Saturday, May 05, 2012
xsf@muc.xmpp.org
May
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
  1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
     
             
XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

[00:17:00] *** dwd shows as "online"
[00:22:02] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[00:24:32] *** Jef has joined the room
[00:32:02] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[01:31:14] *** Kooda shows as "away"
[01:35:59] *** waqas has joined the room
[02:30:51] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[02:40:51] *** Jef shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[02:47:55] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[02:52:27] *** Jef shows as "online"
[03:13:22] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[03:20:45] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[04:01:15] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[04:01:42] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[04:27:45] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[04:29:55] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[04:43:43] *** Jef has left the room
[05:42:52] *** Dan Siemon has joined the room
[05:44:44] *** Dan Siemon has left the room
[05:50:43] *** Jef has joined the room
[05:57:28] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[06:17:30] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[06:21:24] *** Jef has left the room
[06:21:37] *** Jef has joined the room
[06:32:12] *** Jef has left the room
[07:59:30] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[08:11:08] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[08:16:52] *** Kev shows as "online"
[08:54:16] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[08:55:27] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[09:47:07] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:47:46] *** Changaco shows as "online"
[09:53:07] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:53:54] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:58:56] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:01:38] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:17:08] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:17:16] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:22:23] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:29:33] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:34:34] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:44:34] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:51:37] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:58:54] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:07:02] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[11:08:54] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[11:15:04] *** dwd shows as "online"
[11:20:10] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:20:16] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:00:03] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:06:13] *** akuckartz@jabber.org has joined the room
[12:06:52] *** akuckartz has joined the room
[12:10:03] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:14:36] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:20:03] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:26:15] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:36:52] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:46:53] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:59:51] *** dwd shows as "online"
[13:24:10] *** Zash has joined the room
[13:24:10] *** Zash shows as "online"
[13:33:43] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:43:43] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:47:36] *** winfried has joined the room
[14:06:46] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:24:19] *** Kev shows as "online"
[14:31:19] *** waqas has joined the room
[14:39:54] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:45:46] *** Kev shows as "online"
[14:46:41] *** waqas has left the room
[14:55:35] *** dwd shows as "online"
[14:57:31] *** Kev shows as "away"
[14:58:42] *** Florian has joined the room
[14:58:50] *** Kev shows as "online"
[14:59:11] <Florian> BrowserID talks in 4 minutes :)
[14:59:32] <Zash> \o/
[15:02:07] <dwd> Florian, You called the meeting, so you get to chair it. :-)
[15:02:16] <Florian> heh, ok
[15:02:23] <Florian> let me pull up the Wiki page at the same time
[15:03:35] <Florian> let's give it another 5 mins ... Ashley wanted to be here
[15:04:17] <Florian> and Matt
[15:04:33] *** Ashley has joined the room
[15:04:40] <dwd> Hey Ashley.
[15:04:44] <Ashley> hey there
[15:04:47] <Florian> hey
[15:05:12] <Ashley> how do we want to proceed?
[15:05:37] <Florian> I was thinking of splitting up the RFP into a few parts
[15:05:53] <Ashley> makes sense
[15:05:55] <Florian> 1. Technology
[15:05:58] <Florian> 2. Goals
[15:06:03] *** Link Mauve has joined the room
[15:06:13] <Ashley> should we have a background section?
[15:06:20] <Florian> 3. What the XSF offers
[15:06:24] <Kev> Just a question ... have we ascertained that no-one has interest in doing this without the XSF paying for it?
[15:06:39] *** Tobias has joined the room
[15:06:40] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:06:51] <Florian> Kev: we haven't, no.
[15:06:59] <Kev> (I won't, so there's not an ulterior motive)
[15:07:15] <Florian> http://piratepad.net/CMPIY1IvOm
[15:08:06] <Florian> I think the thing is, we basically mention in the RFP that the XSF is willing to pay
[15:08:13] <Florian> at the XSF's discretion
[15:08:41] <Florian> so people who apply can mention that they want X amount for it
[15:08:56] <Kev> K.
