[19:07:52] <zeljkof>	 is this "official" back channel for HR orientation modules?
[19:10:32] <marktraceur>	 zeljkof: Prolly -staf
[19:10:33] <marktraceur>	 f
[19:10:50] <zeljkof>	 marktraceur: thanks
[19:10:57] <Coren>	 Labs is missing!
[20:48:29] <sumanah>	 here in ~10 minutes, jdlrobson & others discuss styling in templates https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-26
[20:48:52] * YuviPanda  sadly has to go sleep but will check logs

[20:49:12] <sumanah>	 got it YuviPanda
[20:50:34] <sumanah>	 jdlrobson: - hey, got a moment to chat before The Meeting?
[20:51:02] * YuviPanda  wishes jdlrobson good luck

[20:51:08] <YuviPanda>	 for the RFC.
[20:54:46] <MaxSem>	 sumanah, there's a free slot, any objections if I put Minifier there?
[20:55:01] <sumanah>	 MaxSem: I'm fine with that - go ahead
[20:55:21] <MaxSem>	 done, thanks:)
[20:55:54] <jdlrobson>	 hey i've just wrapped up my other meeting sumanah
[20:55:59] <jdlrobson>	 i just want to grab a cup of coffee brb
[20:56:10] <sumanah>	 jdlrobson: cool. I want to know what you would like out of today's mtg
[20:56:48] <sumanah>	 MaxSem: I'll ask you the question then :-) what would you like out of today's discussion?
[20:57:21] <MaxSem>	 I'd like the red pill
[20:57:34] <MaxSem>	 eh, to move forward with this:)
[20:59:01] <jdlrobson>	 sumanah: some agreement on the way forward and someone with time to write the code to get this kicked off :)
[20:59:06] <jdlrobson>	 i've been a bit swamped recently
[20:59:15] <sumanah>	 Got it, thanks jdlrobson
[21:00:46] <sumanah>	 ok, waiting for Tim-away to come alive :-)
[21:01:55] * bd808  just pictured Tim on the cover of [[Frampton Comes Alive!]]

[21:03:00] <sumanah>	 hahahaha
[21:08:22] <sumanah>	 In about 2 minutes I'm going to call this and just move us on without Tim (and evidently Brion is sick)
[21:08:53] <sumanah>	 and I'll follow up via email and try to get some decisions/feedback/guidance from them onlist for Max & Jon
[21:09:02] <MaxSem>	 we need spare architects!
[21:09:10] <sumanah>	 yeah, I want them to delegate to some folks
[21:09:25] <marktraceur>	 sumanah: Maybe mark has opinions on HTML templating? :D
[21:09:26] <sumanah>	 in previous meetings I've asked "hey, would you like to delegate decisions on this to someone?"
[21:09:28] <sumanah>	 maybe!
[21:09:53] * YuviPanda  slightly trouts marktraceur

[21:10:10] * marktraceur  salmons YuviPanda

[21:10:18] <marktraceur>	 Slammin' salmons
[21:10:27] <sumanah>	 ok, let's have a short discussion, bring up the issues that need decision, and I'll try to push forward on them
[21:10:35] <sumanah>	 #startmeeting RfC review (styling in templates & minifier) | Channel is logged and publicly posted (DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTE). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
[21:10:35] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Meeting started Wed Mar 26 21:10:35 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is sumanah. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
[21:10:35] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
[21:10:35] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 The meeting name has been set to 'rfc_review__styling_in_templates___minifier____channel_is_logged_and_publicly_posted__do_not_remove_this_note___https___meta_wikimedia_org_wiki_irc_office_hours'
[21:10:40] <marktraceur>	 Wait. Slammin slalomin' salmons
[21:10:42] <sumanah>	 #link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-26
[21:10:42] <sumanah>	 #info Today we're covering 2 RfCs: Jon Robson's proposal regarding styling in templates, and MaxSem's minifier proposal
[21:10:45] * marktraceur  is done

