Subject: Re: jabber logs into working group mailing list archives?

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 04:04:49 -0400

On Apr 1, 2009, at 2:43 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> IETF meeting jabber sessions often hold some very useful gems.  And  
> at their
> worst, each one isn't all that big.
>
> It occurs to me that we should try to fold them into the regular  
> email archive,
> perhaps simply by sending the wg mailing list a copy afterwards?
>

Some groups make heavy use of their jabber account - the MMOX  BOF  
comes to mind -
not just during a formal meeting. It would make sense to archive this  
on a daily basis;
I would suggest sending the daily archive to the mail list like a mail  
archive, at
least as an option.

Regards
Marshall

> d/
> -- 
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 06:47:33 -0400

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> IETF meeting jabber sessions often hold some very useful gems.  And at 
> their

When I've chaired working groups I've found the
Jabber logs to be invaluable for help putting together
minutes, and occasionally for clarifying post-meeting
questions.  However, at their worst they barely
exist - not all sessions have been successful at
finding volunteers to help with scribing, and not
all chairs have been paying attention to it, frankly.

Melinda

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:37:00 -0400

Excerpts from Dave CROCKER on Tue, Mar 31, 2009 11:43:29PM -0700:
> at their worst, each one isn't all that big.
>
> email archive, perhaps simply by sending the wg mailing list a copy
> afterwards?

+1

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:48:25 -0500

> It occurs to me that we should try to fold them into the regular email 
> archive,

I would like to see this, and if we expect it to happen, I'd suggest 
automating it. Should be simple enough (assume IETF Plenary goes to 
[email-masked], and there probably are some other corner cases to consider 
before implementing).

My only caveat is that the current jabber logs include entries for days 
where nothing happened - both zero-byte entries and "Dan York entered the 
room", to mention one entry in recent mediactrl logs.

I'd suggest a minimum size for this - not huge, maybe 1000 bytes? - if we 
get serious about doing it.

Ripping out the "entered"/"left" entries would be nice, but that's the next 
level.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:42:01 +0200

+1

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:53:00 -0700

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> [email-masked], and there probably are some other corner cases to 
> consider before implementing).

Having it be fully automated would indeed be very nice.

> where nothing happened - both zero-byte entries and "Dan York entered 
> the room", to mention one entry in recent mediactrl logs.

If there is a tradeoff between having the submission be automated versus having 
a submission per day, with all but one being empty, I'd prefer the automation:

1. This is about reliability and it's a lot better to take humans out of the 
action sequence.

2. The overhead to the mailing list recipients of getting an IETF week daily 
posting of empty jabber scripts would be a lot lower than the postings from some 
active mailing list participants with far less positive value add...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Tim Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:53:38 -0400

Good point.  If we are serious about this, automating it is the only  
reasonable path.  I like the idea of a minimum size for automatic  
submission.  If it is short but really important (e.g., "The AD closed  
the wg."), then we can always manually submit the jabber log.

On Apr 1, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> automating it. Should be simple enough (assume IETF Plenary goes to [email-masked] 
> , and there probably are some other corner cases to consider before  
> implementing).
>
> My only caveat is that the current jabber logs include entries for  
> days where nothing happened - both zero-byte entries and "Dan York  
> entered the room", to mention one entry in recent mediactrl logs.
>
> I'd suggest a minimum size for this - not huge, maybe 1000 bytes? -  
> if we get serious about doing it.
>
> Ripping out the "entered"/"left" entries would be nice, but that's  
> the next level.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:02:36 -0400

while we're on the subject of better integration between mailing lists
and jabber, how about having the trailer at the bottom of every message
that is posted to an IETF WG list, include a URL that points to the
jabber chat room for that WG?

Keith

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:17:52 +0200

> jabber chat room for that WG?

Is more boiler plate texts the answer to everything?

I believe Jabber comments are legally IETF contributions, so posting the
jabber log to every WG after the IETF week (or more often) seems like a
good thing to make jabber statements archived and searchable in a better
way.

/Simon

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:33:37 -0400

Excerpts from Tim Polk on Wed, Apr 01, 2009 10:53:38AM -0400:
> reasonable path.  

but to start with maybe the chairs could send it out by hand?  They
submit the meeting notes by hand.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:20:49 -0400

if `egrep -v 'joins the room|leaves the room' log | wc -l` > 0
	post log

Translation: if, after removing the "joins the room" and "leaves the
room" messages are removed, you wind up with anything left, post the
log. This would eliminate almost all of the logs that have no
substantive information.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I'd suggest a minimum size for this - not huge, maybe 1000 bytes? - if
> we get serious about doing it.
> 
> Ripping out the "entered"/"left" entries would be nice, but that's the
> next level.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:22:38 -0400

> Is more boiler plate texts the answer to everything?

of course not.  but I wasn't trying to answer "everything".  I was
suggesting a way to make it easier for WG participants who are
exchanging messages via email to drop into a Jabber chat to get better
interaction.

do you really have a problem with that?

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:39:17 -0400

Perhaps a better URL would be a pointer to the working group 
information page on which one could find lots of interesting 
information.

Jim

-- On April 1, 2009 11:02:36 AM -0400 Keith Moore 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding jabber URL at the bottom 
of mailing list traffic? --

> and jabber, how about having the trailer at the bottom of every
> message that is posted to an IETF WG list, include a URL that points
> to the jabber chat room for that WG?

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:10:27 -0400

James Galvin wrote:
> Perhaps a better URL would be a pointer to the working group information 
> page on which one could find lots of interesting information.

meta-pointer.

+1

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker