XSF logo XSF Discussion - 2011-06-29


  1. Neustradamus has left
  2. stpeter has joined
  3. stpeter has left
  4. bear has left
  5. bear has joined
  6. Neustradamus has joined
  7. luca tagliaferri has joined
  8. Kev has joined
  9. Tobias has joined
  10. koski has joined
  11. koski has left
  12. Tobias has left
  13. Tobias has joined
  14. Tobias has joined
  15. Tobias has joined
  16. Tobias has left
  17. stpeter has joined
  18. luca tagliaferri has left
  19. Tobias has joined
  20. bear sighs
  21. bear another "i'll be lurking" day for me
  22. stpeter 's ok
  23. stpeter bbiab
  24. jack has joined
  25. Florian has joined
  26. Florian T-15
  27. Florian and hello @ all
  28. stpeter hi Florian!
  29. Florian http://typewith.me/xsf
  30. stpeter it seems that Jack, Florian, and bear are here
  31. Florian right
  32. Florian Will and Nyco missing
  33. stpeter or at least in the room :)
  34. Florian but we have quorum
  35. stpeter if you're all awake :)
  36. jack i'm here (and awake!)
  37. Florian :)
  38. Florian Agenda over at: http://typewith.me/xsf
  39. Florian so, should we start?
  40. jack +1
  41. Florian ok ... so XMPP Validator
  42. Florian the idea here would be that the XSF would pay fo one
  43. Florian *for
  44. Florian to be developed
  45. Florian question is: do we want to do this
  46. stpeter it would be a good thing to have developed -- the question is if we can interest people in working on it, and whether we can build a sustainable project team
  47. Florian can we ask the Council for a list of things we'd want to have it test?
  48. jack i think it would get done for free if we just wrote a spec for what it was
  49. Florian great :)
  50. Florian Kev: could the Council come up with a spec?
  51. jack i'm not opposed to paying for its development, but i think the real issue is nailing down what it does and how
  52. stpeter jack: yes, that is step one for sure
  53. Kev Florian: RFC6120?
  54. Florian definitely
  55. stpeter laughs at Kev's comment
  56. Kev Your spec is ready: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6120.txt
  57. Florian lol
  58. stpeter I think Jack means a requirements document for the software
  59. jack are we testing clients? servers? components? all of the above? is it web based? are the tests written in javascript? is the harness an app anyone can run or a web service?
  60. jack none of those answers are in any RFC
  61. stpeter right
  62. Florian I think it should be a webservice
  63. Florian checking clients / servers at first?
  64. jack ideally it would be delclarative
  65. jack or at least mostly so
  66. Kev jack: Right - but Florian asked for a spec for it to test against, and surely the RFCs initially, followed by the XEPs are the canonical definition of what needs to be tested.
  67. stpeter sure, for the protocol
  68. stpeter it's been ages since I wrote any kind of requirements document...
  69. Kev Florian: A webservice is fine as long as it's a webservice one can run themselves, I think.
  70. Florian hmmm
  71. jack so the intention is to have it be runnable by arbitrary developers
  72. Kev I don't really care what form it takes, or what language it's in, or anything like that. He who puts the effort in can choose that stuff, just so long as people can grab it and run it.
  73. Kev jack: That was my assumption, but I grant that it is *my* assumption.
  74. stpeter Florian: as I said, I can probably raise some money to help with this effort, but we might use that to do something like hold a hackfest for the validator team at FOSDEM
  75. Florian interesting idea
  76. Kev If there's money in it, I'd have thought an interesting way of spending it might be to have someone produce the bullet-point form of 6120 conformance.
  77. stpeter e.g. we pay travel and hotel for project contributors
  78. Florian stpeter: I like the idea
  79. Kev That's not something I'd be willing to do on my own time, though, because it sounds massing.
  80. Kev massive, too.
  81. stpeter Kev, could you explain what you mean by bullet-point form?