[15:09:05] <Florian> and then we can decide if that's worth it, or see if we can find another amount that's mutually beneficial
[15:09:51] *** waqas has joined the room
[15:10:24] <Florian> do those 4 sections sound alright?
[15:10:51] <dwd> Kev, I do think we'll need to offer cash in some cases to get things done. In some cases, though, we might not need to - that's good too, of course.
[15:10:58] <waqas> FWIW, I for one was thinking of working on this before payment entered the discussion.
[15:11:08] *** Jef has joined the room
[15:11:21] <Florian> waqas: glad to hear :)
[15:11:21] <Kev> dwd: Right - I'm just raising the issue in case someone is already motivated and the introduction of cash loses us motivation.
[15:11:48] <Florian> Kev: I don't think offering cash would lose motivation
[15:12:23] <Florian> but yeah, should we go through the 4 sections?
[15:12:32] <Florian> starting with Background
[15:12:39] <Kev> Oh, I think there are plenty of cases where it would, but that's OK.
[15:12:44] <Kev> Yes.
[15:12:48] <dwd> Florian, SO the four are background, tech, goals, and what the XSF is offering?
[15:13:14] <Florian> yup, I think that makes sense
[15:13:18] <Florian> maybe time-frame?
[15:13:35] <Florian> however, I think that would fit into goals
[15:13:41] <dwd> Probably.
[15:13:52] <dwd> Does anyone have a clear sense of what the time-frame needs to be?
[15:14:18] <dwd> That is, any existing constraints? (Like, if Mozilla have a clear deadline for getting BrowserID implemented and deployed, say).
[15:14:20] *** akuckartz has left the room
[15:14:24] <Ashley> i would assume this would line up with mozilla
[15:15:11] <Florian> I don't see a deadline on the page linked on piratepad
[15:15:29] <Ashley> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Identity/Features/Sign_into_the_browser
[15:15:33] <Ashley> this says FF 15
[15:15:55] <Kev> So presumably we need something working far ahead of that.
[15:16:12] <waqas> Two points I'd like to raise:
1. BrowserID is browser neutral. If Mozilla ends up not integrating our work in Firefox, it would be useful to have it work regardless. A signon solution for XMPP would be valuable for the XMPP community in any case.
2. BroswerID allows a lot of freedom to the authenticating party. Captchas, oauth/facebook/twitter login could be tunneled over it without changing XMPP web apps (which happens to be a much requested feature).

[15:17:32] <Florian> right
[15:17:53] <waqas> (this was in response to Winfried Tilanus's email about risk to the XSF)
[15:18:08] <dwd> Right - it occured to me you also probably need an HTTP based API somewhere for the sites to hit.
[15:18:21] <Florian> dwd: BOSH?
[15:18:59] <dwd> Florian, No, I mean something the sites hit, not something the browser hits direct.
[15:19:00] <Florian> but let's stick with the background part for now
[15:19:34] <Ashley> Florian: i was just thinking we could take your board writeup as a background
[15:19:47] <Florian> the blogpost? sure
[15:20:04] <Ashley> yeah
[15:20:23] <Florian> alright
[15:20:29] <Florian> anything else for Background?
[15:20:45] <Florian> else let's move on to Technology :)
[15:20:51] *** Medics has joined the room
[15:21:55] <dwd> Florian, So the technology is pretty unconstrained from our poitn of view - we just want XMPP.
[15:22:02] <Florian> right
[15:22:46] <Ashley> this may be a goal, but should be internet scale
[15:22:52] <Florian> I think that we should mention that authentication should happen in the "XMPP way"
[15:22:56] <Kev> Well, we want the identity bit of XMPP, while opening the door to using it for other mechanisms later.
[15:23:16] <Florian> as well as federation would be required for this to work
[15:23:44] <Florian> i.e. you can't log in on facebook.com with your Google ID if Facebook doesn't do S2S to google
[15:24:01] <Florian> does that make sense?
