know, I thought I'd make it sound exciting and technical.
22:06:44 jabberjocke has joined
22:07:06 Ashley Ward has joined
22:43:22 tato has left
22:56:52 ralphm has left
23:00:58 bear has left
23:10:05 Simon has joined
23:16:03 Simon has left
23:17:01 Ashley Ward has left
23:32:50 MattJ So now we need to get the discussion over to the security list somehow
23:33:08 MattJ and then jingle, and the WG list
23:33:39 stpeter :P
23:34:29 Zash has joined
23:55:11 tato has joined