Tuesday, September 12, 2017
xsf@muc.xmpp.org
September
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
 
             
XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

[07:44:07] *** Guus has left the room
[07:47:10] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Nicht verfügbar wegen Untätigkeit seit mehr als 15 Minuten)"
[07:47:27] *** Guus shows as "online"
[07:50:55] *** jcbrand has left the room
[07:52:07] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[07:53:15] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[07:53:31] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[07:54:09] *** Martin has joined the room
[07:55:20] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[07:56:54] *** mimi89999 shows as "online"
[07:57:20] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[07:58:03] *** Wiktor shows as "online"
[08:03:53] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[08:04:28] *** dwd shows as "online"
[08:06:46] *** Holger shows as "online"
[08:07:10] *** andrey.g has left the room
[08:07:31] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[08:09:28] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[08:09:59] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[08:10:17] *** Guus has left the room
[08:10:19] *** Guus shows as "online"
[08:12:01] *** debacle has joined the room
[08:14:02] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[08:15:00] <goffi> Ge0rG: Guus: just for the record, I've not "fought" other groups, I've just have complained about the FAQ and only with Matrix. Beside that I have nothing against Matrix as a technology or any other FOSS project
[08:16:38] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[08:17:43] *** jubalh has joined the room
[08:19:04] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:19:05] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:19:09] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[08:19:18] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[08:19:27] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[08:19:28] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[08:19:39] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[08:21:47] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[08:22:40] *** jcbrand has joined the room
[08:23:21] *** efrit has joined the room
[08:26:10] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[08:27:50] *** dwd shows as "online"
[08:27:51] *** edhelas has left the room
[08:28:13] *** edhelas has joined the room
[08:28:13] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[08:28:21] *** edhelas has left the room
[08:28:21] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[08:28:53] *** edhelas has joined the room
[08:29:39] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[08:29:40] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[08:29:54] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[08:32:00] *** ralphm has joined the room
[08:32:13] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[08:35:08] <Ge0rG> goffi: sorry, my statement wasn't in any way related to you
[08:37:13] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[08:38:21] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[08:38:37] *** Guus has left the room
[08:38:38] *** Guus shows as "online"
[08:39:48] *** jubalh has joined the room
[08:39:57] *** jubalh has left the room
[08:40:11] *** Guus has left the room
[08:41:03] *** vanitasvitae has joined the room
[08:41:19] *** intosi shows as "online"
[08:41:25] *** Guus shows as "online"
[08:41:34] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[08:41:58] *** intosi shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[08:42:02] *** intosi shows as "online"
[08:44:38] *** lskdjf has joined the room
[08:44:47] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[08:47:30] *** Valerian has left the room
[08:47:36] *** Valerian has joined the room
[08:48:19] *** Valerian has left the room
[08:51:37] *** mimi89999 shows as "online"
[08:53:06] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[08:53:07] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:53:13] *** Valerian has joined the room
[08:53:30] *** tim@boese-ban.de has joined the room
[08:54:17] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[08:56:34] *** stefandxm has left the room
[09:01:28] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[09:03:32] *** ralphm has joined the room
[09:04:37] *** Alex has joined the room
[09:08:36] *** Holger has left the room
[09:16:07] *** efrit has left the room
[09:17:09] *** goffi shows as "online"
[09:18:06] *** intosi has left the room
[09:18:24] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[09:19:25] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[09:21:40] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:23:54] *** ralphm has joined the room
[09:24:41] <jonasw> if someone from board is around, can you please tell me whether https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/358#issuecomment-328796484 makes it sufficiently clear why I think that board needs to be involved?
[09:24:54] <jonasw> I thought it was obvious from linking #200, sorry for being unclear and wasting your time at first.
[09:24:58] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:26:08] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[09:26:28] *** goffi has left the room
[09:27:52] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[09:28:38] *** vanitasvitae has joined the room
[09:30:13] <goffi> Ge0rG: no worries :). Just wanted to be sure nobody think I'm doing any kind of holy war ;)
[09:30:32] <SouL> :D
[09:30:43] <pep.> goffi, I'd be interested in a diff :)
[09:31:03] <jonasw> pep., https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/commit/414ef70592a335356122052dd5952af5adbfde8e
[09:31:12] <pep.> heh, nice
[09:31:20] <SouL> You were fast, jonasw
[09:32:06] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[09:32:11] <jonasw> awesomebar is being awesome
[09:32:55] <jonasw> github could use a todo feature like gitlab has
[09:32:56] <pep.> right, so they did some decorative fixes, and removed a few taunts
[09:34:08] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:34:21] *** ralphm has joined the room
[09:34:43] <goffi> pep.: yes it still full of wrong statements, but it's a bit better, and the sentence I was most annoyed of ("The whole subject of XMPP vs Matrix seems to bring out the worst in people.") has been removed.
[09:35:04] <pep.> yeah
[09:35:58] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:36:35] <goffi> if you want to see the whole story, you can check https://mastodon.social/@Goffi/17772081
[09:36:40] *** jubalh has joined the room
[09:39:22] <SouL> thanks
[09:41:00] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[09:44:08] <goffi> it seems that mastodon has some kind of protocol split issue with GNU Social, and it's moving away from ostatus. We start to have a bunch of mostly incompatibles FOSS "social" protocols :-/
[09:44:52] *** dwd shows as "online"
[09:45:08] <jonasw> gateway all the things!
[09:45:13] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[09:45:15] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[09:46:45] <goffi> that's handy (and planed), but it's a inelegant workaround, instead of using compatible protocols.
[09:46:53] <jonasw> yupp
[09:49:35] <Ge0rG> Just migrate everything to xmpp. Or to jabber. Or, better, both of them at the same time.
[09:49:47] <goffi> :)
[09:50:46] <goffi> that's plan also: 1) gateway everything 2) ??? 3) XMPP world domination
[09:50:50] *** Martin shows as "online"
[09:51:02] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[09:51:06] <pep.> goffi, but it's better to stay incompatible with half-arsed gateways than having to agree on something you know
[09:53:56] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[09:54:21] *** pep. has left the room
[09:54:21] *** pep. has left the room
[09:54:27] <dwd> pep., That's more or less the story of Internet Mail, though.
