XSF Discussion - 2018-01-05


  1. lovetox has left
  2. dwd has left
  3. la|r|ma has joined
  4. ralphm has joined
  5. mimi89999 has joined
  6. SamWhited has joined
  7. la|r|ma has joined
  8. lskdjf has joined
  9. jere has left
  10. jere has joined
  11. SamWhited has left
  12. lskdjf has joined
  13. lskdjf has joined
  14. moparisthebest has left
  15. Syndace has left
  16. Syndace has joined
  17. Tobias has joined
  18. moparisthebest has joined
  19. Tobias has joined
  20. vanitasvitae has left
  21. hannes has left
  22. hannes has joined
  23. SouL has joined
  24. SouL has left
  25. jere has left
  26. jere has joined
  27. jere has left
  28. jere has joined
  29. mimi89999 has joined
  30. SamWhited has left
  31. Zash has left
  32. Zash has left
  33. Zash has joined
  34. tux has left
  35. tux has joined
  36. moparisthebest has left
  37. moparisthebest has left
  38. dwd has left
  39. efrit has joined
  40. moparisthebest has left
  41. uc has joined
  42. efrit has left
  43. efrit has joined
  44. efrit has left
  45. efrit has joined
  46. efrit has left
  47. jere has left
  48. jere has joined
  49. ralphm has left
  50. ralphm has joined
  51. jere has left
  52. jere has joined
  53. Guus has left
  54. tim@boese-ban.de has joined
  55. Guus has left
  56. mimi89999 has joined
  57. dwd has joined
  58. dwd has joined
  59. daniel has left
  60. daniel has joined
  61. daniel has left
  62. daniel has joined
  63. jere has joined
  64. ralphm has left
  65. moparisthebest has joined
  66. zinid has joined
  67. suzyo has joined
  68. daniel has left
  69. daniel has joined
  70. marc has left
  71. ralphm has left
  72. marc has joined
  73. Guus has left
  74. Flow jonasw, i've just discussed with ge0rg that entity caps would need a push mechanism for the service's ver attribute because the server may enable a feature dynamically at runtime. I'm not sure if this is something for xep390
  75. suzyo has joined
  76. Ge0rG there is the implicit assumption that stream features / server caps don't change over the lifetime of a connection.
  77. Ge0rG I suppose the server could send a presence unavailable from the service domain, containing the caps hash.
  78. Flow hmm, my first though was to use a message for the push
  79. hannes has joined
  80. Ge0rG Flow: entity caps is using presence everywhere. If you have a presence listener anyway, it would just get reused
  81. Flow good point, but i'm not sure if this justifies
  82. Flow reusing presence
  83. Ge0rG We could just invent a new nonza.
  84. Zash Whut
  85. Flow that only causes trouble when using stream resumption
  86. Flow or maybe not since the features are announced early
  87. Ge0rG </s>
  88. Zash Features are still things attached to potentially remote entities, right?
  89. Zash So you want notifications to be routable stanzas.
  90. Flow Zash, so you also think that the service should use an unavailable presence as xep115/390 push?
  91. Zash Flow: Huh?
  92. pep. Could this be used for stuff like pubsub services?
  93. Guus has left
  94. Flow pep, not really, a remote service doesn't know that you are using it, so we would need a way to register for caps updates
  95. pep. I know edhelas was interested in having sth similar to caps for that
  96. Flow which seems a little but to much for a problem that hasn't been a problem since xep115 exists
  97. Ge0rG just send out presence pushes to all entities that ever asked for your caps :P
  98. Flow Ge0rG, for all eternity?
  99. pep. As querying a service with thousands if nodes can be quite heavy
  100. Zash Flow: I'm probably missing tons of context here
  101. Ge0rG while we are at it, there is no caching for disco#items.
  102. Flow Zash, I don't think so, it's really just "what if your service gets a new feature at runtime"
  103. Ge0rG Zash: context is: a client wants to cache its server's entity caps, but those can change when modules get (un)loaded