[21:11:01] <sumanah>	 #info Brion and Tim aren't here today so we're basically articulating & clarifying what needs doing/deciding.
[21:11:10] <sumanah>	 #topic Styling in templates
[21:11:10] <sumanah>	 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Allow_styling_in_templates
[21:11:10] <sumanah>	 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Deprecating_inline_styles was an older RfC that Jon abandoned in favour of "Allow styling in templates"
[21:11:10] <sumanah>	 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Architecture_Summit_2014/UI_styling#Allow_styling_in_templates We discussed this topic during the Architecture Summit in January
[21:11:31] <sumanah>	 #info the next steps from January said - Jon & friends would lock down some details, code up a prototype/working beta with some sample templates, and so on by about the end of March.
[21:11:40] * Krinkle  peeks

[21:11:46] <sumanah>	 jdlrobson: do you have that to show?
[21:12:00] <sumanah>	 #info Jon wants: "some agreement on the way forward and someone with time to write the code to get this kicked off :)  i've been a bit swamped recently"
[21:12:53] <jdlrobson>	 SO during the architect summit there was a strong desire for the support of style tags rather than separate wiki pages for styles
[21:12:54] <sumanah>	 #info (we were supposed to talk about this in February https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-02-27 but ran out of time in that meeting)
[21:13:05] <jdlrobson>	 I attempted to go down that rabbit hole but this requires messing with the parser - https://gist.github.com/anonymous/9262427
[21:13:09] <jdlrobson>	 It's nasty basically.
[21:13:21] <jdlrobson>	 So I'd like to revisit the idea of having a separate page
[21:13:32] <jdlrobson>	 e.g. Template:Foo.css rather than exploring <style> tags
[21:13:59] <marktraceur>	 So does this intersect with the related-namespace RFC?
[21:14:15] <marktraceur>	 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Associated_namespaces
[21:14:16] <jdlrobson>	 as this seems much more doable and will allow us to quickly get an idea if 1) editors would use them 2) If they promote code sharing
[21:14:25] * jdlrobson  looks

[21:14:28] <YuviPanda>	 jdlrobson: if it is a separate file, would it have to be bundled/loaded separately? Or just bundled in as a <style> TAG?
[21:14:58] <MatmaRex>	 jdlrobson: is using a <style/> tag a hard requirement? couldn't we just use something that doesn't conflict with HTML tag names?
[21:15:06] <jdlrobson>	 Not sure. I imagined it would be the Template namespace and work in a similar fashion to MediaWiki namespace
[21:15:32] <jdlrobson>	 e.g. just the addition of .css on the same would turn it into a template stylesheet and it could be included in a similar fashion
[21:16:00] <marktraceur>	 jdlrobson: Yeah, but magically tying together things that have .css to things with the same name without .css seems broken
[21:16:06] <jdlrobson>	 (see original proof of concept - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/68123)
[21:16:17] <marktraceur>	 Or at least like an assumption we don't want to make
[21:16:31] <jdlrobson>	 This would enforce any template ending with .css gets treated as a css file
[21:17:05] <YuviPanda>	 if it is going to be loaded as a separate bundle of CSS, that'll also have performance implications.
[21:17:37] <jdlrobson>	 MatmaRex: The style tag is not a hard requirement, but I'd rather use a style tag so that people familiar with HTML don't have to learn yet another bit of wikitext
[21:17:42] <YuviPanda>	 jdlrobson: is the fact that the parser is all kinds of terrible the only reason <style> tags inline are a problem?
[21:18:14] <MatmaRex>	 jdlrobson: would the semantics be exactly the same? (genuine question, i don't know)
[21:18:20] <csteipp>	 <style> tags are really hard to make secure
[21:18:20] <jdlrobson>	 YuviPanda: pretty much - I've been struggling to find time to work on this but if someone can find a nice elegant way of doing this they would win lots of brownie points (CR points ;-)) forom me
[21:19:15] <jdlrobson>	 csteipp: can you elaborate? Could we not use the same CSS sanitizer we have in ResourceLoader on the contents of a style tag?
[21:19:24] <YuviPanda>	 yeah, what csteipp said. Scoped <style> support doesn't really exist yet, I think :(
[21:19:32] <bawolff>	 That css sanitizer doesn't sanitize selectors
[21:19:39] <bawolff>	 or @ rules
[21:20:08] <jdlrobson>	 Scoped CSS can be achieved via a shim
[21:20:27] <csteipp>	 jdlrobson: Maybe-- I haven't looked at it. But in general, you need a fair amount of processing on those, and adding that into the parser would be ugly.
[21:20:45] <jdlrobson>	 csteipp: yeh which is why i'd like to push us in the direction of a separate wiki page.. :)
[21:21:16] <csteipp>	 jdlrobson: I totally agree! I was commenting on Yuvi's inlining comment :)
[21:21:30] <bawolff>	 jdlrobson: What was the issue with using a <style> parser tag? There would be some amount of parser magic involved, but doesn't seem that impossible (I say that without trying)
[21:21:32] <jdlrobson>	 This didn't get much support during the architect summit
[21:21:54] <YuviPanda>	 jdlrobson: if you have a separate page, would that get loaded as a separate HTTP request?
[21:21:55] <bawolff>	 There is perhaps non-technical reasons why we might want a separate page though
[21:22:28] <YuviPanda>	 or would all the template CSS be loaded as a single HTTP request?
[21:22:51] * bawolff  assumes we would want to RL it (?)