  82. Kev stpeter: A test plan, I think I mean.
  83. stpeter ah
  84. Kev Writing the validator then becomes 'simply' codifying that, which is much less open-ended.
  85. stpeter http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#conformance might be a start toward that
  86. Kev Yes.
  87. stpeter to Jack's point, I think it would be good to test either servers or clients to start with, whichever is simpler
  88. Kev Servers are easier to test.
  89. stpeter (dialback testing could be interesting)
  90. Florian yeah
  91. Florian as well as certificates
  92. stpeter Kev: other than dialback, yes
  93. Kev stpeter: Dialback too, no?
  94. stpeter oh yes we'd need to test everything eventually, the question is what do we build in to start
  95. Kev Test it offers SCRAM? :)
  96. stpeter yay
  97. stpeter another advantage to server testing is that presumably some server vendors could become interested in this project
  98. stpeter even companies like Microsoft and IBM have s2s code
  99. Florian yeah
  100. Kev Indeed.
  101. stpeter plus it's good to encourage more federation
  102. Florian indeed
  103. stpeter scrolls up to look at Jack's questions
  104. Florian so, who's willing to write up a project spec?
  105. stpeter I'm out of the loop on testing methodologies, but what does it mean to write the tests in javascript?
  106. stpeter phone call, attention reduced
  107. jack i didn't mean anything by naming javascript, but i am of hte opinion that hte tests should be easily writable by most people
  108. jack not necessarily all tests, but the majority of them
  109. stpeter +1 to easily writable
  110. Florian +1
  111. jack i think when fritzy and i discussed this in '09 we were talking about something like Expect
  112. jack ie, send this xml, response must match this XPath
  113. Florian that sounds interesting
  114. jack and the schema obviously :)
  115. Kev I think that's one of many sensible approaches.
  116. stpeter ok off the phone
  117. Kev I'd go with whichever one someone was willing to code :)
  118. stpeter right
  119. stpeter it's all about the code
  120. stpeter forget about all these specs :)
  121. Kev If it were easy to write tests in this framework, I *suspect* server vendors would start to chip in code themselves.
  122. Kev Or client vendors.
  123. Florian yeah
  124. Kev As they want to prove they're acting correctly and someone else isn't.
  125. stpeter Florian: I propose that we start to work on a short requirements page at the wiki
  126. Florian sounds good
  127. stpeter notices that he needs to retire http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Radar
  128. Florian ok, so Wiki page, and then we'll go from there
  129. Florian next item?
  130. stpeter yep
  131. Florian Bylaw enforcement
  132. Florian we talked about this last week ...
  133. Florian looks like we haven't been enforcing Bylaw 2.6? ...
  134. stpeter we'd need to ask Alex about that, but in general we have been as far as I know
  135. stpeter that is: Section 2.6 Automatic Termination. Members may have their membership status automatically terminated and their names removed by the Secretary of the Corporation from all membership records of the Corporation if they fail to participate in three (3) consecutive meetings of the Members of the Corporation, held electronically or otherwise.
  136. Florian ah... we should add a notification to the members and members list
  137. jack it definitely was enforced before. i got terminated in 05 or something
  138. Florian right
  139. stpeter heh
  140. stpeter the problem here is that one of our Council members missed 3 consecutive votes
  141. stpeter that happened long long ago with DJ Adams, too
  142. stpeter DJ resigned, but missing 3 membership votes was not the primary reason he resigned
  143. jack it almost hapepned with Ian right?
  144. stpeter the bylaws do say "may have their membership status automatically terminated" instead of "shall" or "must"
  145. stpeter jack: quite possibly -- I don't remember that episode as clearly
  146. jack is it fritzy?
  147. jack i imagine if it was mamiller, stpeter would go kick him
  148. stpeter Ralph
  149. jack weird. he emailed me just the other day
  150. stpeter oh sure
  151. stpeter he's been voting on most Council items
  152. stpeter just missed 3 XSF votes
  153. jack what a dork!