  104. Flow (which isn't really a practical problem)
  105. Flow Ge0rG, like client's caching disco#items?
  106. Zash disco-sub!
  107. ralphm has left
  108. Ge0rG Flow: there are rather static and more dynamic disco#items...
  109. Ge0rG The typical flow is: 1) query domain for disco#items 2) iterate over each item's disco#info
  110. Flow Ge0rG, true
  111. Ge0rG maybe adding the caps into disco#items would already prove sufficient, as we can't skip 1 anyway
  112. suzyo has joined
  113. ralphm has joined
  114. Flow Ge0rG, that doesn't sound like a bad idea
  115. Ge0rG I'm full of good ideas. Implementation is what matters :P
  116. Flow only problem is that xep30 has a "<item/> SHOULD be empty"
  117. Ge0rG just add a new attribute to item :P
  118. Flow but the schema!
  119. Ge0rG unknown attributes must be ignored?
  120. Flow says who?
  121. Flow (not saying that isn't what I'm doing)
  122. Ge0rG general consensus
  123. marc Ge0rG, I'm pondering if we should skip account creation on this XEP for simplicity and make an own XEP (with a reference to this one) later. What do you think?
  124. pep. Depends on how strict you want your parser. I know often it helps fond bugs when you are
  125. pep. find*
  126. Ge0rG marc: that's what I was telling you in the beginning :P
  127. marc Ge0rG, no, you had the idea to combine PARS and my account creation becaus they are similar :p
  128. remko has joined
  129. Ge0rG marc: if we skip account creation out, we can just rewrite PARS to be a server-side adhoc command triggered thing, and add the `ibr` flag to the spec for servers supporting that.
  130. Ge0rG marc: but honestly, I've seen multiple situations in the past where the account creation flow would make sense.
  131. marc Ge0rG, :D
  132. marc Okay, let's keep it then?
  133. Ge0rG marc: I wouldn't even mind putting both use cases into PARS.
  134. marc hm, doesn't fit the name PARS IMO
  135. marc at least account creation
  136. remko has left
  137. Ge0rG marc: good point.
  138. Ge0rG marc: I suppose renaming PARS into "Easy Onboarding" would be counter-productive. Some nerds already know what "PARS" stands for.
  139. Ge0rG jonasw: being the editor, is there prior case law, or do you consider it a good idea to rename an XEP when its scope shifts?
  140. Kev I'd expect Council to be involved in the shifting of scope, at least.
  141. Kev One can't really get Council to accept an Experimental XEP for one purpose, and then change the purpose of the XEP.
  142. daniel has joined
  143. Ge0rG Kev: okay, so we have PARS. And we want to extend it to carry a flag that the token may also be used for IBR. And then we further want to extend it to allow "account sharing" where an admin sends a link to friends to easily onboard them.
  144. Ge0rG They are using the same wire format
  145. Ge0rG And are all belonging to "Easy Onboarding"
  146. Kev That doesn't seem to be particularly changing the scope much.
  147. Ge0rG Kev: it's not "Pre-Authenticated Roster Subscription" any more, but rather "Pre-Authenticated User Onboarding"
  148. Kev Yeah.
  149. Ge0rG so it's not changing the purpose, but still shifting the focus
  150. Kev This isn't particularly ringing alarm bells for me.
  151. pep. PARS -> PAUO, hmm
  152. pep. I preferred the first name Ge0rG :p
  153. Ge0rG pep.: me too. Will need to come up with a new catchy backronym first.
  154. Martin has joined
  155. pep. And the discussion about caps ended
  156. goffi has joined
  157. Ge0rG marc: so have you written down anything yesterday?
  158. daniel has left
  159. marc Ge0rG, no, not anything. What's the plan now? New XEP, re-using PARS XEP?
  160. Ge0rG marc: I'm ambivalent about leaving account-creation in or out.
  161. Ge0rG marc: maybe a new "Easy Onboarding" XEP is better suited.
  162. Ge0rG or maybe... dunno
  163. Ge0rG lacks coffee
  164. marc Ge0rG, a new XEP for user invitation and account creation as is?
  165. lskdjf has joined
  166. ralphm has joined
  167. Martin has left
  168. Martin has joined
  169. la|r|ma has joined
  170. Ge0rG marc: there are three user stories I see as relevant: 1) explicit account sharing --> uses PARS-style URI with token and custom IBR payload <xmpp://invitee@domain?register;preauth=XXX> 2) roster invitation with IBR to somebody without an account --> uses the IBR wire format from #1, server auto-enrosters user 3) roster invitation with IBR to somebody with existing account --> uses PARS as is
  171. Ge0rG #2 and #3 share the <xmpp:inviter@domain?add;preauth=XXX;ibr> URI
  172. Ge0rG we could make three XEPs: PARS, a new XEP for account-sharing + the new IBR payload, a new "Easy Onboarding" XEP bringing them all together
  173. Guus has left
  174. Ge0rG or just two XEPs: PARS and a new one for everything else.
  175. Ge0rG or stick everything into PARS, because there is so much overlap between #1 and #2 and between #2 and #3
  176. Alex has joined
  177. marc Ge0rG, I agree but I don't know what's the best solution regarding XEP(s) for it
  178. daniel has left
  179. daniel has joined
  180. waqas has left
  181. lumi has joined
  182. daniel has left
  183. daniel has joined
  184. ralphm has left
  185. daniel has left
  186. suzyo has joined
  187. daniel has joined
  188. goffi has left
  189. Ge0rG From a symmetry perspective, #1 and PARS are similar to each other as they are building blocks that can be combined in #2
  190. Ge0rG so it wouldn't make much sense to have PARS separate, but not IBR+
  191. zinid has left
  192. Kev has left
  193. suzyo has joined
  194. marc Ge0rG: So, a new XEP for account creation and user invitation as already planned?
  195. Ge0rG marc: no
  196. la|r|ma has left
  197. Alex has left
  198. vanitasvitae has left
  199. Steve Kille has left
  200. daniel has left
  201. Steve Kille has left
  202. Steve Kille has left
  203. Steve Kille has left
  204. Steve Kille has left
  205. Ge0rG has joined
  206. suzyo has left
  207. lskdjf has joined
  208. daniel has left
  209. daniel has joined
  210. goffi has joined
  211. suzyo has joined
  212. zinid has left
  213. valo has joined
  214. winfried has joined
  215. winfried has joined
  216. @Alacer has left
  217. @Alacer has joined
  218. Alex has joined
  219. SouL has left
  220. la|r|ma has joined
  221. la|r|ma has joined
  222. daniel has left
  223. daniel has joined
  224. Ge0rG marc: after some more pondering I'd say we need exactly one new XEP.
  225. Steve Kille has left
  226. moparisthebest has joined
  227. Steve Kille has joined
  228. daniel has left
  229. daniel has joined
  230. hannes has left
  231. hannes has joined
  232. Steve Kille has left
  233. daniel has left
  234. daniel has joined
  235. jere has joined
  236. hannes has left
  237. tim@boese-ban.de has left
  238. hannes has joined
  239. daniel has left
  240. daniel has joined
  241. Holger has left
  242. lumi has joined
  243. ralphm has joined
  244. daniel has left
  245. daniel has joined
  246. marc Ge0rG, and what's the content of this new XEP?
  247. ralphm has joined
  248. Ge0rG marc: a description of the two use cases and how a receiving client should handle them, the wire protocol for IBR+token and a reference to PARS
  249. marc Ge0rG, two use cases = account creation & user invitation?
  250. Ge0rG marc: right
  251. Ge0rG marc: there is really no need to distinguish between #2 and #3 from yesterday's discussion
  252. jere has left
  253. jere has joined
  254. jere has left
  255. marc Ge0rG, -> no "ibr" parameter?
  256. Ge0rG marc: account creation --> `xmpp://newuser@domain?register;preauth=XXX` user invitation --> `xmpp:inviter@domain?roster;preauth=XXX;ibr`
  257. marc Ge0rG, wtf, we discussed 2h regarding the action parameter and you didn't like it and now you have "?roster"? :D
  258. jjrh has left
  259. Ge0rG marc: account creation --> `xmpp://newuser@domain?register;preauth=XXX` user invitation --> `xmpp:inviter@domain?;preauth=XXX;ibr`
  260. la|r|ma has left
  261. marc :D
  262. marc And no "?;" please :)
  263. Ge0rG marc: for some reason I used ?roster in one place in 0379, but not in the other places.
  264. Ge0rG ?; = empty action, not to be confused with: ?: = elvis operator
  265. marc "?;" doesn't make sense IMO, we discussed it already ;)
  266. marc Ge0rG, well, for PARS-only the "?roster" action makes sense, doesn't it?
  267. marc Not not in combination with "ibr", I thought that's what came out last time we discussed the action parameter stuff
  268. marc s/Not/But
  269. Ge0rG marc: generally speaking, the ?roster action doesn't make any sense, ever.
  270. marc Ge0rG, okay, you should update your XEP then
  271. Ge0rG marc: we should update 0147
  272. Ge0rG except nobody cared about it two years ago.
  273. marc Ge0rG, I would mention server-side PARS in the new XEP and make a reference to the PARS XEP, okay?
  274. marc For server-side PARS the server returns the normal PARS URI
  275. Ge0rG marc: for server-side PARS, the server returns either a normal PARS URI or one with `ibr` flag.
  276. Ge0rG I don't know if the ibr flag needs to have a value, though.
  277. Ge0rG URI parsing is a art.
  278. marc Not really :)
  279. marc Ge0rG, a value?
  280. marc Like "ibr=" ?
  281. Ge0rG marc: like `ibr=1`
  282. Ge0rG because an empty value is not much more than no value at all
  283. marc No
  284. marc Empty values are fine
  285. marc See action parameters :D
  286. Ge0rG marc: no, there is actually a problem here. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5122#section-2.2 Only allows the query type (i.e. action) to be valueless
  287. Ge0rG query parameters need to have an "=" between key and value, albeit the value might be empty
  288. Ge0rG furhermore, xmpp://domain/ is invalid
  289. marc Okay, that's all XMPP URI related :-/
  290. marc But that means we need an action type
  291. marc At least one "iquerytype"
  292. marc Well, exactly one "iquerytype"
  293. Ge0rG marc: iquerytype may be empty, leading us back to ?;
  294. marc This URI definition is really shitty...
  295. Ge0rG marc: it never was designed for what we are doing with it now.
  296. Ge0rG We could have `xmpp:inviter@domain?preauth=XXX;ibr=YYY` but I don't want to add a second token for the sake of adding a second token.
  297. Ge0rG especially as other applications will want to append crpyto keys and then render everything as a QR code
  298. marc You forgot "?;"
  299. marc Ugly as hell...
  300. daniel has joined
  301. goffi has left
  302. Ge0rG marc: yeah, ?preauth is a violation already.
  303. marc Ge0rG, fix your XEP then :D
  304. Ge0rG marc: to what? `?;`?
  305. marc Yes :>
  306. Ge0rG Can do, I suppose. Let's hope my parser won't crash on that
  307. marc Or we change the RFC :D
  308. Ge0rG Muhahaha!
  309. Ge0rG Sorry.
  310. lumi has joined
  311. Ge0rG has left
  312. la|r|ma has joined
  313. daniel has left
  314. daniel has joined
  315. jjrh has left
  316. goffi has joined
  317. Ge0rG > This document extends the "roster" URI action defined in XEP-0147 with a new key-value parameter named "preauth" to store the generated token. So maybe it's action=roster after all?
