XSF logo XSF Editor Team - 2014-03-11


  1. m&m has left
  2. Neustradamus has joined
  3. stpeter hmm
  4. stpeter m&m let's discuss in the meeting tomorrow
  5. stpeter has left
  6. Kev has left
  7. jabberjocke has left
  8. Steffen Larsen has joined
  9. winfried has joined
  10. Lloyd has joined
  11. Steffen Larsen has left
  12. Steffen Larsen has joined
  13. Steffen Larsen has left
  14. Steffen Larsen has joined
  15. Steffen Larsen has left
  16. Steffen Larsen has joined
  17. Steffen Larsen has left
  18. Steffen Larsen has joined
  19. Steffen Larsen has left
  20. m&m has joined
  21. Steffen Larsen has joined
  22. Steffen Larsen has left
  23. Steffen Larsen has joined
  24. m&m I need to put together an agenda for today
  25. winfried some suggestions:
  26. winfried - post mortum
  27. m&m remember we only have 30 minutes!
  28. winfried - access
  29. m&m - BOSH
  30. winfried - dividing work
  31. winfried - how to communicate with the council
  32. winfried - structuring changelogs and tagging changes as major/minor
  33. winfried - XEPS we have to act on
  34. winfried - the next humorous xep
  35. Steffen Larsen +1
  36. m&m that is more like 120 minutes of stuff
  37. Steffen Larsen :-)
  38. m&m we're not talking about it all
  39. Steffen Larsen its actually hard to divide work when we use email as our XEP queue
  40. Steffen Larsen unless we are talking together and splitting work in our muc here
  41. Lloyd Agree with Steffen Larsen
  42. Steffen Larsen well I am off.. talk to you in a couple of hours guys
  43. Steffen Larsen has left
  44. Kev Isn't it just a case of replying to an item on the list before you deal with it? It hardly affects me what tools you folks use, but still...mailing lists seem like they should work fine.
  45. stpeter has joined
  46. Steffen Larsen has joined
  47. m&m Lloyd: would you track down Ash for us, please?
  48. winfried I Have to excuse Stefan Strigler, he probably can't make it today
  49. Lloyd He;s around
  50. Steffen Larsen excused! :-)
  51. Lloyd just poked ash to join early
  52. Ash has joined
  53. Ash Hello!
  54. winfried hi!
  55. m&m my clock sais we still about about two minutes
  56. m&m says even
  57. m&m clearly that is demonstrating the elite typing skills of an editor
  58. Lloyd :)
  59. Steffen Larsen :-)
  60. Ash :)
  61. Steffen Larsen hello Ash and Winfried!
  62. winfried counting down for banging the gavel
  63. winfried hi steffen ;-)
  64. Steffen Larsen 2
  65. Steffen Larsen 1
  66. Steffen Larsen 0
  67. winfried *BANG*
  68. m&m bangs gavel
  69. m&m alright, so the agenda for today
  70. m&m 1) Hand-off Portmortem ------------------------------
  71. m&m I kept meaning to write this up while in London last week, but failed miserably
  72. stpeter hi :-)
  73. winfried how much is there to say?
  74. m&m XEP-readme was updated to reflect the latest
  75. Steffen Larsen yes it looks more modern now :-)
  76. m&m it still requires a good amount of manual steps
  77. m&m and special access
  78. m&m list administration for standards@
  79. stpeter right
  80. m&m WordPress (until Simon and Laura replace the WP-based site with something static)
  81. m&m git
  82. m&m shell
  83. Ash Not sure but I guess the new site will still be wordpress
  84. stpeter yeah, too many disparate tools
  85. m&m I think there's still a couple of bugs in the XEP-readme, and I'll submit a patch to address that
  86. Steffen Larsen yes a lot could be done automatically
  87. m&m the shell and python scripts have some documentation, which probably should go into the readme (or someone to update the scripts)
  88. Steffen Larsen but lets do that when we understand the process better
  89. m&m right
  90. winfried +1
  91. m&m I started looking into what it would take to use git hooks
  92. winfried would love to be able to test / run all scripts and so locally
  93. m&m I think it's possible, but I have some concerns if there are non-Editor team people with push rights
  94. m&m yes
  95. Steffen Larsen how about also using merge request from gitorious?
  96. m&m I'm not a Git expert, but wouldn't that require us to have the canonical repo in gitorius?