[21:22:57] <MatmaRex>	 YuviPanda: i haven't tried either, but i think we could have RL magically bundle it
[21:23:11] <YuviPanda>	 MatmaRex: right, but then you will still have to scope it
[21:23:21] <MatmaRex>	 as in, it should Just Work
[21:23:36] <sumanah>	 #info Jon looked at supporting style tags rather than separate wiki pages for styles, per discussion at the summit, and it was nasty and required messing with the parser.  https://gist.github.com/anonymous/9262427
[21:23:36] <sumanah>	 #info discussion of having a separate Template:Foo.css page; see https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/68123
[21:23:36] <sumanah>	 #info discussion of sanitizing/making secure CSS and <style> content, and performance implications of having a separate CSS bundle
[21:23:36] <sumanah>	 #idea could we have ResourceLoader bundle it?
[21:23:36] <jdlrobson>	 bawolff: trying to remember it's been a while since i coded that
[21:23:38] <bawolff>	 So if we had it on a separate page, is the plan to have something like CSS:Page_Name_Here
[21:23:46] * sumanah  tries to summarize for the notes

[21:23:47] <MatmaRex>	 YuviPanda: hmm, i think jdlrobson just wanted to wrap the user-provided styles in some LESS?
[21:23:50] <jdlrobson>	 bawolff: actually we probably wouldn't RL it
[21:23:57] <YuviPanda>	 MatmaRex: ah, hmm.
[21:24:10] <YuviPanda>	 MatmaRex: hmm, right. that makes sense. Just prefix all selectors.
[21:24:11] <bawolff>	 or is the plan CSS:Any_identifier_here, and then include it with {{#magicIncludeCss:Any_identifier_here}}
[21:24:14] <bawolff>	 or something else
[21:24:14] <MatmaRex>	 as in, #whatever { <all CSS goes here> }
[21:24:27] <bawolff>	 jdlrobson: Why not?
[21:24:39] <YuviPanda>	 MatmaRex: right. as long as we can test it and make sure they can't break out of it that sounds sane enough.
[21:24:56] <jdlrobson>	 bawolff: TrevorParscal had some great reasons I'm trying to dig that out
[21:25:02] <jdlrobson>	 or hoping TrevorParscal can chip in
[21:25:30] <jdlrobson>	 It was to do with caching but I can't remember off the top of my head :-( - as i said i've been swamped
[21:26:04] <bawolff>	 I thought the whole point of RL was to make caching of CSS not suck :)
[21:26:05] <sumanah>	 So, Jon wants someone to help write the prototype. Any volunteers?
[21:26:34] <sumanah>	 there's a VisualEditor quarterly review right now so Roan/Trevor aren't super available to chat, but maybe we could talk onlist - I think I saw Krinkle peek in earlier
[21:26:39] <jdlrobson>	 bawolff: i remember..
[21:26:50] <jdlrobson>	 so say a page includes Template A....
[21:27:42] <jdlrobson>	 and Template A includes a stylesheet B. If B gets edited, the page now has the markup of Template A but the new styles of Template B - as RL gets round caching.
[21:28:04] <jdlrobson>	 If you do it as inline style tags then the page still runs with the old style tags
[21:28:36] <bawolff>	 Oh right, RL caching is faster then page caching
[21:29:33] <bawolff>	 Most of the time, the time difference wouldn't be that significant (I think, might be wrong)
[21:30:20] <sumanah>	 #help Jon needs help writing the code to get this kicked off
[21:30:25] <MatmaRex>	 bawolff: well, this caused us to break things a few times in reviewed code
[21:30:39] * MatmaRex  broke it once before i learned how this stuff works