  318. Alex has left
  319. jjrh has left
  320. intosi has joined
  321. moparisthebest has left
  322. Guus has joined
  323. daniel has left
  324. daniel has joined
  325. goffi has left
  326. SouL has left
  327. moparisthebest has joined
  328. suzyo has joined
  329. SouL has joined
  330. lovetox has joined
  331. Ge0rG has joined
  332. hannes has left
  333. suzyo has joined
  334. hannes has joined
  335. lumi has left
  336. matlag has left
  337. lskdjf has left
  338. ralphm has left
  339. lskdjf has left
  340. Alex has joined
  341. lskdjf has left
  342. lskdjf has left
  343. lskdjf has joined
  344. marc Ge0rG, ?action=roster;preauth=TOKEN ?
  345. Ge0rG marc: no, `?roster;preauth=TOKEN`
  346. Ge0rG marc: I the action string is `roster`
  347. marc Now we're at the beginning :D
  348. Ge0rG marc: not at all
  349. marc Ge0rG, we discussed the action stuff already and got to the point where we both agreed that we don't want the "roster" action :)
  350. Ge0rG marc: yes, but then I reread https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0379.html#link_generation and realized it's the missing link
  351. marc And now you're convinced that we should use ?roster ?
  352. Ge0rG marc: I'm now more indifferent to using `roster` or ``
  353. marc has left
  354. @Alacer has left
  355. @Alacer has joined
  356. marc has left
  357. marc Ge0rG, I would use "roster" for optical reason :D
  358. SamWhited I've got a meeting later to (hopefully) convince work to book me a ticket to FOSDEM; we have cheap-ish flights from here to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and probably a few other places. Anyone on that side of the pond know where it's easiest/cheapest to catch a train to the summit/FOSDEM so I can give work some rough price estimates?
  359. ralphm has left
  360. SamWhited (flying to Brussels directly is way more expensive for whatever reason)
  361. Ge0rG SamWhited: probably more expensive because of EU administration
  362. mathieui fyi tickets from paris were fairly cheap last time I looked
  363. SamWhited That would probably be a good option too; I think flying there is relatively cheap
  364. mathieui amsterdam-brussels looks like ~50€
  365. Ge0rG SamWhited: a one direction train ride FFM-Brussels is ~3hrs and 70-125€, depending on rate
  366. mathieui SamWhited, https://www.trainline.eu/ has most regional prices for western europe
  367. ralphm has joined
  368. tux has left
  369. Holger has left
  370. Holger has joined
  371. mathieui damn, the price of the train tickets doubled since two weeks ago
  372. SamWhited I should book this soon… I hate coordinating trips like this.
  373. remko SamWhited: AFAIK, there should be belgian trains from amsterdam, but not frankfurt.
  374. remko SamWhited: Belgian trains are www.belgianrail.be
  375. SamWhited Yah, looks like I'd have to go to Cologne and transfer if I did FRA
  376. SamWhited AMS looks the cheapest overall anyways though; or I could be super cheap and take a bus from there.
  377. remko there are also trains to cologne, yes
  378. SamWhited Although I wouldn't mind accidentally getting stuck for a day or two in Paris on my way back if I were to do that… and it's not much more expensive
  379. Ge0rG German trains are pretty expensive, though
  380. remko the train to cologne is belgian
  381. SamWhited Actually, I wouldn't mind exploring Amsterdam either, so I guess either would be fine
  382. daniel SamWhited: there is also one from Frankfurt Main station to Brussels. Not sure if that's better than transferring in Cologne though
  383. remko but yeah, getting from frankfurt to there might be expensive
  384. SamWhited daniel: I think that one was more expensive, let me pull it up again
  385. SamWhited yah, roughly twice the price
  386. Ge0rG bus from FRA to Brussels would be ~20€
  387. mathieui yeah but like 10 hours or something?
  388. Ge0rG not sure you want to have a 6-7hr trip though.
  389. SamWhited yah, if I'm doing the bus I'm doing FRA
  390. SamWhited err, AMS
  391. SamWhited too many airports
  392. Ge0rG Why can't we route XSF participants via XMPP?
  393. Ge0rG Why can't we route XSF Summit participants via XMPP?
  394. Kev I've just realised it's quicker (by a margin) for me to fly Cardiff to Amsterdam and Amsterdam to Brussels than to go to Brussels by train.