  97. winfried Steffen: maybe better understand the current process before doing so
  98. Steffen Larsen sure
  99. m&m I think the current readme covers the steps fairly well now
  100. Steffen Larsen yes
  101. m&m the only bug I've found are references to a local git working copy that is not in the right place
  102. Steffen Larsen my biggest concern is not the process.. but more the queue and the many mails that confuses me..
  103. winfried the readme still needs to be build into html and updated on the site ;-)
  104. Ash Steffen: +1
  105. m&m Steffen Larsen: one thing at a time!
  106. Steffen Larsen thats done by a script right
  107. Steffen Larsen m&m: right
  108. m&m yes, XEP-readme is a XEP, so gen.py can do the right thing with it
  109. m&m I'm not sure there's much more to say about the postmortem
  110. m&m stpeter?
  111. stpeter sounds about right to me
  112. winfried ok, that brings us to the access rights....
  113. stpeter I'd like to get more people working on things (see next topic) because different people will find different process bugs
  114. m&m 2) Access Control ------------------------------ + Website + Git + Mailing lists
  115. m&m I lumped website together
  116. m&m that's really shell (for the static-ish side) and WP
  117. m&m to get access, you need to send Kev your SSH key
  118. m&m to get git and shell
  119. winfried ok
  120. Ash Kev had concerns with lots of people having shell access. Has that been resolved?
  121. m&m he's nervous about signing everyone up for that, though
  122. m&m no it has not
  123. Steffen Larsen ok
  124. Steffen Larsen so we will ship him our key?
  125. m&m Steffen Larsen: correct
  126. m&m I understand Kev's concerns about shell access
  127. winfried so there is no editor group with proper limits?
  128. m&m but, we need to be able to do the job
  129. m&m so unless we're going to do a potentially massive tooling effort right now ...
  130. m&m … the i-team is going to have to grant limited access
  131. m&m there are limits, though
  132. Steffen Larsen ok
  133. Lloyd if we implemented git hooks then shell access would become a moot point
  134. m&m we really just need to have /bin/bash as user "xsf"
  135. m&m Lloyd: most likely, yes
  136. m&m I'm not sure how much effort is required there
  137. Steffen Larsen for what? updating the local repo and generating the html ?
  138. m&m Steffen Larsen: yes
  139. Kev If you all want shell, can you let me know which commands you need to run as xsf, please?
  140. Kev Just granting lots of extra people access to bash doesn't sound ideal.
  141. Steffen Larsen ok. we might just be able to do that by cron? and let it check out the latest master from the repo?
  142. m&m Steffen Larsen: slow down a little (-:
  143. Steffen Larsen sorry.. just trying to make it easier by not having ssh access
  144. m&m if we're willing to limp along with a couple of people having shell...
  145. Lloyd I'd prefer not to have shell if possible, there should be tools/procedures in place to make things as simple as possible. (happy to have shell I'm talking the global "I")
  146. m&m … and others (possibly those same people) working on more automated tooling ...
  147. Lloyd m&m +1
  148. m&m … we could get by with a lot fewer shell rights
  149. Steffen Larsen yes!
  150. winfried ok so we should divide efforts: tooling and current queue
  151. Lloyd yup
  152. m&m winfried: +1
  153. Steffen Larsen +1
  154. winfried +1
  155. winfried ;-)
  156. m&m the tooling group should be able to work with a local clone of git
  157. Ash In terms of tooling, we could make use of Atlassian's tools which are free for open source projects
  158. m&m Ash: you need to clear that with the i-team
  159. m&m they would be the ones to maintain the base software
  160. m&m installs, updates, runtime, etc
  161. Ash Their cloud service is free
  162. Steffen Larsen has left
  163. m&m if the Board is not comfortable moving git to a cloud service, I don't see this being acceptable either
  164. winfried guess some git-hooks being build on the current scripts should do?