[15:24:29] <Zash> But the current BrowserID is based on signing tokens with a private key you hold (which in turn is signed by your provider)
[15:24:37] *** koski has joined the room
[15:25:39] <Florian> maybe let's skip to Goals first
[15:25:42] <Florian> and come back to technology
[15:25:50] <Florian> that way we know what we want to achieve :)
[15:26:18] <Florian> one goal is obviously authentication
[15:26:51] <Ashley> would being able to leverage the XMPP channel for other uses post-authentication be a goal?
[15:26:52] <Zash> The SignIntoBrowser mentions bookmarks and contacts
[15:27:04] <Florian> Ashley: I think so
[15:27:10] <dwd> Ashley, Yes, I think so too.
[15:27:16] <Florian> I think contacts
[15:27:20] <Florian> as well as push
[15:27:34] <Florian> i.e. notifications
[15:27:47] <Ashley> yes, notifications would be great
[15:28:15] <Florian> for bookmarks, that's data storage
[15:28:21] <Florian> can we do that somehow with PEP?
[15:28:36] <Florian> i.e. do we want to offer a data storage option?
[15:28:42] <dwd> Florian, We've *got* a bookmarks spec. :-)
[15:29:04] <Zash> and it mentions how to store it in PEP
[15:29:04] <Florian> oh, right ... yeah :D
[15:29:24] <Florian> ok, so let me rephrase that ...
[15:29:28] <waqas> This does increase the scope of the project beyond BrowserID. Would Mozilla buy into that initially?
[15:29:41] <Florian> do we want a data storage option, or "just" bookmark storage?
[15:30:08] <Kev> Florian: Do we need to constrain it? Why not be open-ended and see what response the RFP gets?
[15:30:18] <Florian> sure
[15:30:19] <Ashley> well, i think we're just talking about examples of post-auth capabilities over this channel
[15:30:34] <Kev> Ashley: Very probably.
[15:30:35] <dwd> waqas, I don't think we want to paint ourselves into a corner that doesn't include post-auth stuff.
[15:30:41] <Kev> To my mind what we want is:
[15:30:43] <waqas> Also: bookmarks storage. Readable by server admins. I'm not sure how well that would be received, as the existing Firefox bookmark sync stuff makes a point of advertising that it's always encrypted, and they can't see your data.
[15:31:16] <Kev> 1) Primary goal: Auth/identity
2) Secondary goals: taking advantage of other data stuff. Examples would include ...
[15:31:19] <Ashley> fwiw, i need to head out to schlep kids to soccer
[15:31:23] <Kev> And see what comes back to us.
[15:31:36] <dwd> Kev, Seems reasonable.
[15:31:40] <Florian> Ashley: ok ... thanks for dropping by
[15:31:49] <Florian> Kev: makes sense
[15:31:58] <Ashley> sure, let me know what i can do to help after the fact
[15:32:09] <Kev> waqas: Yes. Although I don't think encrypting it is hard, assuming user-held keys of some description.
[15:32:20] *** Ashley has left the room
[15:32:36] <waqas> Yep
[15:32:45] <Florian> ok, does that look alright for the goals?
[15:32:54] <Kev> So it's a good point to include, but not a hard one to address.
[15:33:07] <Kev> Florian: Happy for me to poke at the pp?
[15:33:15] *bear is late -sorry
[15:33:16] <Florian> sure
[15:33:23] <Florian> that's what it's there for :)
[15:33:43] *** MattJ has joined the room
[15:33:45] <bear> browserID is a quarterly goal for mozilla to be used by all our public facing, needs login web sites
[15:33:59] <bear> so that means by end of summer it will be all over moz products
[15:34:28] <Florian> bear: thanks for the info :)
[15:34:30] <bear> tbird has beta code already for "chat" and that includes xmpp
[15:34:46] <bear> and that beta is going to be releases this quarter also
[15:35:09] <Florian> so I think we should have the RFP deadline for end of May
[15:35:16] <Florian> and then get cracking
[15:35:30] <Kev> Florian: OK, I've poked the pp.
[15:35:37] <Florian> Kev: great :)
[15:35:43] <Kev> Agree/disagree/abort/fail.
[15:35:57] <dwd> Florian, Note that winfried said that if we want to get any funding off NLNet, that's also a June thing.
[15:36:20] <Florian> right
[15:37:10] <Kev> I'll ask this just for the sake of it...are we now scrabbling to join a party we're too late to arrive at?
[15:37:31] <Kev> i.e. is it feasible for us to have anything worthwhile in a timeframe that would influence the outcomes we care about?
[15:37:39] <bear> do we want to be clear if this is a browserid client part or also the service part?
[15:37:41] <Florian> Kev: I don't think it's too late, as we've got most of the technology already
[15:38:01] <Florian> but we need to get some fancy demos ready relatively quickly to gain attention / traction
[15:38:03] <bear> browserid itself just became viable the last couple of months
[15:38:22] <bear> the code was baking internally at moz most of the winter
[15:38:41] <Kev> Well, if Moz want to ship this by end June, and we have an RFP process that ends end May, that gives a month to evaluate RFPs, hire someone, get delivery and influence Moz.
[15:38:43] <dwd> bear, I think we need both parts, don't we?
[15:38:59] <bear> moz *internally* is pushing for this
[15:39:11] <Kev> s/Moz to ship this/ship this to Moz/
[15:39:16] <bear> but publicly it's now part of the privacy/persona push that they haven't (or are starting) to push
[15:39:24] <bear> so we are just a bit ahead of the wave
[15:39:33] <bear> dwd - I agree
[15:39:44] <Florian> yeah, we need both
[15:39:50] <Florian> but I think the service side exists
[15:40:06] <Florian> as we're just using XMPP, people have Google Accounts
[15:40:06] <Kev> Florian: Probably does, but saying we need both in the RFP makes it clear.
[15:40:16] <Florian> ah, right
[15:40:20] <dwd> bear, We also need to ensure that either the browserid site-side verification can "pass through" to a XMPP based system, or else that a site could hit a browserid verifier specific to that domain.
[15:40:22] <MattJ> bear, but are we - as in, do we have time to develop proof-of-concepts, etc.?
[15:40:25] <Kev> If the RFPs come back saying "We just use XMPP server as-is".
[15:40:39] <Kev> +then that's great.
[15:40:59] <dwd> bear, I have to say I prefer the latter. Otherwise the browserid.org service can monitor all the sign-ins...
[15:41:05] <bear> yes - my hope/goal in this is that xmpp can be used as a site-side verifier
[15:41:57] <Florian> ah, dwd, you added Compatibility with BrowserID ...
[15:42:00] <bear> mattj - I personally think we are. knowing how moz internals work, they are rarely on time with delivery goals
[15:42:13] <Florian> do we want that, or do we want to define a "new" BrowserID?
[15:42:13] <Kev> bear: Which is useful, thnks.
[15:42:28] <MattJ> bear, shocking :P
[15:42:42] <bear> I would hate if this ends up being a NIH clone of BrowserID
[15:42:45] <dwd> Florian, We want a verifier that's compatible. I don't preclude *other* verifiers...
[15:42:58] *bear likes how dwd said it
[15:43:19] <Florian> :)
[15:43:44] <koski> +1 what dwd said
[15:44:23] <dwd> Florian, That is, we want a verifier that works - potentially - exactly how the existing POST to https://browserid.org/ works, but if there's an "XMPP way", that's also cool. An option here is to encode additional magicks into the Assertion that tell the site about verifier services to use.
[15:44:28] <bear> I will admit that my bias is that xmpp implements browserid - it would help by adding another open source product that supports the tech which will help Mozilla push it
[15:44:49] <Kev> "XMPP implements browserid" - what does that mean?
[15:44:56] <dwd> bear, You want browserid for signing to XMPP as well? A browserid SASL mech?
[15:45:02] <Kev> In language we can put into the RFP :)
[15:45:26] <Florian> :)
[15:45:31] <bear> yes, but i'm trying not to influence the current enthusiasm or derail it
[15:46:28] <Kev> This is a completely opposite problem I think, isn't it?
[15:47:08] <bear> having never even tried to implement one, I don't know
[15:47:15] <Kev> I'm completely outside my comfort zone with webish stuff.
[15:47:18] <bear> but yes, I suspect it is
[15:47:32] *bear smacks his own hand for even bringing it up
[15:47:43] *dwd would note that a browserid SASL mech is pretty simple.
[15:47:51] <dwd> But yeah, different (opposite) problem.
[15:48:27] <Kev> Although has fun recursive effects.
[15:49:01] <Kev> I assert, signing into kev@... that I'm me using browserid, for which I assert I'm me using kevin@...
[15:49:01] *bear laughs
[15:49:26] <Florian> lol
[15:49:54] <Kev> (Completely pointless as we could do this without browserid, but still ...:)
[15:51:34] <Florian> ok, do we have all the information we want in the PP?
[15:52:49] <dwd> Not quite, hang on.
[15:54:05] <dwd> bear, Is there anyone at Mozilla that would be able to publically work with the XSF (and the guys actually doing this coding)?
[15:54:32] <bear> anyone on the browserid team - they are very open
[15:54:47] <waqas> That would be very useful
[15:55:06] <bear> #identity channel on irc.mozilla.org
[15:55:19] <dwd> Can't they use XMPP?!
[15:55:57] <bear> irc is very much part of mozilla's dna
[15:56:16] *dwd would like to design a retrovirus to recode that.
[15:56:25] <bear> agree
[15:56:39] <Florian> heh
[15:56:42] <bear> new ways of doing group communication have come and gone, but irc always remains
[15:56:44] <waqas> Good thing no-one suggested IRC for BrowserID. Or did they?
[15:56:59] <dwd> waqas, Authenticate yourself using an unauthenticated network!
[15:57:08] <bear> hell, if we could give them a browserid auth'd xmpp - irc gateway ...
[15:57:15] <Kev> BrowserID by nickserv. Sounds good to me.
[15:57:16] <waqas> dwd, I'm sure it has been tried
[15:58:41] <dwd> OK. FInal question...
[15:58:58] <dwd> How is the XSF going to decide who gets paid?
[15:59:23] <Florian> I think that's something the board should do
[15:59:55] <dwd> I don't think the Board is qualified to do more than ratify decisions made by more technical people, to be honest.
[16:00:06] <Florian> maybe Board + Council?
[16:00:07] <bear> we should get the tech council to rank any contenders and if we have the enjoyable problem of having too many to pick...
[16:01:03] <Kev> I'm trying to think of better ways than relying on Council for this, but am struggling to think of something fair.
[16:01:03] <dwd> The Council could. Or the Board could pick a set of bodies to do the selection.
[16:01:39] <Kev> Some faux-Council chosen by Board is more contentious but probably also more reasonable.
[16:01:45] <bear> each bounty item should have a clear spec - so that it's a simple checklist to see if they met the requirements
[16:02:00] <Florian> dwd: that might be a possibility too ... as that would allow us to maybe get input from Mozilla people as well
[16:02:01] <dwd> Kev, I don't think we can reasonably achieve actual fairness.
[16:02:40] <Florian> i.e. we can have someone from the Mozilla BrowserID team give his input on the projects
[16:02:50] <dwd> Florian, Good point, I'd not thought of that.
[16:03:20] <bear> once we get the rfp in place, I can definitely ask if one of them would like to help be a tech reviewer
[16:03:34] <Florian> so, I'd say the Board should go out and find a group of maybe 5 people, comprising of Council / Board and "industry experts" :)
[16:03:59] <MattJ> and they need to not be people who might submit a proposal themselves (obviously)
[16:04:14] <Florian> I think it's important to have at least 1 board and 1 council member on it though, as the aim is to push forward XMPP
[16:04:29] <Florian> MattJ: correct
[16:05:01] <dwd> MattJ, I'm not sure that's needed. They can't be asking for cash, though they could be offering to do the work gratis.
