[Standards] Fwd: Minutes 2011-02-24

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Mon Feb 28 10:25:04 UTC 2011


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Subject: Minutes 2011-02-24
To: XMPP Council

Minutes for Council meeting held Thursday 24th Feb, 2011.

Discussion log: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/110224/

1) Roll call
Matthew, Matthew, Ralph, Nathan and Kev present

2) Agenda bashing

3) XEP-0047 1.3rc3.
Accept new version?

All +1

4) XEP-0184, version 1.2rc:
Accept new version? See

All +1

5) http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/realtimetext.html
Accept as XEP?

Nathan, Kevin, Ralph -1, Matt and Matt -0 at the moment.
Kev to start a discussion on standards@ to gauge community feeling
about this, with the option of revoting if the community feels  that
this is the right approach. Comments include that the protoXEP is
excessively long for a simple feature, that it assumes XMPP
incompliant systems, that it makes assertions about the XMPP network
that don't appear accurate or substantiated, that it uses invalid
protocol and that a much simpler model exists (but may be unsuitable,
community discussion to follow).

6) http://dave.cridland.net/xeps/google-queue.html
This is documentation of a Google protocol. What track should it be?
None seem to fit - author doesn't think it's suitable for standards
track (should use stream features), Historical is only for pre-XSF
documents, and Informational is for BCP. Should the XEP types be

Much discussion (available in logs) about appropriate use of XEP
types, and acceptability of publishing non-standards-track protocol
when the deployed base is largely single-site. General agreement of
usefulness of this feature. Agreement that Council would like Board to
update the condition for Historical to mean either Pre-JSF *or*
developed outside standards-track. Council (ultimately) generally
happy to vote on pushing this to Historical (with XEP-0001 tweak),
with some members wanting a Standards Track proposal to obsolete it if
the community thinks there is a better approach.

7) Date of next meeting
2011-03-02 1600 GMT

8) Any other business
Some Council members submitted votes on the previous week's items.


More information about the Standards mailing list