[09:54:50] *** efrit has joined the room
[09:55:26] *** Alex shows as "online"
[09:56:44] *** pep. has joined the room
[09:57:21] *** Valerian has left the room
[09:57:23] *** Valerian has joined the room
[09:57:24] *** Valerian has left the room
[09:57:55] *** lskdjf shows as "online"
[09:58:12] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[09:58:22] *** vanitasvitae has joined the room
[10:04:28] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:05:27] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[10:06:06] *** pep. shows as "online"
[10:06:51] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[10:07:15] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[10:07:26] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[10:09:32] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[10:09:32] *** Martin has left the room
[10:10:53] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:12:43] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[10:14:57] *** lumi has joined the room
[10:15:44] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[10:15:44] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[10:15:54] *** Guus has left the room
[10:16:57] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:17:26] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:17:26] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[10:17:33] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[10:20:45] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[10:21:28] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[10:25:26] *** Alex shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[10:25:55] *** jubalh shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[10:28:09] *** Guus has left the room
[10:33:55] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:34:39] *** jcbrand has left the room
[10:39:35] *** Guus has left the room
[10:39:45] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:42:03] *** ralphm has joined the room
[10:46:05] *** Guus has left the room
[10:46:07] *** Guus shows as "online"
[10:46:37] *** Valerian has joined the room
[10:47:38] *** suzyo has joined the room
[10:48:13] *** jere has joined the room
[10:48:25] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[10:49:46] *** lskdjf shows as "online"
[10:51:12] *** dwd shows as "online"
[10:54:01] *** Link Mauve shows as "away"
[10:55:07] *** Alex shows as "online"
[10:56:18] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[10:57:19] *** waqas has joined the room
[10:58:22] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[11:00:24] *** edhelas has left the room
[11:00:40] *** edhelas has joined the room
[11:01:11] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[11:02:22] *** Flow has left the room
[11:04:24] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[11:05:07] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[11:05:07] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[11:05:17] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[11:05:18] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[11:05:50] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[11:11:34] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:12:10] *** dwd shows as "online"
[11:12:15] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[11:13:16] *** test has joined the room
[11:13:22] *** test has left the room
[11:13:55] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[11:15:58] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[11:15:59] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[11:16:15] *** Alex has left the room
[11:18:44] *** stefandxm has left the room
[11:18:47] *** jcbrand has joined the room
[11:24:30] *** ralphm has joined the room
[11:28:47] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[11:29:52] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[11:30:07] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[11:31:54] *** Flow has joined the room
[11:33:26] *** ralphm has left the room
[11:34:38] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[11:37:05] *** Yagiza has joined the room
[11:37:10] *** Yagiza shows as "online" and his status message is "Online"
[11:39:23] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[11:42:04] *** Alex has joined the room
[11:44:38] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[11:44:49] *** ralphm has joined the room
[11:54:56] *** dwd shows as "online"
[11:59:10] *** Martin has joined the room
[11:59:14] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[12:00:08] *** Martin shows as "online"
[12:03:26] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:04:21] *** fp-tester has left the room
[12:04:44] *** fp-tester has joined the room
[12:07:10] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[12:08:12] *** ralphm has joined the room
[12:13:26] *** Flow shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:13:35] *** lumi shows as "away" and his status message is "(Idle 10 min)"
[12:13:37] *** Steffen Larsen has joined the room
[12:13:37] *** Steffen Larsen shows as "online"
[12:14:42] *** Flow shows as "online"
[12:15:34] *** Steffen Larsen has left the room
[12:16:00] *** moparisthebest shows as "online"
[12:16:54] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[12:16:55] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:20:12] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:22:14] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[12:23:54] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[12:25:03] *** lumi shows as "online"
[12:25:18] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:25:42] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:29:31] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[12:29:31] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[12:30:12] *** Flow shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[12:32:14] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[12:32:53] *** lumi has left the room
[12:32:59] *** lumi has joined the room
[12:41:24] *** stefandxm has left the room
[12:41:28] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[12:41:29] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[12:42:13] <edhelas> memberbot@xmpp.org doesnt answer my requests
[12:43:02] <jonasw> cc @ Alex ^
[12:43:35] <Alex> edhelas: you must be whitelisted
[12:43:43] <edhelas> I was
[12:43:43] <Alex> let me know your Jid and I will check
[12:43:56] <Alex> after the server crash we lost all whitelist
[12:44:03] <Alex> the list is client side only
[12:44:44] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[12:44:46] <Alex> send me an email with your Jid and I will check
[12:45:12] <goffi> I've had trouble with it too, it was not responding and I've had to insist
[12:45:21] <Alex> also check that there are no s2s issues to xmpp.org
[12:46:47] *** goffi has left the room
[12:46:50] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[12:48:35] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[12:50:23] *** goffi has joined the room
[12:50:46] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:51:53] <edhelas> Alex, working, thanks !
[12:52:20] <Alex> ok, you were not whitelisted then
[12:52:34] *** lskdjf shows as "online"
[12:53:00] *** Valerian has left the room
[12:53:08] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:53:09] *** Valerian has joined the room
[12:53:16] *** Valerian has left the room
[12:55:37] <goffi> Alex: oh just seen your message saying you've added my jid, so it was you afterall :)
[12:55:50] <goffi> (you're quick)
[12:56:33] *** lskdjf has left the room
[12:56:56] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[12:58:58] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[12:59:42] *** dwd shows as "online"
[12:59:54] *** Martin shows as "online"
[13:00:06] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[13:00:36] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[13:00:36] *** Martin has left the room
[13:01:37] *** efrit has left the room
[13:03:44] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[13:03:54] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[13:11:58] *** goffi shows as "online"
[13:13:16] *** efrit has joined the room
[13:15:30] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:15:35] *** Alex shows as "online"
[13:20:10] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[13:25:06] *** ralphm has joined the room
[13:25:35] *** Alex shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:26:05] *** Martin has joined the room
[13:26:13] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[13:26:17] *** Martin shows as "online"
[13:28:28] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[13:31:34] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:31:54] *** goffi has left the room
[13:33:30] *** Valerian has joined the room
[13:34:52] *** ralphm has left the room
[13:36:03] *** Valerian has left the room
[13:36:04] *** Valerian has joined the room
[13:36:20] *** dwd shows as "online"
[13:38:49] *** jubalh shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:40:35] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[13:41:06] *** Yagiza shows as "away" and his status message is "Автостатус из-за бездействия более чем 10 минут"
[13:41:48] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[13:44:08] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[13:44:43] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:45:34] *** Alex shows as "xa" and his status message is "Auto-Status (untätig)"
[13:45:42] *** lovetox has joined the room
[13:46:37] *** jere has left the room
[13:50:54] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[13:51:08] *** dwd shows as "online"
[13:51:54] *** jjrh has left the room
[13:51:54] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[13:53:51] *** jubalh shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[13:53:57] *** jubalh shows as "online"
[13:54:45] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[13:54:50] *** Flow shows as "online"
[13:56:04] *** jere has joined the room
[13:58:09] *** Valerian has left the room
[13:58:12] *** Valerian has joined the room
[13:58:32] *** lumi shows as "away" and his status message is "(Idle 10 min)"
[14:01:12] *** Alex shows as "online"
[14:02:41] <jjrh> Ge0rG cool they allow you to connect. There isn't a good reason why they wouldn't but for whatever reason companies like to lock their stuff down. Has riot formally engaged with the xsf?
[14:04:24] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[14:04:56] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[14:05:07] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:05:36] *** lumi shows as "online"
[14:07:29] *** ralphm has joined the room
[14:07:59] *** jubalh has left the room
[14:08:35] *** sonny has left the room
[14:08:38] *** sonny has joined the room
[14:08:44] *** efrit has left the room
[14:08:47] *** sonny has joined the room
[14:08:57] *** sonny has left the room
[14:09:00] *** sonny has joined the room
[14:10:14] <jjrh> My $0.02 is that I don't think matrix is any threat to xmpp. They are the new hot shiny thing and that's fine and cool - competing open standards is a good thing and in the end there is no reason xmpp can't interoperate. People looking for a protocol that is ready today, field tested and a reasonable assurance it will be supported now and in the future will choose xmpp.
[14:10:47] *** Yagiza shows as "online" and his status message is "Online"
[14:11:15] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:11:32] <jjrh> Being fairly new to xmpp/xsf I'm amazed at the number of places xmpp pops up - it's really cool.
[14:11:54] <jjrh> You got sip handsets supporting xmpp!