[21:30:55] <bawolff>	 MatmaRex: Yes, but when changing in code review, it doesn't purge the pages that use it, unlike when a user edits
[21:31:01] <MatmaRex>	 total havoc, let me tell you. i bet it'd be worse when completely no one would know what is going on, instead of almost no one
[21:31:15] <MatmaRex>	 purging can take days, too
[21:31:29] <jdlrobson>	 I think it would be safer and quicker as a first step to have a separate page for CSS
[21:31:29] <sumanah>	 jdlrobson: would you like to mark any particular agreements with #agreed (e.g. the selector stuff) and then we will move on to Max's proposal and then probably break early and continue discussing onlist/onwiki? unless you want to discuss this more right now
[21:31:43] <bawolff>	 yeah, that's unfortunate :(, sometimes its fast...
[21:31:43] <jdlrobson>	 If we can demonstrate the success of that, I'm confident we can find the time to invest in style tags
[21:32:08] <MatmaRex>	 we'd have to somehow additionally version the CSS within RL or something, and that smells nasty
[21:32:23] <YuviPanda>	 However we do this, this would definitely need ops buy in of some sort (at least notifications)
[21:33:01] <sumanah>	 #info <YuviPanda> However we do this, this would definitely need ops buy in of some sort (at least notifications)
[21:33:16] <TimStarling>	 sorry I'm late
[21:33:28] <sumanah>	 #chair TimStarling sumanah
[21:33:28] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Current chairs: TimStarling sumanah
[21:33:31] <jdlrobson>	 sumanah: this is fine. I could just do with the help making this happen. I think everyone is bought into the idea just not the how.
[21:34:16] <bawolff>	 jdlrobson: I think it would be an interesting thing to poke at ( for experiment purposes if nothing else), but I'll probably not get around to actually helping :s
[21:34:20] <sumanah>	 bharris: http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20140326.txt in case you want the log
[21:34:39] <jdlrobson>	 bawolff: that would be appreciated
[21:34:55] * bawolff  notes I can't garuntee anything