[16:05:22] <Florian> dwd: fair point
[16:05:31] <Kev> Sure it is.
[16:05:38] <Kev> You can't preclude someone else getting paid.
[16:07:06] <Florian> Kev: huh?
[16:07:47] <Kev> Matt suggested people judging the proposals shouldn't be people themselves submitting proposals. Dave said that was ok if the proposals weren't paid. I said it wasn't.
[16:08:04] <Florian> I think it is
[16:08:15] <Kev> (As choosing your own project precludes someone else getting paid for theirs)
[16:08:25] <Florian> right
[16:08:31] <Florian> hence what Dave said makes sense
[16:08:53] <Florian> they can be on the judging panel if their project idea is not being compensated by the XSF
[16:09:07] <bear> I think Kev is worried that a judge might pick their own gratis work to avoid the XSF from having to pay the bounty
[16:09:14] <bear> or the appearance that is happening
[16:09:29] <Florian> well, the XSF will accept all gratis work
[16:09:32] <Kev> bear: Not that, actually, but a) the appearance is horrid and b) There's more benefit to the winner here than just getting paid.
[16:09:36] <Florian> or at least I think it should
[16:10:02] <dwd> Kev, Right, I suppose it's worth avoiding if possible.
[16:10:04] <Florian> we don't have a limited amount of slots for projects
[16:10:10] <Kev> If a consultant got selected by the XSF to do this, the work went into Mozilla off the back of that, etc., that's a hell of an advert for that consultant. Worth more than the amount we would have paid, I suspect.
[16:10:31] <bear> yes, moz tends to hire folks who are good contributors
[16:10:43] <bear> (as contractors or staff)
[16:10:43] <Florian> hmm, ok
[16:11:14] <Florian> so should we not allow that, or just prefer not to have that
[16:11:32] <Kev> Florian: A bit like if it was left up to the Council Chair to select an official XMPP library - Swiften's available free, so it's fine for me to choose that :)
[16:11:57] <Florian> Kev: right
[16:12:06] <Kev> I think we should avoid it.
[16:12:12] <Florian> ok
[16:12:20] <Kev> I don't think we have so many people on Board/Council who'll be putting their names down for this.
[16:12:41] <bear> yes, when money is involved, we should be 110% clear of those kind of implications
[16:13:07] <Florian> "Jury member can't submit a project."
[16:15:07] <bear> do we want to even begin to say what OS licenses should be used?
[16:15:17] <Florian> hmm
[16:15:19] *** Medics shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[16:15:34] <Kev> bear: License of the XSF's choice, to be decided later.
[16:15:48] <bear> then we need to be clear that they are giving the XSF all rights to the code
[16:15:57] <Kev> We're going to want something entirely permissive.
[16:16:10] <Florian> right
[16:16:23] <Florian> anyone want to add that to the Legal Mumbo Jumbo section?
[16:16:28] <Kev> I'd suggest two-clause BSD or MIT, although three-clause BSD is probably OK.
[16:16:43] *bear is a fan of MPLv2
[16:16:55] <bear> but I can how others may not be ;)
[16:17:53] <Kev> I'd like something more permissive than that if we're looking at stumping up money for this.
[16:18:07] *bear nods
[16:18:17] <Florian> I think that the way bear put it is fine
[16:18:27] <Florian> the XSF gets ownership as this can be seen as contract work
[16:18:41] <Florian> i.e. we're paying people
[16:19:01] <Florian> and the free work can be seen as donations
[16:19:21] <Florian> so I think that makes sense and gives us freedom
[16:19:46] <bear> we may need to get peter to run this by whatever lawyer the xsf uses
[16:19:53] <Florian> right
[16:19:57] <Kev> Right.