[14:14:28] *** jjrh has left the room
[14:14:31] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[14:15:24] *** stefandxm has left the room
[14:15:28] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[14:15:29] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[14:19:51] *** jjrh has left the room
[14:19:52] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[14:20:16] *** jjrh has left the room
[14:20:17] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[14:21:14] *** Flow shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:21:29] *** jjrh has left the room
[14:21:30] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[14:24:14] *** Flow shows as "online"
[14:28:44] *** stefandxm has left the room
[14:28:48] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[14:28:49] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[14:28:59] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:30:00] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:31:48] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:32:02] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[14:32:08] *** efrit has joined the room
[14:35:42] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[14:35:54] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[14:36:01] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[14:37:58] *** Flow shows as "online"
[14:38:36] <jonasw> I find it interesting that the ejabberd people are the ones arguing the loudest against the dependency between XEP-0191 and XEP-0377, or am I just misperceiving that?
[14:38:46] <jonasw> not to blame anyone, I just find it curious
[14:40:58] <Holger> jonasw: Whatever that would have to do with anything :-) I implemented the current 0377 for ejabberd, I just think an artificial dependency is stupid.
[14:41:21] <Holger> And quite a few non-ejabberd people agreed on the list, no?
[14:41:48] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:42:05] <jonasw> Holger, implicitly, I was wondering whether erlang maybe more strongly enforces separation between components, not knowing much about erlang
[14:42:21] <SamWhited> It's not an artificial dependency; it's expanding the blocking command feature to support providing a reason for the block.
[14:42:36] <jonasw> SamWhited, I find the XEP named misleadingly then
[14:42:49] <Holger> And it's not like the world falls apart if we do it this way, so I should've shut up earlier. I'm just a little baffled how this dependency is justified with reasoning such as "why not?" or "might save a round-trip" or "might enforce my UI on others".
[14:42:56] <jonasw> and the whole section about the payload can be omitted in favour of "how to use with blocking"
[14:42:57] <SamWhited> jonasw: Yes, I agreed to that on list… it may be better to change it or merge it into the blocking command XEP.
[14:43:00] <Holger> SamWhited: Sigh.
[14:43:15] *** suzyo has left the room
[14:43:27] <Holger> SamWhited: It would be a dependency if I couldn't report spam without also blocking someone.
[14:43:30] *** jubalh has joined the room
[14:43:55] <Holger> Those things are distinct actions and I can of course do either without doing the other.
[14:44:02] <Holger> So letting one depend on the other is artificial.
[14:44:40] <SamWhited> If you report something is spam, why would you *not* want to block that JID as well?
[14:44:44] <SamWhited> *as
[14:44:50] *** dwd shows as "online"
[14:44:57] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[14:45:02] *** dwd shows as "online"
[14:45:34] <stefandxm> this is interesting. is it common / considered "ok" to have one xep extend the content of another xep without the first xep explicitly saying so? (i have a similair challenge)
[14:46:00] <stefandxm> iam thinking about the schemas
[14:46:10] <jonasw> first, it appears to be ineffective and thus a waste of resources. second, if it *isn’t* ineffective, I could be an operator of a service which also uses machine learning to learn spam messages. I would want to know if I receive further spam from the same JID or if I see it being caught by the spam filters
[14:46:29] *** Wiktor shows as "online"
[14:46:30] <jonasw> stefandxm, I think if your extension lives in a different namespace, it is safe to do that
[14:46:49] <stefandxm> but it must still be allowed in the top schema
[14:46:51] <SamWhited> What resource is being wasted? I do agree it's probably ineeffective since they're probably using tons of throwaway JIDs, but I don't see it as hurting anything or wasting resources either
[14:46:52] <jonasw> (of course, you need to ensure that entities are on the same page on what is supported and understood, but an entity which doesn’t understand the new namespaced element should simply discard)
[14:46:59] <stefandxm> by using any or so?
[14:46:59] <jonasw> stefandxm, the schemas are not normative in anycase
[14:47:13] <jonasw> SamWhited, storage for the blocklist
[14:47:24] <stefandxm> jonasw, isnt that up to the xep?
[14:47:28] <Holger> SamWhited: Maybe the server doesn't support blocking, maybe we'll decide to replace blocking with yet another XEP, maybe the server still does 0016, maybe we come to the conclusion that blocking isn't useful due to changing JIDs, I don't know. My point is that it doesn't matter whether your assumption holds. Independent XEPs will work either way.
[14:47:33] <SamWhited> jonasw: If you have that little storage you have other problems, that doesn't even seem worth considering
[14:48:01] <jonasw> SamWhited, sure.
[14:48:15] <SamWhited> Holger: I think that's where we disagree, in any of those cases you should be using something else. Us trying to make general purpose XEPs that are one-size-fits-all is why XMPP is almost entirely broken all the time
[14:48:16] <jonasw> waste of resources is not my primary argument. I generally concur with what Holger writes on list
[14:48:31] *** jubalh has left the room
[14:48:37] <jonasw> SamWhited, you are right about that, but I don’t think this is one of those cases
[14:48:54] <SamWhited> I do. If we separate them to support everything else under the sun then everything immediately becomes more complicated:
[14:49:06] <Holger> SamWhited: I'm totally against those monster XEPs. But I'm arguing for an extremely simple XEP that does one thing well.
[14:49:15] <SamWhited> Now you have to decide where to send the blocking IQ; does it go to the server? Another client? A spam reporting service? These aren't options I want to exist.
[14:49:39] <stefandxm> I would want it to exist :)
[14:49:40] <jonasw> SamWhited, why the heck would the blocking IQ not go to the server?
[14:49:46] <Holger> SamWhited: To the local server of course.
[14:49:47] <stefandxm> i would want to subscribe to a reporting service that i may chose myself
[14:50:00] <Holger> SamWhited: The XEP should state that, just as the blocking XEP does.
[14:50:02] <jonasw> only the local server can block stanzas for you O_o
[14:50:03] <stefandxm> and then i would use the data from that reporting service to make private blocking decisions
[14:50:14] <stefandxm> just as with spam lists in mail
[14:50:37] <Holger> Now Stefan comes along and everthing falls apart, as usual!
[14:50:39] <stefandxm> :D
[14:50:40] <jonasw> where the spam reporting goes, that should be the local server by default as Holger says, even if only because the only the local server has enough context to make use of that report
[14:50:47] <SamWhited> stefandxm: That works with the current system :)
[14:50:59] <SamWhited> (and would continue to work with the system Holger and jonasw are talking about)
[14:51:12] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:51:14] <Holger> stefandxm: Are you following the standards@ list?
[14:51:21] <jonasw> SamWhited, how does that work with the current system, unless you’re sending something semantically different from a simple spam report to report spam?
[14:51:29] <Holger> stefandxm: Evgeniy (zinid) was complaining about the same Schema issues you mentioned.
[14:51:34] <stefandxm> holger: not anymore :) and i didnt comment on the broad topic just to the generic sense =)
[14:51:52] <SamWhited> jonasw: Right, sorry, what I should have said was "either way we would need to include the payload, but then it can be forwarded wherever you want"
[14:51:55] <stefandxm> holger: I understand he did. mixing schemas like that without having the parent schema explicitly saying its allowe breaks the schemas completely
[14:51:56] <SamWhited> Or you need to know the payload
[14:52:04] <Holger> stefandxm: But I think the general consensus is that you can throw new stuff into existing XML because you're expected to ignore unknown stuff.
[14:52:19] <stefandxm> thats not how xml works
[14:52:27] <Holger> It's how XMPP works :-)
[14:52:31] <jonasw> stefandxm, I think it’s how XMPP … exactly
[14:52:39] <stefandxm> where is that written?
[14:52:40] <SamWhited> I thought 6120 specifically said you had to tolerate unknown namespaces, but I can't find it with a quick search
[14:52:52] <Holger> It does, for clients.