[21:35:43] <sumanah>	 TimStarling: would you prefer to catch up on the discussion so far, or just continue the styling/templates discussion onlist/onwiki and instead move on right now to MaxSem's minifier proposal?
[21:36:08] <TimStarling>	 were there any questions for me specifically?
[21:36:47] <TimStarling>	 if not then we can move along to the next one
[21:37:22] <sumanah>	 I think Jon needs a hand in coding the prototype before he'll have a question for you, so I think we can move along for now
[21:37:58] <sumanah>	 #topic Minifier
[21:37:58] <sumanah>	 #link https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Minifier
[21:37:58] <sumanah>	 #info Max wants to move forward with this
[21:39:08] <MaxSem>	 First of all, does anyone have fundamental objections against this?
[21:39:18] <TimStarling>	 it's nice to se that there will finally be a way to disable minification
[21:39:41] <TimStarling>	 you know how long I argued for that in the RL design discussions
[21:40:12] <TimStarling>	 assuming Krinkle's comment is correct, that is
[21:41:22] <sumanah>	 MaxSem: I think that Trevor/Roan/Jon and other frontendy people might have opinions about this, yes?
[21:42:42] <MaxSem>	 Roan is favorable, haven't seen a detailed analysis of the implementation yet
[21:42:54] <MaxSem>	 jdlrobson, what's your opinion?
[21:43:07] <TimStarling>	 so we are talking about a 10-20% saving?
[21:43:25] <MaxSem>	 yes
[21:43:30] <MaxSem>	 after gzipping
[21:44:56] <TimStarling>	 I suppose that is not to be sniffed at
[21:45:47] <sumanah>	 from #mediawiki: "<ori> sumanah: I've chatted with MaxSem about it; I guess I should reply on-wiki. I basically just want a plan for how we're going to evaluate the impact of this change"
[21:46:32] <jdlrobson>	 it shrinks the payload. I'm not sure why this would be a bad thing. We should definitely check if there is any client side performance impact though.
[21:46:50] <TimStarling>	 well, shrinking the payload is not a bad thing
[21:47:15] <jdlrobson>	 Could this be done as a beta feature first to get some real data behind the improvements?
[21:47:16] <TimStarling>	 increasing the complexity of the system is a bad thing
[21:47:39] <TimStarling>	 you know that ops have almost no time to spend on anything
[21:47:39] <jdlrobson>	 we could use PerformanceTiming extension
[21:48:17] <TimStarling>	 the cost in system complexity has to be weighed against the improvements in user experience
[21:48:43] <jdlrobson>	 TimStarling: agreed, so as ori states we should be sure that we measure this well and show that the gain is worth the pain
[21:49:41] <sumanah>	 #info after gzipping, Max's proposal would provide a 10-20% saving in payload, which would be great; need to check on increase in system complexity, possible client-side performance impact
[21:50:12] <sumanah>	 #action MaxSem to make a plan to evaluate impact thoroughly
[21:50:23] <sumanah>	 maybe I shouldn't have said "great" - ah well. "good"
[21:50:38] <TimStarling>	 we really should include ops in the SOA discussion generally
[21:50:57] <MaxSem>	 The problem with measuring vs. complexity that in order to test it realistically we would need to implement most of it, including taking precious ops time:)
[21:51:01] <sumanah>	 absolutely TimStarling - Faidon I suppose?
[21:51:24] * sumanah  knows Bergsma has his hands full