  395. remko SamWhited: Frankfurt is also twice as far away from brussels than amsterdam. So Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Eindhoven are your best bets for airports.
  396. jjrh Can one remotely attend the XSF fosdem?
  397. remko Kev: including waiting time in airports?
  398. Kev Seems to.
  399. Ge0rG jjrh: yes, there's Cisco WebEx.
  400. SamWhited Train ride time doesn't count, because I'm 5 and riding trains is the best (maybe it wears off if you live somewhere that actually has reasonable trains though)
  401. remko there's also ecological footprint to bear in mind ;)
  402. edhelas for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0157.html is it possible to put MUC as well ? I'd like to put our chatroom for support-addresses
  403. jjrh Awesome (minus the webex part)
  404. mathieui SamWhited, don’t forget to add like 10-15€ for paris tickets though (it’s stupidly expensive)
  405. SamWhited *nods* I'm not actually sure if they'd care about that, but I figured I might as well give them the lowest prices I can find while trying to convince them
  406. Kev TBH, the worst part of the trip back is usually getting up early and getting to the station, which would be no better (actually worse) getting to the airport instead.
  407. Kev I usually leave the hotel 'early' and get back home late afternoon.
  408. Ge0rG edhelas: "This contact information may include email addresses, web URLs, and JabberIDs" - I see no reason not to give a MUC with "?join"
  409. remko Kev: and more stress. Flying is always more stress, and less legroom :)
  410. mathieui yeah, that
  411. mathieui more stress, more processes and lineups, and less legroom
  412. mathieui (and expensive water)
  413. Kev This is all getting close. I probably have to start thinking seriously about booking stuff next week. Do we have venues and hotels arranged yet?
  414. Ge0rG probably had some 20.000km of train rides last year. That does wear off.
  415. SamWhited Flying's not so bad if you're not in the U.S., but I still hate it. Trains I can find a table, order food, and have a surface to put my laptop on
  416. daniel Train prices are unpredictable unfortunately. I'm paying 22 Euro for Dresden Brussels. That's 700km and a 9 hour train ride by high speed train
  417. jjrh SamWhited, flying in Canada is still a crappy experience.
  418. remko i was expecting the IC option from amsterdam to be cheapest, but apparently, the high speed train is cheaper
  419. remko so yeah, very unpredictable
  420. mathieui well, still more predictable than planes
  421. lskdjf has left
  422. lskdjf has joined
  423. edhelas Ge0rG yeah I though the same
  424. lskdjf has joined
  425. lskdjf has joined
  426. lskdjf has joined
  427. Ge0rG edhelas: I'm actually pondering about doing the same for yax.im.
  428. edhelas https://github.com/movim/movim/issues/490#issuecomment-355592163
  429. Ge0rG edhelas: you could just display the link and reuse xmpp: linkification
  430. ralphm has joined
  431. lskdjf has left
  432. daniel If you are into trains you should take the FRA - Cologne - Brussels trains instead of FRA - Frankfurt central - Brussels. Because the FRA - Cologne section is one of the few sections where the high speed trains actually reach their top speed. And the FRA train station is amazing. It's predominantly severed by high speed trains and just seeing the trains enter the station is amazing in itself.
  433. SamWhited that's tempting me to do that instead of AMS
  434. lskdjf has left
  435. lskdjf has left
  436. lskdjf has left
  437. lskdjf has left
  438. remko on the other hand, in amsterdam, you can legally get cannabis :)
  439. remko you know, the other kind of trainspotting
  440. SamWhited I see what you did there…
  441. daniel remko: I don't think that's a good argument these days for Americans
  442. SamWhited In Austin it's "illegal", but also invisible to cops, which is very convenient
  443. SamWhited But yah, that's what Colorado is for
  444. moparisthebest has left
  445. Kev There's no good argument for Americans.
  446. Kev Oh, right, I see what you mean.
  447. SamWhited *snort* it's true
  448. zinid has left
  449. lskdjf has left
  450. moparisthebest my only question is if it's invisible to cops, if you wrap something in it, does that become invisible too?