[14:52:56] <SamWhited> But regardless, it's how XMPP works in practice these days even if the original RFC doesn't specifically say it
[14:52:58] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:52:58] <jonasw> Holger, only with a stretch
[14:53:03] <Holger> (Was mentioned in the thread.)
[14:53:14] <jonasw> Holger, I did mention it, and I find my own argument rather weak
[14:53:51] <Holger> jonasw: Yeah well we're doing the same thing elsewhere and Evgeniy keeps being frustrated about this.
[14:54:42] <jonasw> Holger, I also think that it is kind of a design smell when we do this
[14:54:52] <jonasw> it is here, and it is in MIX with the roster query
[14:55:06] *** Wiktor has left the room
[14:55:07] <jonasw> in both cases, client side, I’ll have to mix components which have nothing to do with each other
[14:55:46] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[14:55:59] <SamWhited> I don't understand why you'd have to "mix" anything. Just build this into whatever your blocking command module is.
[14:56:16] <Holger> I agree that this is the general consensus and that 6120 allows this. I'm not so sure whether the idea behing 6120 really was that XEPs should consciously do this, rather than just "be liberal in what you expect".
[14:56:18] <jonasw> SamWhited, sure, but semantically spam reporting has not much to do with blocking, in my opinion
[14:59:57] <Holger> stefandxm:
> Clients are advised not to rely on the ability to send data that does not conform to the schemas, and SHOULD ignore any non-conformant elements or attributes

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-11.4
[15:01:12] *** Martin shows as "online"
[15:01:13] *** Flow shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:01:24] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:01:24] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:01:24] *** Martin has left the room
[15:02:06] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[15:02:18] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:02:35] *** Flow shows as "online"
[15:02:58] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:03:14] <jonasw> Holger, yes, I think this claim (in context) only applies to the schemas in RFC 6120
[15:03:41] <Zash> Leaving the decision about whether to report as spam and/or block to implementators instead of the XEP ...
[15:03:42] <jonasw> > An implementation MAY choose to accept or send only data that has been explicitly validated against the schemas provided in this document, but such behavior is OPTIONAL.
[15:03:56] <stefandxm> i dont get it :)
[15:04:13] <stefandxm> i mean, i dont get why a client that knows about a namespace (and its schema) should let through garbage
[15:04:28] *** dwd shows as "online"
[15:05:02] <SamWhited> Because we have a lot of different clients and servers and enough interoperability problems without denying every element that has some clients proprietary extension in it.
[15:05:05] <Holger> jonasw: And I also doubt the idea was that an XEP would consciously invalidate an 6120 schema.
[15:05:30] <stefandxm> samwhited: so because clients are sucky and doesnt support schemas properly good clients should ditch the schema because of because?
[15:05:34] <jonasw> Holger, it’s not an 6120 schema though (but I agree that a XEP SHOULD NOT conciously violate another XEPs schema, too)
[15:06:04] <Holger> Yes no that's not what I meant ... whatever :-)
[15:06:08] <stefandxm> if i know of a namespace and i have a schema i would of course enforce it. and that is because of the interoperability not because of lack of it
[15:06:27] <SamWhited> stefandxm: Yes
[15:06:41] <jonasw> for sending it makes sense, and I agree, but for receiving, being strict in most of the cases causes more pain than it does good
[15:06:58] <SamWhited> Except scratch the "sucky" and just say "some clients and services might be doing their own thing and it's common practice to allow them to do so"
[15:07:32] <SamWhited> But what jonasw said; if you know a schema, feel free to enforce it on payloads you send. That's very nice of you.
[15:07:58] *** Yagiza shows as "away" and his status message is "Автостатус из-за бездействия более чем 10 минут"
[15:08:49] <stefandxm> tbh i will enforce it on receiving aswell
[15:08:50] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:08:55] <SamWhited> That's a terrible idea
[15:09:01] <jonasw> stefandxm, from my experience, you won’t like that
[15:09:03] *** Martin has joined the room
[15:09:03] <stefandxm> no, it makes stuff crash and burn faster
[15:09:11] <jonasw> yes, but it’ll look as if it was your fault
[15:09:14] *** Martin shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[15:09:14] <SamWhited> Possibly the most basic principle of any network protocol design is to be liberal in what you receive and strict in what you send
[15:09:27] *** Martin shows as "online"
[15:09:31] <Holger> https://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/sp/2012/02/msp2012020087.html
[15:09:46] <SamWhited> Also, it's common practice to include custom elements (provided that they're properly namespaced), this has nothing to do with this particular spec.
[15:09:48] <Holger> I.e. I'm not sure that's still the consensus.
[15:10:26] <SamWhited> Holger: That's fair, if I were designing a new protocol I'd probably make it more strict and less extensible than XMPP, but I'm not and it's already common practice in XMPP.
[15:10:28] <Zash> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-01
[15:10:47] <Guus> well, for XML-based systems, it's not uncommon to enforce schema validitry (think of SOAP et al). We've long lost that battle in XMPP though.
[15:11:01] <stefandxm> i dont see anything that would break xmpp because i chose to to use the schemas supplied
[15:11:07] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[15:11:07] <Holger> Zash: Heh that one was the one I was meaning to reference :-) Mis-searched.
[15:11:08] <stefandxm> only broken xeps will break
[15:11:18] <stefandxm> and the broken xeps should probably be given attention to by xsf
[15:11:24] <Guus> stefandxm: and any implementation that's not yours.
[15:11:29] <SamWhited> Zash: Yah, I do agree with that, but still, not something that makes sense for XMPP unless we want to start over
[15:11:42] <stefandxm> guus, better have error than confusion
[15:11:55] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:11:58] <SamWhited> But yes, my earlier statement should perhapse be softened to be more tightly scoped to existing protocols that have expected that for years
[15:12:08] <stefandxm> if i find elements i cannot parse because it does not exist in the schema it will just generate more sneaky errors
[15:12:15] <Guus> stefandxm: I'd agree with you if this would have been enforced from '99. But it hasn't. There's no saving it now.
[15:12:17] <stefandxm> i'd rather have the explicit error yelled at asap
[15:12:41] <stefandxm> guus, there is. we use xmpp for modern new stuff. xmpp is much bigger than IM
[15:12:41] <jonasw> stefandxm, simple and practical example: RFC 6120 schemas do not define the "code" attribute on stanza errors. however, RFC 3921 does.
[15:12:47] *** jubalh has joined the room
[15:12:48] <jonasw> stefandxm, some implementations still emit that code attribute
[15:12:54] *** jubalh has left the room
[15:13:03] <jonasw> if you’re strict about the schema from RFC 6120, you’d not be able to interoperate with implementations still emitting that
[15:13:15] <stefandxm> and thats fine by me
[15:13:27] <jonasw> (which is explicitly allowed by the text of RFC 6120)
[15:13:38] <jonasw> well not allowed, but mentioned
[15:14:01] <jonasw> so you won’t be able to talk to ejabberd IIRC
[15:14:10] <Holger> wat
[15:14:16] <jonasw> (holger may be able to correct me, but LTIC ejabberd emitted that)
[15:14:35] <jonasw> (but it may have been a legacy installation of ejabberd; it also required legacy sessions)
[15:14:48] <stefandxm> ive not seen "code" :o
[15:15:01] <Holger> Recent ejabberd versions are currently trying to validate incoming XML and it's working better as expected, BTW. So I'm not sure the "everything is lost since we didn't enforce things for over a decode" story holds.
[15:15:24] <jonasw> Holger, nice!
[15:15:30] <SamWhited> Either way, moving it into the blocking command XEP would solve this issue for you right stefandxm? (because then it would be a part of the blocking command schema)
[15:15:38] <Zash> Holger: Validate how strictly?
[15:15:40] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[15:15:42] <Holger> jonasw: It's probably liberal in accepting also 3920, I'll check your example.
[15:15:46] <SamWhited> Holger: Oh? I'd love to know more about that
[15:15:57] <stefandxm> samwhited; i am not commenting on the topic itself. i just dont want broken schemas :)
[15:16:09] <Guus> that's unexpectedly pleasant news.
[15:16:10] <stefandxm> samwhited; as long as the schema is not broken / conforms iam happy :)
[15:16:18] <jonasw> Holger, when I had aioxmpp be strict about inbound stuff (raise errors on unknown attributes and child elements), it broke rather quickly
[15:16:24] *** Flow shows as "online"
[15:16:31] <jonasw> stefandxm, schemas as written in XEPs rarely reflect the reality
[15:16:53] <stefandxm> i know, schemas are not perfect :)
[15:17:01] <stefandxm> but if anythign they should be leniant then not give false errors
[15:17:17] <jonasw> stefandxm, sometimes they’re outright in conflict with the text
[15:17:23] <jonasw> and then you’re getting told that they’re not normative
[15:17:42] <stefandxm> i know, and thats funky. i'd call them broken and they should be attended to
[15:17:52] <jonasw> Holger, could you (as ejabberd) maybe write up an XSF blogpost on this?
[15:17:55] <SamWhited> yah, that's a whole different issue, but most of us don't understand schemas and there's no one to attend to them, sadly
[15:18:00] <jonasw> I’d be interested to learn about the scope of the validation you do and the results you see
[15:18:08] <jonasw> stefandxm, patches welcome or so?
[15:18:22] <jonasw> reminds me I wanted to write a tool which uses the schemas in XEPs to validate the code examples.
[15:18:26] <stefandxm> i dont have time, i focus on the schemas for the protocls i am making ;)
[15:18:58] <stefandxm> but i think xsf should encourage to update/fix the schemas rather than saying its best practice to break schemas
[15:19:07] <jonasw> stefandxm, I tend to agree
[15:19:19] <SamWhited> Just to stir the fire a bit more: this is why I think we should remove schemas from existing XEPs and make them optional. In theory they're great, in practice only a few authors actually know what they're doing enough to add them
[15:19:31] <SamWhited> (though if the author does know what they're doing, sure, why not, it's nice when they're right)
[15:19:38] <Holger> jonasw: Here's the definition of 'error', which includes the 'code' attribute: https://github.com/processone/xmpp/blob/1.1.14/specs/xmpp_codec.spec#L655
[15:19:45] <SamWhited> No one's saying it's best practice to break the schemas.
[15:19:45] <stefandxm> i agree with removing/making broken schemas more leniant
[15:19:59] <Holger> So yes this is not enforcing strict 6120 or anything.
[15:20:07] <Holger> Just trying to reject unknown crap.
[15:20:28] <stefandxm> false negatives is stupid. but a false positive will always happen because no xml schema protocol can provide enough business logic rules
[15:20:30] <jonasw> Holger, that’s fine
[15:20:52] <Zash> Holger: Like <message type="I made this up"> and whatever?
[15:20:57] <jonasw> Holger, still, care to write a blogpost with some insights and results and what exactly you’re doing?
[15:20:58] <Holger> Zash: Yes.
[15:21:24] <Holger> Zash: That's the most common case sites with custom stuff seem to stumble over, of course :-)
[15:21:27] <SamWhited> > no xml schema protocol can provide enough business logic rules

Is this true? I thought I saw an implementation of a lisp-like language purely in XMLSchema at one point (proving that it was turing complete, and therefore can probably provide as much business logic as you could with anything else you'd be using)
[15:21:41] <Holger> jonasw: I'm not sure ...
[15:21:41] <SamWhited> Not that it matters at all or that you'd want to do that, I'm just curious
[15:21:55] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:22:05] <Holger> jonasw: I'm not a good blog article writer. Takes me ages.
[15:22:14] <Holger> And Evgeniy did all this work.
[15:22:26] <SamWhited> Zash: the message type thing is actually an interesting problem I ran into recently; I can't tell if the RFC is specifically allowing or disallowing custom types
[15:22:34] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:22:41] <SamWhited> There's a weird interconnect between 6120 which doesn't define types and 6121 which defines a few types there
[15:22:44] <jonasw> Holger, if you reject unknown message types, you may be violating RFC 6121:
> If an application receives a message with no 'type' attribute or the application does not understand the value of the 'type' attribute provided, it MUST consider the message to be of type "normal" (i.e., "normal" is the default).
(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-5.2.2>)
[15:22:50] *** ralphm has joined the room
[15:22:58] <Zash> jonasw: wha
[15:23:00] <jonasw> SamWhited, there’s clear wording on that
[15:23:02] <stefandxm> samwhited; i have many examples of my oppinion "nice" xml that cannot be made robust in xml schemas (or ng relax). for instance when you use inheritance. the only way to make it robust is to put every element in a namespace ;-) other than that there are business logic that only the receiver may now/being able to verify. for instance global uniquness
[15:23:11] <Zash> What about IQ and presence?
[15:23:24] <stefandxm> (in a unique individual namespace that is)
[15:23:47] <Holger> jonasw: Ah yes we're probably not doing that actually. Just <message custom_attr="foo"/> is rejected.
[15:24:02] <Holger> *That's* what people stumble over anyway.
[15:24:05] <jonasw> Zash, IQ is in RFC 6120:
> 2. The 'type' attribute is REQUIRED for IQ stanzas. The value MUST be one of the following; if not, the recipient or an intermediate router MUST return a <bad-request/> stanza error (Section 8.3.3.1).
(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-8.2.3>)
[15:24:05] <SamWhited> stefandxm: Ah, okay, interesting; I don't know enough xmlschema to even start doing something that complicated, but I guess it's just not possible after a point. Thanks
[15:24:43] <stefandxm> samwhited; ng relax doesnt even support inheritance. but xml schemas does it in what i would call reverse order which is very irritating if you are used to oop
[15:24:57] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[15:25:04] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[15:25:09] <stefandxm> samwhited, but for the business logic it cannot be done because the schema only has memory of what data it has in the xml stream not in what happens outside.
[15:25:24] <Holger> jonasw: https://github.com/processone/xmpp/blob/1.1.14/specs/xmpp_codec.spec#L4173 :-)
[15:25:40] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[15:25:44] <jonasw> Zash, for presence, again RFC 6121:
> If the value of the 'type' attribute is not one of the foregoing values, the recipient or an intermediate router SHOULD return a stanza error of <bad-request/>.
(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-4.7.1>)
[15:26:19] <jonasw> Holger, I fail to be able to understand what this does :)
[15:26:43] <Holger> jonasw: If type is unkown, then type is normal.
[15:26:46] <jonasw> I see
[15:26:59] <jonasw> so you’re actually doing that. neat. aioxmpp throws an error at you.
[15:27:02] <jonasw> *sigh*
[15:27:06] *** Guus has left the room
[15:27:08] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:27:13] <jonasw> (I find defaulting to "normal" on unknown values a bad style btw.)
[15:27:17] <stefandxm> speaking of shoulds.. does ejabberd route iq messages between entities not sharing presence?
[15:27:20] <Holger> jonasw: ACK.
[15:28:04] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[15:28:08] *** dwd shows as "online"
[15:29:07] <jonasw> Holger, Zash, wait; maybe my reading of RFC6121 is off, the full paragraph is this:
> An IM application SHOULD support all of the foregoing message types.
> If an application receives a message with no 'type' attribute or the
> application does not understand the value of the 'type' attribute
> provided, it MUST consider the message to be of type "normal" (i.e.,
> "normal" is the default).
[15:29:19] <jonasw> maybe what is meant is that if an application does not implement one of the foregoing, it should be treated like "normal"?
[15:29:24] <Holger> stefandxm: Er I don't think it looks at think at presence subscription when routing IQs. Or does/should it?
[15:29:47] <Zash> jonasw: My head!
[15:29:52] <Holger> (Not sure I'll ever manage to write two correct sentences in a row.)
[15:29:57] <jonasw> Zash, I’m sorry!
[15:30:00] <stefandxm> holger; https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-8.5.3.1
[15:30:01] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[15:30:09] <jonasw> Holger, you need Last Message Correction :-)
[15:30:37] <jonasw> what.
[15:30:52] <jonasw> stefandxm, didn’t know that existed.
[15:30:59] <stefandxm> we have made some funky way to get around that
[15:31:15] <stefandxm> we have to make our entitled data sessions force the entities to set up presence
[15:31:22] <stefandxm> during a valid session
[15:31:23] <Holger> stefandxm: Ah right. And doesn't it behave that way? :-)
[15:31:29] *Holger goes reading code.
[15:31:33] <stefandxm> holger, i think not. at least not last time i checked :)
[15:32:15] <stefandxm> jonasw, its not easily spotted but quite sever if you design a protocol and dont know about it
[15:32:51] <stefandxm> "someone" should compile a cheat sheet for xmpp >D
[15:33:42] <jonasw> stefandxm, I think this invalidates quite a few security consideratinos I have thought about recently.
[15:33:45] <Zash> stefandxm: thanks for volonteering ;)
[15:34:11] <stefandxm> iam swamped :p
[15:34:27] <jonasw> who isn’t
[15:34:30] <stefandxm> but i am basically writing such stuff anyhow
[15:34:55] <jonasw> I like it when discussions in xsf@ result in bugreports against myself.
[15:34:56] <stefandxm> for our proffesional campaign. i'll see if i can collect enough of items to make it usefull
[15:35:11] <stefandxm> jonasw, hehe. thats why i try not to read too much here ;)
[15:35:34] <jonasw> I prefer to know about issues instead of having buggy software out there.
[15:36:38] *** Ge0rG has left the room
[15:36:49] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[15:36:51] <stefandxm> yeah, but ignorance is bliss if your backlog is too big ;)
[15:37:37] *** Holger shows as "online"
[15:37:53] *** mimi89999 shows as "online"
[15:39:42] *** efrit has left the room
[15:44:07] *** vanitasvitae shows as "away" and his status message is " (Abwesend wegen Untätigkeit für mehr als 5 Minuten)"
[15:44:17] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[15:44:42] *** jcbrand has left the room
[15:44:55] *** waqas has left the room
[15:45:53] *** Yagiza shows as "online" and his status message is "Online"
[15:46:12] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[15:47:49] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:48:41] *** sonny has left the room
[15:48:44] *** sonny has joined the room
[15:50:49] *** Flow shows as "online"
[15:52:39] *** Guus has left the room
[15:52:41] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:53:08] *** Lance has joined the room
[15:53:08] *** Lance shows as "online"
[15:53:48] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[15:54:07] *** ralphm has joined the room
[15:54:34] *** Valerian has left the room
[15:54:35] *** Guus has left the room
[15:54:38] *** Guus shows as "online"
[15:54:47] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[15:55:09] *** Lance has left the room
[15:58:42] *** daniel has left the room
[16:00:27] *** daniel has joined the room
[16:01:09] *** moparisthebest has joined the room
[16:02:05] *** jere has left the room
[16:02:09] *** jere has joined the room
[16:02:37] *** waqas has joined the room
[16:03:05] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[16:03:05] *** goffi has left the room
[16:04:05] *** tim@boese-ban.de has left the room
[16:04:09] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[16:05:02] <Flow> > ‎[16:55:46] ‎Holger‎: stefandxm: But I think the general consensus is that you can throw new stuff into existing XML because you're expected to ignore unknown stuff.
You can throw in new stuff if the protocol still works if the recipient ignores it, otherwhise it has to be negotiated prior
[16:05:12] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:05:55] *** daniel has left the room
[16:06:15] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[16:09:02] *** Wiktor has joined the room
[16:11:20] *** daniel has joined the room
[16:11:54] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[16:11:55] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[16:14:28] *** jere has left the room
[16:14:41] *** jere has joined the room
[16:15:12] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[16:16:44] *** Guus has left the room
[16:16:46] *** Guus shows as "online"
[16:18:21] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:22:19] *** Guus has left the room
[16:22:23] *** Guus shows as "online"
[16:22:34] *** Holger has left the room
[16:24:32] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[16:25:17] <Ge0rG> But isn't the protocol designed for that, except maybe adding new element values like message type?
[16:25:38] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[16:25:49] <jonasw> Ge0rG, yes and no
[16:26:06] <jonasw> we rarely do that in practice, and when we do, I often feel it is a mistake (see MIX and the Spam Reporting thing)
[16:26:19] <jonasw> and it violates our (non-normative) schemas
[16:26:53] <MattJ> Schemas are per namespace, no?
[16:27:00] <jonasw> yes
[16:27:18] <jonasw> but schemas normally need to include an <xs:any/> if they can contain children from foreign namespaces if I’m not mistaken
[16:27:23] *** Martin has left the room
[16:28:15] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[16:29:23] *** Steve Kille has joined the room
[16:29:23] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "Hampton"
[16:29:36] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "Hampton"
[16:29:54] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[16:31:23] *** sonny has left the room
[16:31:26] *** sonny has joined the room
[16:32:10] *** andrey.g has left the room
[16:32:24] *** Guus has left the room
[16:33:15] *** stefandxm has left the room
[16:33:26] *** Guus shows as "online"
[16:35:21] *** Valerian has joined the room
[16:37:02] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "I'm away"
[16:38:13] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[16:38:17] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[16:38:31] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[16:38:32] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[16:38:34] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[16:38:35] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[16:38:39] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[16:39:35] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[16:40:06] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[16:42:47] *** Zash shows as "online"
[16:45:40] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[16:45:44] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[16:50:22] *** Vaulor has joined the room
[16:50:39] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[16:50:54] *** Lance has joined the room
[16:50:55] *** Lance shows as "online"
[16:52:52] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[16:53:23] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[16:54:59] *** Zash has left the room
[16:55:18] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[16:56:00] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[16:56:04] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[16:56:12] *** jjrh has left the room
[16:56:13] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[16:57:05] *** Lance has left the room
[16:57:06] *** jjrh has left the room
[16:59:22] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[17:00:32] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:02:00] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[17:02:02] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[17:02:05] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[17:03:36] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:07:09] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[17:07:10] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[17:08:39] *** dwd shows as "online"
[17:09:04] *** ralphm has joined the room
[17:09:51] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[17:09:55] *** Steve Kille shows as "away"
[17:09:56] *** Steve Kille has left the room
[17:12:48] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[17:16:04] *** dwd shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[17:16:22] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[17:17:38] *** valo has joined the room
[17:18:00] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[17:24:39] *** stefandxm has left the room
[17:24:54] *** waqas has left the room
[17:25:26] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[17:26:04] *** dwd shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[17:26:12] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[17:28:08] *** Valerian has left the room
[17:28:15] *** goffi has joined the room
[17:29:16] *** fp-tester has left the room
[17:29:30] *** fp-tester has joined the room
[17:31:30] *** Guus has left the room
[17:31:35] *** Flow has joined the room
[17:31:46] *** Zash has left the room
[17:32:11] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[17:32:14] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[17:36:40] *** Flow has joined the room
[17:42:27] *** Guus shows as "online"
[17:42:54] *** Guus has left the room
[17:46:12] *** Valerian has joined the room
[17:47:30] *** emxp has left the room
[17:47:33] *** emxp has joined the room
[17:48:53] *** Wiktor has left the room
[17:48:56] *** Wiktor has joined the room
[17:49:19] *** Guus shows as "online"
[17:49:56] *** Guus has left the room
[17:50:08] *** Guus shows as "online"
[17:50:09] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[17:50:12] *** ThurahT shows as "online"
[17:50:56] <Flow> since everyone seems to repeat that schemas are not normative again and again, why not make it offical?
[17:52:20] <Zash> +1, everyone already believes it
[17:53:08] *** andrey.g has joined the room
[17:54:32] <SamWhited> It is official, isn't it?
[17:54:50] <Flow> SamWhited: then there would be place where it's mentioned
[17:55:39] <Flow> uh, i have a deja vu
[17:55:53] <SamWhited> Oh, is it not? I assumed it was in one of the XEP XEPs somewhere. Guess not.
[17:56:12] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[17:56:14] *** ThurahT shows as "away"
[17:56:25] <Flow> logs.xmpp.org does work again? what else have I missed while I was on vacation?
[17:58:19] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[18:00:50] *** jonasw shows as "online"
[18:02:57] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:03:00] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:03:02] *** la|r|ma shows as "online"
[18:03:14] *** lskdjf shows as "online"
[18:05:11] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:05:14] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:09:55] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[18:10:31] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:12:25] <Guus> Edwin fixed the logs
[18:13:27] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[18:13:35] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[18:16:50] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[18:17:22] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[18:20:28] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:20:50] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[18:20:57] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[18:21:50] *** stefandxm has joined the room
[18:21:51] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[18:22:12] <Zash> Praise be Edwin
[18:22:21] *** sonny has joined the room
[18:23:02] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[18:23:11] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[18:24:06] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[18:24:27] <Steve Kille> Non-normative schema seems odd to me. I was advised to defer doing the MIX schema, as it was non-normative. Having the schema normative seems to offer significant advantage. Not least, the schema can be validated by a range of available tools, whereas examples and descriptive text cannot.
[18:25:10] <SamWhited> I think that sounds nice in theory, but unless you (or someone who understands schemas) is willing to write one for every new XEP it doesn't seem realistic to me.
[18:26:03] <SamWhited> Especially given that we know a lot of them are actually broken right now. That's not going to get better by making them normative
[18:26:50] *** Flow shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[18:27:07] <stefandxm> another problem is that unless you make your xml to be compliant with a schema then it may be very difficult to make a good one
[18:28:10] <stefandxm> Ironically i am making a xep (maybe, dunno if xsf will like it) that is self-extending with xml schemas >D
[18:28:44] <stefandxm> but i see no other way to be dynamic with types
[18:28:45] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:29:34] *** Valerian shows as "online"
[18:29:34] <stefandxm> schemas makes the most sense if you make the server verify it
[18:30:57] <Steve Kille> New XEPs (and progression beyond experimental is easy. You only allow progress if the schema is good. I suspect that this would be a lot of work for me/MIX, but it feels right to do it.
[18:31:36] <Steve Kille> Current XEPs is harder. The draconian way would be to move to historical anything with a broken schema
[18:32:30] *** valo has joined the room
[18:32:58] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[18:33:00] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[18:33:00] <stefandxm> replace any broken ones with <any> ;-)
[18:33:37] <Zash> Is this like the static vs dynamic typing war?
[18:34:39] <stefandxm> there has never been a static vs dynamic typing war
[18:34:56] <stefandxm> just programmers using static typing and n00bs using dynamic typing =)
[18:36:54] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[18:39:06] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[18:41:14] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[18:42:41] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:43:04] <SouL> stefandxm, brofist
[18:43:07] *SouL smiles :)
[18:44:54] *** Flow shows as "online"
[18:46:18] <Flow> Plus, what has priorityif the normative text and the normative schema contradict each other?
[18:47:39] <SamWhited> Flow: Is that any different from when the normative text and the normative text contradict each other?
[18:48:13] <Flow> I think the normative text eventually has to have priority of a hyptothetical normative schema, which just means we can just say that the schema is not normative
[18:49:28] <Flow> SamWhited: Good question, I think it's different assuming that usually the text is correct and not the schema in my experience
[18:50:32] <Flow> And I rather have a well written normative text instead of a well formed normative schema, because the former is easier to parse for me as human
[18:50:48] <SamWhited> I feel like the text is just as likely to contradict other text, and that's just a mistake that needs to be fixed (same as if the schema contradicts the text). That being said, I don't disagree with you that the text needs to be normative and the schema doesn't, just with the reasoning
[18:51:08] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:51:11] <SamWhited> Yah, me too; I'm not ever going to read the schema, I will read the text.
[18:51:15] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:51:35] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:51:41] <Steve Kille> So, why have the schema??
[18:51:44] <Flow> well schemas come in handy in case the text is not clear, that's the common case where I look at it
[18:51:47] <SamWhited> Steve Kille: exactly
[18:52:17] <Flow> Steve Kille: Because it's an excellent addition to the text
[18:52:28] *** jjrh has left the room
[18:52:29] *** Valerian has left the room
[18:52:36] <Flow> and makes it easy to model and implement stanzas and nonzas in the programming language of your choice
[18:52:39] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[18:52:40] <SamWhited> It's an excellent addition when it's correct. Any schema I write is probably not going to be correct though, so I don't see why I should be required to put one in there
[18:53:06] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[18:53:19] <Flow> SamWhited: There is only one required for the XEP to enter draft, which is a good tradeof and how I would want it to be
[18:53:20] <SamWhited> "an excellent addition in theory" anyways. I'm not against people who know what they're doing adding a schema section, I just don't think it should be a requirement in general.
[18:56:48] *** ralphm has left the room
[18:56:52] *** ralphm has joined the room
[18:58:34] *** tux has joined the room
[18:58:43] *** magix has joined the room
[18:58:44] <tux> Hey there!
[18:58:59] <SouL> Sooo... Is now the moment when new applications for XSF members are voted?
[18:59:19] *** magix has left the room
[19:00:15] <Alex> hey guys, everybody ready for our member meeting?
[19:00:50] <Alex> lets get started
[19:01:01] *Alex bangs the gavel
[19:01:05] <stefandxm> schemas are great and they have to be correct
[19:01:12] <stefandxm> btu cannot exist if broken
[19:01:24] <Alex> here is our agenda for today:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2017-09-12
[19:01:38] <Alex> 1) Call for Quorum
[19:02:01] <Alex> as you can see 38 members voted via memberbot. So we have a quorum
[19:02:15] <Alex> 2) Items Subject to a Vote
[19:02:48] <Alex> we were voting on new and returning applicants. You can see all applicants here:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q3_2017
[19:02:58] <Alex> 3) Opportunity for XSF Members to Vote in the Meeting
[19:03:12] <Alex> anyone here who has not voted yet via memberbot?