  165. Ash Jira for ticket management, Bamboo for CI (to do the builds)
  166. m&m s/Board/XSF membership/
  167. Ash Fair enough. Just an idea :)
  168. m&m I do appreciate it
  169. stpeter Ash: we have previously used Atlassian tools so I think we could use them again if desired / needed
  170. Lloyd Not a fan of atlassian, but at least it would give us an easy integrated solution. However if we were going that far I'd prefer github + travis - with the added benefit of visibility :)
  171. m&m but I appreciate the arguments against better (-:
  172. stpeter Lloyd: +1 to transparency
  173. m&m as long as we can run it on athena, and the i-team is willing to deal with the software installs/updates
  174. m&m to me, scripts are one thing, but software packages are another
  175. stpeter nod
  176. winfried can you elaborate that a bit?
  177. m&m and I don't think it's appropriate for the editor team to maintain software packages unless we can isolate it to just the editor team function (write-wise)
  178. Lloyd I think maybe we're getting a little sidetracked with solutions rather than tasks.
  179. winfried yup
  180. m&m Lloyd: I think you're right (-:
  181. m&m anyway, let's figure out who wants to do what
  182. stpeter engineers love to talk about their tools :-)
  183. m&m who wants to look into improved automation?
  184. Ash :)
  185. Lloyd stpeter :)
  186. winfried *silence*
  187. Lloyd So how about those with current access work on current queue and others in tooling team (discuss via mailing list) as a first start and then anyone who wants to switch (or do both) please say
  188. Lloyd m&m I'll happily do that.
  189. m&m thanks Lloyd
  190. Lloyd m&m: you might not like my suggestions ;) I have strong opinions sometimes
  191. m&m Lloyd: I am bigger than you, though (-:
  192. Lloyd ..and across an ocean :P
  193. stpeter heh
  194. Kev When we've used Atlassian previously, it has been a services we've hosted, and the maintenance was not fun.
  195. m&m frankly, as long as it gets the job done and the maintenance is reasonably isolated, I'm open
  196. stpeter Kev: agreed
  197. m&m s/reasonably isolated/reasonable/
  198. m&m as for queue management, I've found email to be sufficient for small teams like this
  199. Kev I'm not saying 'iteam is not willing to do this', just noting that it's a significant time drain.
  200. stpeter email + this chatroom are fine by me
  201. stpeter but I'm old-fashioned
  202. winfried stpeter +1 (on both)
  203. m&m stpeter: apparently I am too
  204. Lloyd mostly works for me, if it doesn't I'm sure we'll shout.
  205. m&m just be good about checking your email d-:
  206. m&m looks at the agenda again
  207. m&m is there more about access we want to talk about?
  208. m&m mailing lists
  209. stpeter right, I sent mail about that
  210. m&m I think we should all have admin rights on at least editor@, and probably standards@ too
  211. stpeter I think it would spread the load
  212. m&m stpeter: that's why I have it in the agenda (-:
  213. stpeter (we need to get some greylisting and other spam-fighting things on atlas while we're at it)
  214. winfried wondering what will be coming my way, but lets hit it ;-)
  215. m&m winfried: you can help with tooling (-:
  216. m&m and/or list moderation
  217. m&m stpeter: does the editor team need to be involved with that anti-spam effort?
  218. winfried thats ok, was just wondering what list moderation would end me up with ;-)
  219. m&m winfried: so far, it's periodically checking the editor@ list and junking a bunch of emails
  220. m&m really not more than once a day
  221. stpeter m&m I don't think so
  222. winfried ok
  223. m&m standards@ has maybe one thing a week that needs attention
  224. m&m from what I've noticed
  225. m&m ok, we're behind schedule
  226. winfried yup
  227. m&m any more on access?