[16:20:00] <dwd> I have to admit I don't care - in many respects I'd like to avoid assignment if at all possible.
[16:20:11] <Florian> ok, I think we have a good start though
[16:20:18] <dwd> I think requiring a very liberal license is adequate.
[16:20:33] <bear> dwd - true, just avoiding some messy downstream issues if we say "xsf owns all" and then we assign it a BSD license
[16:20:50] <Florian> bear: right
[16:21:17] <Florian> ok, I think we have a good start here
[16:21:21] <bear> hmm, but I will defer to the lawyer because I can see a scenario where doing that opens us up to more grief
[16:21:42] <Florian> I'd say the next step is to write this up properly ...
[16:21:47] <Florian> on the wiki
[16:21:58] <Florian> any volunteers?
[16:22:12] <Kev> I'd prefer liberal license to assignment, FWIW, but hills, etc.
[16:22:15] <Florian> I'm happy to write the background / what xsf can offer and legal part
[16:22:58] *bear flips and joins dwd and kev
[16:23:03] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:24:04] <bear> do we need to do more than just cut-n-paste this into a concept/outline page?
[16:24:21] <Florian> I think we should write this up
[16:24:40] <dwd> bear, My problem with assignment is that in the UK, for example, it requires a formal Statutory Instrument, whereas in Canada, you cannot enforce an assignment clause before the fact - it's just legally a bit of a minefield.
[16:24:40] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[16:25:11] <bear> dwd - understood, I changed my mind about it as I thought about it more than a few seconds
[16:25:19] *** Medics shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Nicht verfügbar wegen Untätigkeit seit mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[16:25:51] <bear> florian - i'll start transfering it to the wiki
[16:25:59] <Florian> alright
[16:26:07] <bear> most of it will be brought over the same, just will fill in some words
[16:26:33] <Florian> as I said, I'm more than happy doing the texts for Background, what xsf offers and legal stuff
[16:26:40] <bear> cool
[16:26:50] <Florian> would be great if some people could sit down and write up the 2 other parts
[16:27:08] <dwd> Any volunteers?
[16:27:08] <bear> let me get this first draft on the wiki
[16:27:21] <Florian> http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/BID-RFP
[16:28:19] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:28:41] <Florian> anyone willing to write Technology / Goals?
[16:29:10] <Kev> I'm not offering to do anything for fear that I won't complete it.
[16:29:47] <bear> both of those are part of the etherpad - they just need filling out with more detail
[16:30:15] <dwd> Right, I'll do some work over it.
[16:30:25] <Florian> dwd: awesome, thanks :)
[16:30:36] <Florian> so one last thing ... time?
[16:30:45] <Florian> should we say, all written up by wednesday?
[16:30:53] <Florian> and then another meeting here?
[16:31:26] <dwd> We can do that, I think.
[16:31:47] <Florian> alright ....
[16:31:48] <Florian> AOB?
[16:31:48] <dwd> But maybe arrange the meeting time on a list, to ensure we get everyone who wants to come here.
[16:31:59] <Florian> dwd: sure
[16:32:47] <Florian> alright, I think with 1h30m ... it's time to end :)
[16:33:03] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[16:33:11] <dwd> Florian, Thanks!
[16:33:14] *** Medics shows as "online"
[16:33:15] <Florian> thanks all!
[16:33:20] <Florian> I'll send a mail to the list later
[16:33:35] <Florian> members, jdev, standards, jadmin
[16:33:43] <bear> ok, wiki now has the etherpad contents
[16:33:51] <Florian> great!
[16:33:52] <Florian> thanks bear
[16:34:34] <Florian> thanks all !
[16:34:41] <Florian> Next meeting wednesday ... tbc
[16:34:51] <bear> thanks
[16:34:56] <Kev> Ta.