[19:04:26] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:04:44] *** nyco has left the room
[19:05:21] <stefandxm> and by broken i mean they give false negatives
[19:05:28] <stefandxm> false positives is imo not a problem
[19:05:41] <SamWhited> stefandxm: the meeting has started, let's hold the discussion we were having until Alex closes it.
[19:05:59] <Alex> I think everbody voted already via memberbot. So let me work on the results
[19:06:08] <jonasw> thanks for your work, Alex :-)
[19:06:19] <jonasw> I’m mostly AFK this time though
[19:06:30] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[19:10:05] *** nyco has joined the room
[19:11:24] <Alex> 4) Announcement of Voting Results
[19:11:42] <Alex> when you reload teh page you can see teh results at:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2017-09-12#Announcement_of_Voting_Results
[19:11:57] <Alex> all new and retruning members were accepted, congrats to everyone
[19:12:10] <Alex> 5) Any Other Business?
[19:13:34] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[19:13:44] <Alex> looks like there is none
[19:13:48] <Alex> 6) Formal Adjournment
[19:13:58] <Alex> I motion that we adjourn
[19:14:01] <SamWhited> Seconded
[19:14:12] <tux> +1
[19:14:50] *Alex bangs the gavel
[19:14:50] *** Holger shows as "online" and his status message is "I'm available"
[19:14:52] <SamWhited> Thanks Alex; much appreciated.
[19:14:54] <Alex> thanks everyone
[19:15:04] <tux> thanks for making me a member. :)
[19:15:05] <Alex> board and council election are coming up
[19:15:13] <Alex> will create the application page ASAP
[19:16:03] <SouL> Suuuper happy to part of the XSF! Thank you all, really!
[19:16:06] *** Lance has joined the room
[19:16:07] *** Lance shows as "online"
[19:17:18] *** Lance has left the room
[19:17:23] <SouL> Congratulations tux :D
[19:17:36] <tux> SouL: to you, too!
[19:18:26] *** Flow shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[19:19:12] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[19:19:13] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:19:25] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:19:25] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:19:25] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:19:25] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:19:25] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:19:25] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:19:25] *** vanitasvitae shows as "online"
[19:26:11] <Zash> Thanks Alex
[19:28:03] <SouL> Thanks tux, with the excitement I forgot to write "to be part" in my previous message :D
[19:28:26] *** Flow shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[19:28:37] *** ralphm has joined the room
[19:29:22] <SouL> Thank you Alex of course :)
[19:33:40] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[19:33:42] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[19:34:08] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:34:10] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:38:54] *** ralphm has joined the room
[19:39:50] *** lovetox has left the room
[19:45:39] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:45:43] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[19:46:37] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[19:48:28] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:49:01] *** ralphm has left the room
[19:49:06] *** ralphm has joined the room
[19:52:39] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:53:43] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:54:54] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[19:55:22] <Guus> Welcome, newbies. 😉
[19:59:18] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:01:21] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:01:37] *** xnyhps shows as "online"
[20:03:28] <jonasw> congrats, SouL et al
[20:03:47] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[20:04:44] *** xnyhps shows as "away" and his status message is "Away"
[20:13:30] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[20:16:23] <Ge0rG> today, the number of XSF members I know in person increased, without me meeting any new people. Congratulations :)
[20:17:32] <tux> *g*
[20:23:12] <edhelas> SouL, welcome to the party, we have XEPs, beers and pizzas
[20:26:17] *** jonasw shows as "away"
[20:30:25] *** ralphm has joined the room
[20:30:33] *** jabberatdemo has joined the room
[20:32:36] <Ge0rG> And a free dinner!
[20:32:40] *** tux shows as "online"
[20:32:48] *** tux has left the room
[20:33:51] *** tux has joined the room
[20:34:35] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[20:34:36] *** Tobias shows as "online"
[20:35:18] *** jcbrand has joined the room
[20:36:31] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:38:17] *** Vaulor shows as "away" and his status message is "Hace un rato que no estoy... (mensaje automático predefinido)"
[20:39:00] *** tux has left the room
[20:46:49] *** tux has joined the room
[20:46:55] *** tux has left the room
[20:47:56] *** tim@boese-ban.de shows as "online"
[20:49:02] *** goffi has left the room
[20:50:31] *** tux has joined the room
[20:52:01] *** jabberatdemo has left the room
[20:57:56] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[20:58:16] *** Vaulor shows as "xa" and his status message is "Hace un rato que no estoy... (mensaje automático predefinido)"
[20:58:30] *** Vaulor has left the room
[20:59:47] *** jere has left the room
[20:59:58] *** jere has joined the room
[21:00:40] *** Flow shows as "online"
[21:02:12] *** jcbrand has left the room
[21:02:15] *** Zash shows as "online"
[21:03:27] *** Flow has left the room
[21:03:51] *** Steve Kille shows as "online" and his status message is "At Home"
[21:06:59] *** jubalh has joined the room
[21:15:16] *** SamWhited has left the room
[21:22:24] *** efrit has joined the room
[21:22:33] *** Steve Kille shows as "away" and his status message is "At Home"
[21:26:22] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[21:28:15] *** fp-tester has left the room
[21:28:27] *** fp-tester has joined the room
[21:31:35] *** jcbrand has joined the room
[21:35:21] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[21:35:23] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[21:41:14] <mathieui> Damn, missed the members meeting. Thanks for the work, Alex
[21:43:18] *** Guus has left the room
[21:44:45] <emxp> Hello, have you heard about this project? https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2017-09-12 - As it's harder to get an overview and facts about dezentralised networks (than centralised) this might be helpful in the future to argue (for XMPP) based on statistics. Furthermore, we might get more detailed information about developments which havent been in our view so far.
[21:45:18] <SamWhited> emxp: wrong link, I think
[21:45:50] <emxp> ups
[21:45:52] <emxp> yes
[21:46:22] <emxp> --> https://chaoss.community/
[21:49:50] *** Lance has joined the room
[21:49:51] *** Lance shows as "online"
[21:54:42] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[21:55:11] *** SamWhited has left the room
[22:02:06] *** Lance has left the room
[22:04:33] *** tux has left the room
[22:14:08] <moparisthebest> emxp: confusing l thought it was open source software for healthcare
[22:23:40] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[22:23:59] *** daniel has left the room
[22:24:28] *** daniel has joined the room
[22:26:48] *** jcbrand has left the room
[22:27:00] *** Alex has left the room
[22:36:28] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[22:36:29] *** Tobias shows as "away"
[22:40:38] *** Holger shows as "away" and his status message is "Auto-away (idle)"
[22:52:20] *** la|r|ma has left the room
[23:00:00] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:00:02] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:00:17] *** SamWhited shows as "online"
[23:02:18] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:02:20] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:03:17] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:03:19] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:06:36] *** sonny has left the room
[23:06:39] *** sonny has joined the room
[23:09:33] *** sonny has left the room
[23:09:36] *** sonny has joined the room
[23:13:30] *** jere has joined the room
[23:19:03] *** stefandxm shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[23:26:53] *** jjrh has left the room
[23:27:03] *** jjrh shows as "online"
[23:29:26] *** jere has left the room
[23:29:34] *** jere has joined the room
[23:40:49] *** vanitasvitae has left the room
[23:44:59] *** stefandxm shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[23:46:29] *** Wiktor has joined the room
[23:46:40] *** nyco has left the room
[23:46:44] *** nyco has joined the room
[23:50:54] *** Ge0rG shows as "online"
[23:56:30] *** Zash has left the room