  228. winfried nope
  229. Lloyd (shake)
  230. Ash Don't think so
  231. m&m there is a wiki that Steffan got started, so we can capture some of the decisions made here on that page
  232. m&m moving on
  233. m&m 3) Outstanding Work ------------------------------ + BOSH + Deferred XEPs + Website updates
  234. Ash + XEP-0060
  235. winfried BOSH: I send a patch to the editor@ fixing a minor type
  236. winfried s/type/typo/
  237. m&m winfried: as soon as possible, please (-:
  238. m&m There is a list of XEP to defer
  239. winfried send it on feb 17th
  240. winfried will resend it...
  241. m&m oh, send not sent
  242. m&m ah
  243. m&m yes, please … it probably got lost in the shuffle from stpeter to !stpeter (-:
  244. stpeter nod
  245. winfried (and I don;t have rights) After that BOSH can be voted upon for final
  246. m&m stpeter: you have the list of XEPs to defer handy?
  247. stpeter m&m: yep, please hold
  248. m&m winfried: /nod
  249. m&m I suggest that we deal with deferment once a month
  250. Ash Sounds sensible
  251. m&m it means some Experimental XEPs will have extended times, but that seems fine to me
  252. winfried that is already current practice not?
  253. m&m winfried: the current practice is that stpeter gets to the deferred XEPs when he can (-:
  254. stpeter the only XEPs to be deferred that I see are 305, 316, and 317
  255. m&m we'll try to be a little more regular with it
  256. m&m stpeter: thanks
  257. m&m for website, I think the only thing left right now is automation, which we already discussed
  258. m&m all the other WP updates I had in my local .todo have been taken care of
  259. winfried for my picture: who has access and can work on the current queue right now?
  260. Lloyd not I
  261. m&m definitely myself and stpter
  262. Ash Nor me
  263. m&m I thought winfried had git access, but I guess that's not the case
  264. winfried nope
  265. m&m I think all of us should have git rights
  266. m&m then you can ping myself or stpeter for the stuff that requires shell access
  267. m&m at least until we get better automation going
  268. stpeter that seems fine for now
  269. stpeter nod
  270. m&m *hint hint Lloyd (-:
  271. Lloyd I will start looking into tooling this week and report back via email/next meeting
  272. m&m thanks
  273. m&m Ash: you mentioned XEP-0060 … are the patches pending?
  274. Ash Not yet. I have started, but don't have much time.
  275. m&m ok, so you're working on patches, but don't have them yet
  276. Ash Yeah
  277. m&m so there's no action for the rest of the editor team (-:
  278. Ash So not to worry
  279. Ash :)
  280. m&m I think that covers #4
  281. m&m er #3
  282. m&m 4) Future Work ------------------------------ + Automation options + Humorous XEP
  283. m&m we've already figured out automation
  284. Lloyd Ash, remind me to talk about patches dwd and I discussed last week
  285. m&m regarding a humorous XEP …
  286. Ash Lloyd: Will do
  287. m&m do we want to try and do one this year? or does someone already have a writeup ready for council sign-off?
  288. winfried well... I suggest we vote on a humorous xep before sxep-0001 is changed :-P
  289. m&m heh
  290. m&m we need an idea first
  291. stpeter I haven't done one of those in years
  292. stpeter they were fun, though
  293. winfried was thinking about ciricular approving bodies for approving humorous xeps
  294. stpeter in London we got to talking about the morse code transport binding - who needs WebSocket? ;-)
  295. m&m winfried: (-:
  296. m&m either of those are fine with me
  297. m&m I think I might have been the one to suggest the morse-code transport, too (-:
  298. m&m if something is to come from this body, I think we would need it ready before next Friday (03/21)
  299. m&m it's just under two weeks, but I know I don't have the time myself
  300. winfried was brainstorming once with steffen on xmpp over humanpowerd two wheeled pedal transport
  301. winfried but I want to have that one implemented before submitting ;-)
  302. m&m haha
  303. m&m remember — "XEP or it doesn't exist". Someone needs to write it before we can publish
  304. m&m any volunteers?