[16:36:10] *** Florian has left the room
[16:38:14] *** Medics shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[16:48:14] *** Medics shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Nicht verfügbar wegen Untätigkeit seit mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[16:54:01] *** koski has left the room
[16:54:45] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[16:56:52] *** Medics shows as "online"
[17:02:26] *** Medics shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[17:08:18] *** Medics shows as "online"
[17:12:54] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[17:17:46] *** Medics shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[17:22:17] *** Jef has left the room
[17:22:19] *** Jef has joined the room
[17:22:19] *** Jef shows as "online"
[17:22:22] *** Jef shows as "online"
[17:27:46] *** Medics shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Nicht verfügbar wegen Untätigkeit seit mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[17:27:58] *** Jef has left the room
[17:28:03] *** Jef has joined the room
[17:28:31] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[17:32:33] *** Jef has left the room
[17:32:35] *** Jef has joined the room
[17:32:38] *** Jef shows as "online"
[17:32:38] *** Jef shows as "online"
[17:32:38] *** Jef shows as "online"
[17:33:47] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:34:49] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:35:08] *** winfried has left the room
[17:36:59] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[17:44:49] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:10:43] *** Link Mauve shows as "xa"
[18:10:50] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:12:02] *** Medics shows as "online"
[18:14:34] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:16:14] *** Kev shows as "online"
[18:18:09] *** Medics has left the room
[18:18:24] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:18:26] *** Jef shows as "online"
[18:20:17] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[18:30:45] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:40:45] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:46:27] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:47:30] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[18:49:33] *** dwd shows as "online"
[18:52:51] *** Jef shows as "online"
[18:54:39] *** Kev shows as "away"
[19:02:53] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[19:14:06] *** Zash shows as "away"
[19:15:52] *** Zash shows as "online"
[19:30:33] <Jef> Young man, there's a place you can go
[19:30:39] <Jef> Young man, there's a place you can go
[19:30:45] <Jef> You can stay there and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time
[19:30:58] <Jef> It's fun to stay at the X.S.F
[19:31:00] <Jef> It's fun to stay at the X.S.F
[19:31:08] <Jef> They have everything for young men to enjoy
[19:31:18] <Jef> They have everything for young men to enjoy
[19:38:10] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[19:42:08] *** Kev shows as "online"
[19:47:14] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[20:08:59] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:11:20] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[20:25:21] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:29:47] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[20:30:02] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[20:52:26] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:54:42] *** Jef shows as "online"
[20:57:32] *** Link Mauve shows as "online"
[21:04:33] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:08:25] <dwd> Jef, I think you'll find that XMPP is a better acronym for YMCA parodies.
[21:08:46] <dwd> Or IETF, or indeed any four letter acronym.
[21:12:41] <Jef> lol
[21:13:22] <MiGri> ;)
[21:22:38] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:23:58] <Kev> Eeee Tee Ell Aaay
[21:26:24] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:28:13] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:35:43] *** MiGri shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm not at the computer but I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[21:38:05] *** Jef shows as "online"
[21:38:11] <bear> in some ways I am glad I had no idea what he was referencing
[21:43:19] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[21:46:05] *** Jef shows as "online"
[21:57:30] *** MiGri shows as "online" and his status message is "This conversation may be monitored for quality assurance or security purposes. ;)"
[21:57:30] *** MiGri shows as "xa" and his status message is "Screen detached. I'll read the messages as soon as I'll be back."
[22:17:06] *** Tobias has joined the room
[22:17:07] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[22:22:47] *** Jef shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:25:17] *** Jef shows as "online"
[22:26:30] *** Kev shows as "away"
[22:27:16] *** Link Mauve shows as "xa" and his status message is "Mi dormas."
[22:41:00] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:42:24] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[22:55:42] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:58:48] *** Zash shows as "away"
[23:01:00] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[23:01:46] *** Zash shows as "online"
[23:11:28] *** waqas has joined the room
[23:21:48] *** Zash has left the room
[23:26:12] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:26:35] *** dwd shows as "online"
[23:34:04] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:37:40] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[23:47:54] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:57:54] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"