  154. stpeter yeah :)
  155. jack i seem to recall getting personal emails from alex if i hadn't voted by a few days before closing
  156. jack i always vote early now
  157. stpeter and since Council members need to be XSF members, if you're not an XSF member then you can't be a Council member
  158. jack well, is the issue that hte council will be hamstrung without him?
  159. stpeter but it's not the end of the world
  160. stpeter the Council would just continue on with its other members
  161. stpeter I think :)
  162. jack is the board even allowed to contradict the bylaws? :)
  163. stpeter well, there is wiggle room in the bylaws
  164. stpeter which is a separate problem, perhaps
  165. stpeter maybe that needs to be tightened
  166. jack perhaps we should terminate his XSF membership, admonish him a little, give him dispensation to serve on the council until his term is up, but contigent on him not missing any more votes
  167. stpeter heh
  168. Kev I don't think the wriggle room is for that.
  169. Kev I think the wriggle room is the ambiguity as to whether the ejection from membership is automatic.
  170. Kev The Council must be Members thing is fairly unambigous.
  171. jack Automatic termination seems pretty clear as well.
  172. Kev I thought so, Peter doesn't :)
  173. jack peter: what's your argument?
  174. Kev That it uses 'may' instead of 'will'.
  175. stpeter may vs. shall
  176. stpeter http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
  177. stpeter if you look at the other subsections there, it's pretty clear that 'may' is used for stuff that's optional, whereas 'must' and 'shall' are used for things that are not optional
  178. stpeter you may resign, you may be removed, etc.
  179. jack ok. then the question is what would the board like to do here?
  180. stpeter for example, Section 8.1 says: If a Council member resigns his or her membership in the Corporation, is removed from membership in the Corporation, or is terminated from membership in the Corporation, he or she shall thereby relinquish all rights and responsibilities as a member of the Council.
  181. Kev Although I note
  182. Kev "Section 2.5 Removal by Members. A Member may be involuntarily removed from membership by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Members of the Corporation."
  183. stpeter you may resign or be removed, but if you do then you shall relinquish all rights blah blah
  184. Kev So by the same logic, that would suggest that an affirmative vote of 2/3 members to eject someone isn't binding.
  185. Florian hmm
  186. jack i guess i agree with peter about the may thing
  187. stpeter loves parsing legalese
  188. jack which means the board could vote ti keep/remove ralph
  189. Kev "The membership has voted to eject you" 'Sorry, it says May and I don't want to' "Oh, ok then"
  190. stpeter I think 2.5 "the membership may choose to remove a member..."
  191. stpeter ^means
  192. stpeter I'll grant that I have not reviewed the entire bylaws in many years
  193. Kev There seem to be other cases that explicitly say "may, but need not" too.
  194. stpeter Jack, BTW we had a wideranging discussion in this room last week, see http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/xsf/110622/ for the archives -- it makes for interesting reading
  195. jack So we can choose to remove or keep Ralph, and I assume we're only having this conversation because most people want ot keep him on the council
  196. Kev So whatever happens, I think some amount of clarification might be good.
  197. stpeter Kev: I think we need either some clarification or a revolution
  198. jack clarification is easyish if you know what you want. what do we want?
  199. Kev jack: I think the question is "Do you get special dispensation for failing to comply because you've been generally helpful", although the question is also "Is Board in a position to give such dispensation".
  200. Florian I don't think the board is
  201. jack it's the ED's choice I think.
  202. Florian yeah
  203. jack the bylaws give the organization leeway to keep/remove him in this case, and the ED is authorized to make that call
  204. Kev I don't think his Councilness is relevant, Council will carry one way or the other, it's because it could be considered a mean thing to do to Ralph when he's done a great deal over the years.