  305. stpeter when was the last humorous XEP published?
  306. m&m takes a look
  307. winfried to be honest, xmpp over morse code gives me a bit of a feeling: "been there before"
  308. stpeter 2009
  309. stpeter 2011
  310. m&m yes, XEP-0295
  311. winfried commentory on some current topic (like the json xep) is great
  312. m&m that or another security one
  313. winfried yeah!
  314. m&m the anti-privacy XEP
  315. stpeter the problem with humorous XEPs is that you need to be inspired to write one, and I guess I haven't felt inspired in that way since 2009 :(
  316. m&m stpeter: exactly
  317. m&m and I take the lack of a hand or "I'll do it" to mean we have no volunteers to write it
  318. winfried if someone volunteers with me, I want to write an anti-privacy xep
  319. winfried got some great ideas bubbling up
  320. m&m I don't have the time to do that
  321. stpeter the best humorous specs also have a germ of truth in them
  322. m&m I signed up for too much extra work last week (-:
  323. winfried neither have I ;-)
  324. stpeter m&m: you did!
  325. m&m ok, moving on
  326. m&m 5) Next Meeting ------------------------------
  327. winfried yeah, ping me if anybody wants to be involved
  328. Ash Automated carbons to your local government agency, to save taxpayers money?
  329. Lloyd :)
  330. winfried yep, that kind of stuff@!
  331. m&m I think this meeting is useful
  332. m&m so we should keep doing it
  333. Ash Agree
  334. m&m but do we need/want to do it weekly or bi-weekly?
  335. winfried +1
  336. stpeter shall we add it to the calendar?
  337. m&m monthly is too long
  338. winfried agree
  339. m&m stpeter: I think that makes sense
  340. Lloyd fortnightly seemed to make sense
  341. Ash +1
  342. Lloyd At least until processes/automation settles?
  343. Kev FWIW, I think very short meetings frequently make a lot of sense. But that's just me.
  344. m&m Lloyd: I was about to suggest weekly until we have automation (-:
  345. winfried I have to leave right now...
  346. m&m we're 17 minutes over
  347. winfried I will read it back in the logs, this time usally fits, otherwise best on monday or friday
  348. m&m is everyone ok with resuming next week?
  349. Lloyd m&m fine with that, as long as they aren't all 1hr long :)
  350. m&m no, please no!
  351. m&m 30 minutes
  352. Ash OK
  353. m&m and I'll have a better agenda for next week, really (-:
  354. m&m ok, next meeting on 2014-03-18 @ 16:00 UTC
  355. stpeter yep, cut it off at 30 and we can delay until the next one
  356. m&m exactly
  357. Lloyd oh, a pep node for "selfies"
  358. m&m ok, I say we're done
  359. m&m bangs gavel
  360. m&m thanks everyone
  361. Lloyd Cool see you all next week - and every working day until then :)
  362. stpeter Lloyd: :-)
  363. m&m puts Lloyd on next weeks agenda (-:
  364. Ash Cheers!
  365. Lloyd You can discuss me all you want
  366. m&m (-:
  367. m&m holy crap … I'm already 31 emails behind since I last checked
  368. stpeter BTW I just edited the postfix config a bit on atlas, but no promises that it will help
  369. m&m which was just before 16:00 UTC
  370. m&m stpeter: we'll see (-:
  371. m&m everyone, be sure to get Kev your info for git access
  372. Lloyd Kev how best to do this?
  373. Kev Send me it gpg signed using the key you had me sign at the summit? ;)
  374. m&m wanders off for coffee
  375. Steffen Larsen has joined
  376. Steffen Larsen has left
  377. Lloyd has left
  378. Steffen Larsen has joined
  379. Steffen Larsen has left
  380. winfried has left
  381. winfried has joined
  382. Ash has left
  383. m&m has left
  384. winfried has left