[21:51:25] <TimStarling>	 mark
[21:51:46] <TimStarling>	 he probably does, but he is probably interested in whether his hands are going to be fuller in future
[21:52:02] <TimStarling>	 and he has been interested in this sort of thing in the past
[21:52:03] <sumanah>	 Tim, please go ahead and invite him - I think it'd mean more coming from you than from me :)
[21:52:11] <mark>	 :)
[21:52:17] <sumanah>	 oh hi Mark
[21:52:39] <sumanah>	 #idea <jdlrobson> Could this be done as a beta feature first to get some real data behind the improvements? <jdlrobson> we could use PerformanceTiming extension
[21:52:41] <mark>	 yes, it's true, I have my hands really full, but I'd like to participate for RFCs/topics that are really relevant to me
[21:52:53] <mark>	 SOA among them
[21:53:14] <sumanah>	 mark: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Services_and_narrow_interfaces would be one for you to check out, then
[21:53:17] <TimStarling>	 what do you think of SOA generally? do you think it is doable?
[21:53:41] <mark>	 i'm really not an expert on mediawiki internals of course, but yes, I believe it should be doable
[21:53:46] <TimStarling>	 I mostly worry about increasing the number of ganglia clusters, monitoring capacity headroom, etc.
[21:54:07] <TimStarling>	 I mean, the ganglia interface is kind of strained at the moment
[21:54:21] <mark>	 yes but monitoring needs improvements anyway
[21:54:30] <TimStarling>	 there would be more load balancers, so more paging checks in nagios
[21:54:49] <mark>	 and having separate services more restricted to certain tasks with a good API and possibly SLAs will actually help monitoring
[21:55:00] <mark>	 i'd gladly have that sort of problem tim ;)
[21:55:04] <TimStarling>	 I mean icinga (please don't sue me)
[21:55:25] <mark>	 right now it's all funnel into "the app servers" and god knows what happens there, from our perspective ;)
[21:55:35] <TimStarling>	 ok
[21:56:13] <TimStarling>	 what do you think about splitting up the gmetad server
[21:56:33] <MaxSem>	 mark, any thoughts about minification _service_?:)
[21:56:34] <TimStarling>	 then you get an extra hierarchy level in the UI
[21:56:48] <mark>	 yeah that's something we can look at
[21:56:56] <mark>	 there are even proposals to replace ganglia entirely, and a lot more
[21:57:02] <TimStarling>	 you remember, that's what I did when I set it up in the first place
[21:57:03] <mark>	 i don't think that will happen
[21:57:05] <mark>	 i like ganglia
[21:57:16] <TimStarling>	 the lack of multicast routing wasn't actually the reason for splitting gmetad
[21:57:17] <mark>	 it's good to keep around nomatter what else we put up
[21:58:06] <TimStarling>	 anyway, MaxSem wants to know what you think about minification
[21:59:27] <sumanah>	 btw, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scoped_language_converter next week's RfC chat - cscott will be asking for things I presume :-)
[21:59:51] <sumanah>	 and mark I'd say there are 4 more RfCs it might be good for you to say something about, in addition to SOA stuff:
[21:59:51] <sumanah>	 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Simplify_thumbnail_cache
[21:59:54] <sumanah>	 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/CentralNotice_Caching_Overhaul_-_Frontend_Proxy
[21:59:59] <sumanah>	 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/URL_shortener (less urgent maybe)
[22:00:02] <sumanah>	 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Structured_logging
[22:00:19] <TimStarling>	 mark: you did ask for it
[22:00:35] <TimStarling>	 ;)
[22:00:50] <sumanah>	 TimStarling: :) feel free to add to or subtract from that list, as your eye is more discerning
[22:03:59] <TimStarling>	 I guess that is everything then?
[22:04:04] * sumanah  waits for mark to speak about MaxSem's stuff, or to endmeeting

[22:04:27] <sumanah>	 I say we end
[22:04:30] <sumanah>	 #endmeeting
[22:04:30] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Meeting ended Wed Mar 26 22:04:30 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
[22:04:30] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Minutes:        https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2014/wikimedia-office.2014-03-26-21.10.html
[22:04:30] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Minutes (text): https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2014/wikimedia-office.2014-03-26-21.10.txt
[22:04:30] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Minutes (wiki): https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2014/wikimedia-office.2014-03-26-21.10.wiki
[22:04:31] <wm-labs-meetbot>	 Log:            https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2014/wikimedia-office.2014-03-26-21.10.log.html
[22:04:43] <sumanah>	 thanks all. Next week: cscott's scoped lang converter, + 1 more of your choice!
[22:05:02] <mark>	 sorry
[22:05:05] <mark>	 i am doing 4 things at once
[22:05:19] <mark>	 yes, those RFCs are on my radar
[22:05:29] <cscott>	 sumanah: gwicke and i have a new RFC on square bounding boxes as well.
[22:05:56] <sumanah>	 cscott: oh, have you added it to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment already and/or circulated on wikitech-l?
[22:06:26] <cscott>	 wrote yesterday & added to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment, hasn't been circulated on wikitech yet
[22:08:48] <sumanah>	 cscott: hope to see it onlist soon of course :)
[22:08:54] <sumanah>	 ok, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-26 has notes + summary
[23:28:09] <fsainsbu>	 Test mesage from colloquy from Tasmania
[23:30:30] <fsainsbu>	 Buy for now, see you at 5UTC, which is  4 am , maybee
[23:30:42] <fsainsbu>	 bye for now