[Council] logs for 2010-03-01
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Mar 2 08:40:39 CST 2010
[12:00:38] <Kev> Evening all.
[12:01:15] *ralphm waves
[12:01:34] <niekie> ralphm: hi!
[12:01:38] <Kev> So, Remko sends apologies, and Dave seems to have
resigned, so we'll have to wait for Matt if we want quorum.
[12:02:03] <niekie> Oh, I thought we were in jabber@, d'oh.
[12:02:31] <ralphm> oh, wow
[12:02:44] <MattJ> Sorry, was in the midst of code reviews :)
[12:02:49] <niekie> ralphm: I lured him in for you :)
[17:00:00] *** The topic has been set to: XMPP Council | Next meeting
2010-01-25 @ 19:00 UTC | Calendar:
http://xmpp.org/calendar/xsf-council.ics | Previous agenda:
[12:03:04] <stpeter> and here I was hanging out in
xmpp:council at muc.xmpp.org :)
[12:03:14] <ralphm> niekie: my wow was about the resignation
[12:03:16] <Kev> stpeter: right, we should set a date and move one of
[12:03:38] <Kev> So, we've got all of Council here that we're getting,
so let's start...
[12:04:02] <Kev> 1) Roll call
Kev, Matt, Ralph here, Remko sends apologies, Dave has resigned.
[12:04:11] <stpeter> ok!
[12:04:24] <stpeter> is Dave's resignation immediate?
[12:04:29] <stpeter> I didn't notice a date
[12:04:47] <Kev> 2) Agenda bashing?
We've got an extra XEP in here from Peter (227).
[12:05:03] <Kev> stpeter: I had assumed immediate - I've only just seen
the mail, though, will clarify later.
[12:05:16] <ralphm> stpeter: that's what I understood from the mail
[12:05:33] <stpeter> Kev: ok, I thought perhaps there had been
communication between the two of you given that you both work for the
same company and all :)
[12:05:38] <Kev> Nope.
[12:05:41] <ralphm> heh
[12:05:43] <Kev> Also: I'm on leave this week.
[12:06:07] <ralphm> I was looking at the voting results from 2009-10-06,
but that leaves us with a tie between fritzy and ff
[12:06:25] <Kev> Let's discuss the Dave issue later, I think.
[12:06:30] <Kev> Normal order of business first :)
[12:06:30] <ralphm> I'm not even sure if we can use that vote to choose
[12:06:37] <ralphm> ok
[12:06:47] <stpeter> Kev: +1
[12:06:51] <Kev> So, I put -47 on the agenda, but that's not ready yet,
so skipping that.
[12:07:01] <ralphm> Do we have an updated agenda, with stpeter's remarks
[12:07:06] <Kev> 3) XEP-0184: Message Receipts
[12:07:19] <Kev> ralphm: sadly not - I've been AFK a lot (new house,
week off etc.)
[12:07:19] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/council/policies.shtml will be
invoked at some point, feel free to read it in the background :)
[12:07:22] <Kev> I'll make it up as we go along.
[12:07:47] <stpeter> Kev: we've been doing that since 1999, so you're in
[12:07:55] <Kev> I'm -1 on these changes, as they go further than what
was discussed on-list.
[12:08:12] <MattJ> Kev, what in particular aren't you in agreement with?
[12:08:16] <Kev> I'll write up a mail discussing this (sorry, I was OK
with the thread on-list, I hadn't read the diff until today)
[12:08:21] <MattJ> Ok
[12:08:32] <stpeter> Kev: ok thanks
[12:08:37] <stpeter> I want to make sure we get it right
[12:08:40] <stpeter> so feedback is welcome
[12:08:42] <Kev> I'm against forcing the sending of requests, even when
you know the other side doesn't support it, mainly.
[12:08:47] <ralphm> Oh, I thought the changes were mostly in removing
[12:09:16] <Kev> ralphm / MattJ: do you have votes on this at the moment?
[12:09:38] <ralphm> Kev: well, if my understanding is false, I have to
[12:09:40] <stpeter> BTW the new diffs are quite readable -- kudos to
[12:09:49] <Kev> Yes, Tobias / waqas have done good.
[12:09:52] <MattJ> Kev, I don't think it says that, does it?
[12:10:09] <Kev> MattJ: maybe I misread - I thought I saw "SHOULD always
send a request" or such.
[12:10:11] <stpeter> clearly folks need to read the diffs again, so
we'll discuss further next time
[12:10:12] <Tobias> Kev: thanks :)
[12:10:21] <MattJ> It says:
[12:10:31] <stpeter> Kev: "If receipts are desired...." (conditional should)
[12:10:32] <ralphm> If receipts are desired, a sender SHOULD
[12:10:34] <MattJ> "A sender MAY include a request for message receipts
even if it has not been able to determine if the intended recipient
supports message receipts."
[12:10:38] <stpeter> but I'm open to better text
[12:10:46] <Kev> stpeter: right, but they're always desired - it's just
that they may not be possible.
[12:10:48] <stpeter> perhaps conditional shoulds are confusing
[12:11:24] <MattJ> I get the spirit of the text, but I can see how it
could be otherwise interpreted (very easily)
[12:11:28] <MattJ> which means it shall be :)
[12:11:30] <ralphm> Kev: I see your point. I'm not sure how discovery
would work if the other party is not available
[12:11:37] <Kev> the 'SHOULD include a request for message receipts on
all messages' is going to get read the way I read it, in any case.
[12:11:47] <MattJ> nod
[12:12:04] <Kev> I think it needs something like SHOULD include if
desired and supported, MUST not when unsupported, MAY when support isn't
known (i.e. bare-jid).
[12:12:15] <Kev> I'll send to list though, I think it's just a minor
tweak before a revote.
[12:12:23] <stpeter> Kev: sure thanks!
[12:12:30] *** waqas (waqas at jaim.at/Miranda) has joined the room as a
[12:12:30] <MattJ> Kev, yes, that would be fine
[12:12:31] <stpeter> next item, I presume
[12:12:49] <Kev> stpeter: sure, or whenever the authors update :)
[12:12:50] <ralphm> but if the intend is clear we can vote as noted?
[12:13:16] <ralphm> intent, even
[12:13:20] <Kev> ralphm: it's an update to a draft XEP, so it's not like
not vetoing a protoXEP - I don't think we should push something I
think's not right.
[12:13:29] <stpeter> Kev: I agree
[12:13:31] <ralphm> nod
[12:13:32] <Kev> (I think it's worse than what's there already, albeit
[12:13:33] <ralphm> next
[12:13:36] <stpeter> let's discuss on the list and get it right for the
[12:13:47] <Kev> 4) XEP-0198: Stream Management
[12:13:48] <Kev> I'm +1
[12:13:58] <MattJ> +1
[12:14:30] <stpeter> MattJ had better vote +1, he's the one who pointed
out the problem :)
[12:14:37] <MattJ> ;)
[12:14:46] <ralphm> +1
[12:14:57] <Kev> Now onto Peter's items.
[12:15:24] <Kev> Peter raises comments on 60 and 163 - both of these
have been in voting for far too long, so I think we just invoke
[12:15:46] <Kev> I guess if people vote before Peter gets around to
updating the talies, they might get away with it :)
[12:15:57] <Kev> *tallies
[12:16:02] <stpeter> ok, 198 votes noted
[12:16:14] <ralphm> I agree they are dangling too long now
[12:16:21] <ralphm> but my -1 was not just about IQs
[12:16:35] <Kev> ralphm: that's ok - you're posting to list about it, ;)
[12:16:50] <stpeter> ralphm: what's a realistic time period for you to
document your objections?
[12:16:57] <ralphm> the delete-with-redirect functionality is incomplete
and also different from what I've been implementing (which in itself is
not a problem)
[12:17:38] <Kev> So...
[12:17:43] <ralphm> stpeter: I did mention this in last meeting, but I
can repeat on list
[12:17:48] <Kev> 5. Version 0.3 of XEP-0227 (Portable Import/Export
Format for XMPP-IM
Servers) is ready for advancement to Draft, according to the authors.
[12:17:54] <Kev> ralphm: you said you'd post to the pubsub list about
[12:17:58] <ralphm> about the iq's, it seems that hildjj has covered
most of my objections
[12:18:06] <ralphm> I'll do that then
[12:18:08] <stpeter> ralphm: I'm just trying to get a sense of when we
can resolve this stuff
[12:18:10] <Kev> Thanks
[12:18:16] <MattJ> +1 to 227 (I've been discussing it a bit with waqas,
and am happy with it as it stands)
[12:18:24] <ralphm> stpeter: maybe we can work together some time this week?
[12:18:40] <Kev> I haven't read 227 again, I'm afraid - I'll read it
this week and vote on list. Remembering that people voting on list have
10 days (at the moment) before they DNV.
[12:18:59] <Kev> (It's too long, and I've forgotten the last call feedback)
[12:19:15] <Kev> ralphm: do you have a vote on 227 at the moment.