  205. stpeter the clearest thing to do is to enforce the bylaws without exception
  206. Florian the thing that came out of the discussion last week, we should enforce them and avoid situations where people get special treatment
  207. jack really teh board should not get involved with the day to day details :)
  208. stpeter heh
  209. stpeter ok
  210. Florian stpeter: right
  211. jack ralph can still participate if he's not on the council
  212. stpeter I'll have a chat with Ralph, but it seems best for Ralph's membership to lapse for the next 2 weeks or so
  213. stpeter phone again
  214. jack he just can't vote
  215. jack i feel like there should be some repercussions for the not voting thing
  216. Florian +1
  217. jack do the bylaws have any l anguage about reinstatement if you've been terminated?
  218. jack if not, then i think we can do whatever we want assuming he reapplies and is voted in
  219. stpeter I'll be on the phone for a while here
  220. Kev jack: You're back in, and so's Bear.
  221. Kev So I'm assuming it's fine to reapply.
  222. jack So he gets 2 weeks of not being on the council
  223. Kev Only 2 weeks?
  224. jack well, i don't know when the election is
  225. jack so i guessed :)
  226. Kev Wouldn't it be until the next membership vote (3 months I guess, given you're having this discussion because of the just-past last election).
  227. jack ah, yes
  228. jack so 3 months.
  229. jack can the council survive with ralphm's input but not his vote for 3 months?
  230. Kev I would have thought so.
  231. Kev Council doesn't do any real work anyway, right? That's all done by people contributing on the lists.
  232. stpeter Kev: not quite :P
  233. jack From my own experience, lapsing was embarassing enough to be just punishment
  234. Kev Equally, given the circumstance, I'm sure that if Ralph had comments to make, Council will make sure to listen.
  235. jack and i don't htink i've ever missed a vote since
  236. jack so if I were ED, i suppose i'd terminate hiim and let him reapply. ralphm can learn not to miss three votes in a row
  237. jack and next week we can decide what to do about the bylaw modifications to give us more or less leeway on this issue.
  238. jack or next meeting
  239. jack I have got to run to lunch with the wife (we're at an hour already). I'll check the room when I get back and respond via email to anything else.
  240. stpeter ok
  241. stpeter sorry, family distractions here...
  242. Florian ok
  243. Florian I'm just wondering ... should we move this bylaw discussion to the mailinglist?
  244. stpeter about fixing the bylaws?
  245. stpeter (off the phone)
  246. Florian yeah
  247. stpeter sure, doesn't hurt -- although I'd prefer to discuss some of the bigger issues, too
  248. Florian right
  249. stpeter however, I really need to finish reviewing a whole stack of documents for my meeting tomorrow and I've made zero progress on that so far today :(
  250. Florian right ... so let's move this to the list
  251. Florian and see when we can have another meeting
  252. stpeter yes
  253. Florian cools
  254. Florian thx all :)
  255. jack has left
  256. stpeter has left
  257. Neustradamus has left
  258. Neustradamus has joined
  259. Kev has left
  260. Kooda has left
  261. stpeter has joined
  262. bear stpeter - do we know for sure how much of google+ is xmpp related?
  263. bear some of it is "obvious"
  264. bear but i'm wondering how loudly we should be banging the drum about it being xmpp backed (or if we should at all)
  265. Tobias normal IM + group video chat...that all, right?
  266. bear yea, but it also feels like MUC, SIP, video, presence....
  267. Tobias don't know..haven't tested/analyzed it myself...just know what others wrote
  268. Tobias :P
  269. Tobias http://juberti.blogspot.com/2011/06/announcing-google-hangouts.html <-- at the bottom it doesn't mention SIP...but that doesn't mean it's not there
  270. Tobias Standards-based: XMPP, Jingle, RTP, ICE, STUN, SRTP Fully encrypted (HTTPS + SRTP)
  271. bear cool
  272. bear i'm beating the drum internally at moz about more xmpp support - so this really helps
  273. Tobias nice
  274. Tobias has left
  275. stpeter has left