[12:19:36] <stpeter> ralphm: sure, today is a mess and Thursday morning
is bad, but the rest of the week is OK
[12:19:44] <ralphm> I'm +1 on 0227
[12:19:49] <Kev> Great, thanks.
[12:19:55] <ralphm> stpeter: nod
[12:20:08] <Kev> The two protoXEPs don't need any inaction from the
people here, so skipping.
[12:20:24] <Kev> Well, and the 10 days has expired without complaint
from Council, so I guess those are in.
[12:20:48] <MattJ> I'm +1 to server IP check (as I said at the last
[12:20:59] <Kev> MattJ: yes, all three of us didn't vote -1 last meeting.
[12:21:07] <MattJ> I haven't read Jingle Nodes yet
[12:21:18] <MattJ> Except to confirm it doesn't use PEP
[12:21:42] <ralphm> MattJ: it seems a good start, if needed we can drag
PEP into it
[12:21:46] <stpeter> about 227, I pinged Waqas because I thought we
might have some changes forthcoming based on some recent experience with
PIE at jabber.org, but he said nothing needed to change further so it
seems OK to move forward with it
[12:22:05] <Kev> Ok.
[12:22:05] <stpeter> (which I mention in no official Council capacity :)
[12:22:27] <Kev> So we've also got these XEPs that Peter has suggested
we look at moving forward.
[12:22:29] <MattJ> stpeter, yes, he poked me (as I wrote the exporter
for jabber.org) - but really I had no issues with 227
[12:22:38] *stpeter nods to MattJ
[12:22:46] <stpeter> Kev: nothing immediate there
[12:22:54] <Kev> I suggest we delay thinking about these until the more
immediate issues are addressed.
[12:22:59] <Kev> Which brings us onto Dave
[12:23:05] <stpeter> Kev: I simply think it's good to think once in a
while about Draft => Final progress
[12:23:12] <Kev> stpeter: yes, well poked.
[12:23:14] <MattJ> Which I would rather discuss with Dave present I
think (or on list)
[12:23:16] <ralphm> stpeter: agreed
[12:23:51] <Kev> MattJ: given that Dave's resigning because he doesn't
have time to turn up to these, I think here might be overly optimistic.
[12:23:58] <ralphm> Well, in general, if somebody feels he doesn't have
enough time or other reasons to quit his position, I am not sure what
needs to be discussed
[12:24:15] <ralphm> except for follow-up
[12:24:17] <MattJ> Well we need to discuss if/how we find a replacement
[12:24:29] <ralphm> and stpeter helpfully pointed to our policy:
[12:24:32] <Kev> MattJ: well, it's up to us, pretty much.
[12:24:34] <ralphm> In order to fill any vacancies, the Council shall
call for applicants and select a new member from among the applicants.
[12:24:43] <ralphm> so that's that
[12:24:45] <stpeter> yes
[12:24:46] <Kev> ralphm: oh, I misremember, then.
[12:24:53] <Kev> I thought the rules were the same as for Board.
[12:25:13] <MattJ> ack
[12:25:32] <stpeter> no, they are defined at the policies and procedures
7. The Council shall at its discretion determine whether to fill any
vacancies on the Council, but as a matter of policy should do so if
there are more than 3 months remaining in the Council's term.
8. In order to fill any vacancies, the Council shall call for applicants
and select a new member from among the applicants.
[12:26:15] <ralphm> Personally, I think we should fill the vacancy
[12:26:34] <MattJ> Agreed
[12:26:45] <stpeter> e.g., the Council (Chair) could put out a call for
applications on the standards@ list, ask for applications to be provided
within 2-3 weeks, and the Council would decide at one of its meetings
[12:26:49] <MattJ> I think we'll have plenty of volunteers
[12:27:09] <ralphm> probably, yes
[12:28:04] <ralphm> FWIW, I'd like to thank dwd for his work for the
[12:28:30] <MattJ> +1, I intend to reply to his email shortly
[12:28:31] <Kev> I'll chat with Dave, check if he's really set on
resigning, and if he can't be talked out of it, I I'll send out a call
[12:29:12] <stpeter> ralphm: indeed
[12:29:14] <Kev> Anyone object to a deadline of three weeks yesterday,
so we can vote three weeks today
[12:29:15] <Kev> ?
[12:29:29] <stpeter> Kev: that seems workable, yes
[12:29:32] <ralphm> indeed
[12:29:33] <stpeter> should be plenty of time
[12:29:36] <Kev> ralphm: right, although I'd rather just persuade him to
use a time machine instead :)
[12:29:37] <MattJ> No objection
[12:29:46] <stpeter> Kev: yeah :|
[12:30:04] <ralphm> Kev: or a shiny toy
[12:30:15] <MattJ> That would make everything better
[12:30:26] <ralphm> I've caved and ordered one
[12:30:51] <Kev> ralphm: good man. I'm still heart-broken that Nokia
took mine back.
[12:30:59] <stpeter> I'd like to make it clear that I shan't apply to
serve on the Council, I've got enough going on right now :)
[12:31:06] <Kev> stpeter: very wise.
[12:31:16] <ralphm> haha, I never expected you to
[12:31:19] <MattJ> stpeter, I gathered as much :)
[12:31:20] <stpeter> besides, I like to see others provide their
[12:31:43] <stpeter> Kev: so that would be March 21, yes?
[12:31:54] <Kev> stpeter: right.
[12:32:01] <stpeter> I might not be able to join the meeting on the
22nd, BTW, if there is one, since I'll be at IETF 77
[12:32:09] <ralphm> oh right
[12:32:16] <stpeter> in fact, it's highly unlikely that I would be able
[12:32:24] <Kev> Ah, that might not be a good date to choose then.
[12:32:34] <stpeter> since I will be running the Apps Area session at
[12:32:37] <stpeter> with Alexey :)
[12:32:39] <Kev> (clashing with an IETF meeting in general seems suboptimal)
[12:32:47] <stpeter> but you guys can handle things
[12:33:25] <ralphm> thanks *snif*
[12:33:33] <stpeter> :)
[12:33:43] <MattJ> :)
[12:33:50] <Kev> Ok, we can set the deadline for the 21st, even if
Council don't end up meeting and voting on the 22nd.
[12:34:00] <Kev> Any other business?
[12:34:13] <ralphm> nah
[12:34:21] <stpeter> BTW, I have been using etherpad.com for taking
minutes of IETF calls, it's quite handy and we could use something like
that for XMPP
[12:34:29] <MattJ> None here
[12:34:35] <MattJ> stpeter, mmm, yes... definitely
[12:34:46] <stpeter> XEP-0061 perhaps? ;-)
[12:35:05] <ralphm> I thought you'd be on wave for that
[12:35:13] <stpeter> ralphm: perhaps
[12:35:45] <ralphm> bang
[12:35:57] <Kev> stpeter: Well, try and persuade Matt to write one in
Lua using XMPP or such.
[12:36:04] <MattJ> Don't tempt me
[12:36:06] <stpeter> heh
[12:36:17] <stpeter> so who shall write the minutes?
[12:36:17] <MattJ> See, on a related note... https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lernid
[12:36:33] <stpeter> I'm booked up today but I could write the minutes
[12:36:45] <Kev> stpeter: I can write them. What else are holidays for?
[12:36:53] <MattJ> If you don't know about Ubuntu Open Week, it's a week
of online talks (there was some discussion about having an XMPP one, but
nothing came of it)
[12:36:53] <ralphm> anyone seen hildjj?
[12:37:15] <MattJ> and Lernid is a client for those talks - but it uses
[12:37:29] <Kev> Ok, same time next week for the meeting?
[12:37:34] <MattJ> +1
[12:37:43] <stpeter> ralphm: I've seen him at the Cisco office :)
[12:37:52] <Kev> I'm in Isode next week, which makes these things fun,
but I'll work it out, I usually do.
[12:37:58] <ralphm> stpeter: could you poke him about the slides we made?
[12:38:03] <stpeter> ralphm: will do
[12:38:16] <Kev> ralphm: same time next week?
[12:38:33] <ralphm> I think so
[12:39:13] <Kev> Ok.
[12:39:18] <Kev> I think we're done then, thanks all.
[12:39:25] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[12:39:31] <MattJ> Thanks
[12:39:38] <ralphm> yay
[12:39:41] <stpeter> thanks, guys
[12:40:17] <Kev> stpeter: where did you find that bit about us voting
for candidates from a new application pool in the bylaws?
[12:40:31] <stpeter> Kev: it's not in the bylaws
[12:40:37] <Kev> Ah, just the bit on
[12:40:40] <stpeter> Kev: it's Council policy
[12:40:41] <stpeter> yeah
[12:40:51] <stpeter> we formulated that years ago when DJ resigned
[12:40:53] <stpeter> IIRC
[12:41:11] <stpeter> or perhaps when he didn't resign but instead just
[12:41:15] <stpeter> can't quite recall
[12:41:26] <Kev> I don't see any reason to adjust the policies at the
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Council