  451. lskdjf has left
  452. lskdjf has joined
  453. moparisthebest has left
  454. lskdjf has left
  455. SamWhited Tentatively added myself to the summit list since I'm reasonably sure I can convince work with this. Hotel is still a problem until we know what the group discount is though.
  456. lskdjf has left
  457. Kev Do we have a hotel sorted, then?
  458. Kev heads off to the wiki
  459. SamWhited not as far as I know, that's always the problem for me. Work wants to book early and at the same time I book a flight, but hotel isn't done until a week or so before
  460. Zash That is the question
  461. SamWhited And by "always" I mean "last year and this year"
  462. daniel Kev: according to my logs Guus signed something and sent it over but is still waiting to hear back from them
  463. Kev SamWhited: Yeah, it wasn't always this way.
  464. daniel That's a lot entry from the 28th though
  465. Tobias has joined
  466. Kev Oh, yes, wiki says it's the Thon again.
  467. daniel has left
  468. Ge0rG daniel: I don't think you get to go through Frankfurt main station if you are going from the airport to Cologne
  469. daniel has joined
  470. daniel Ge0rG: I was talking about the airport station (FRA)
  471. Ge0rG daniel: ah, alright then. Don't have special memories about that one, though the Frankfurt skyline is rather impressive.
  472. Ge0rG But yeah, FRA->Cologne is the track where you can actually go 300km/h
  473. daniel Ge0rG: I guess you are not into trains then 😀
  474. Ge0rG daniel: as I said, I'm travelling around 20k km per year by train ;)
  475. SamWhited has joined
  476. daniel And as far as skylines are concerned I prefer the ride into Cologne. Less pretentious 😀
  477. SamWhited Cologne is less pretentious? That's impressive
  478. Ge0rG SamWhited: frankfurt is full of bankster skyscrapers, cologne has a rather classic appeal
  479. daniel I'm from Cologne I should say
  480. tux has joined
  481. daniel So there might be some bias
  482. SamWhited Yah, but Cologne is known for Eau de Cologne, and nothing is more pretentious than that!
  483. lumi has joined
  484. ralphm has left
  485. Martin has left
  486. ralphm has joined
  487. suzyo has joined
  488. Kev has left
  489. hannes has joined
  490. moparisthebest has left
  491. Alex has left
  492. Alex has joined
  493. ralphm has joined
  494. ralphm has joined
  495. daniel has left
  496. daniel has joined
  497. Syndace has left
  498. Syndace has joined
  499. Guus has left
  500. Guus has joined
  501. ralphm has left
  502. Guus has left
  503. Guus has joined
  504. hannes has left
  505. hannes has joined
  506. daniel has left
  507. daniel has joined
  508. Guus has left
  509. SamWhited Some SCAM person may want to try and put us on this list: https://fosdem.org/2018/fringe/
  510. SamWhited Which I just found out was a thing
  511. waqas has joined
  512. waqas has left
  513. Alex has left
  514. Kev Maybe. It's not clear that it would be good to do so, at least to me.
  515. Kev If we assume that anyone actively involved in the community already knows about the summit, that means someone finding us on Fringe is someone not actively involved. If they're an active XMPP person who just happens to be outside the community, them knowing about the Summit might be great.
  516. ralphm has joined
  517. Kev But if they're a person with a bit of an interest and wants to come along to find out what we're about, the Summit might not be an inviting place for them.
  518. Kev Lots of strong opinions, very technical discussions, sometimes getting a bit heated, with little time for someone to get up to speed on what's going on.
  519. Kev 5 minutes at the stand at FOSDEM would probably be better outreach for them.
  520. Kev Your milage may reasonably vary :)
  521. SamWhited I would assume that new people who don't know anything about XMPP wouldn't read that page with a description on it and then decide to go (and if they did they'd know what they were getting into)
  522. daniel has left
  523. daniel has joined
  524. SamWhited And if they don't, it doesn't stop most people who won't go from seeing the booth
  525. zinid has left
  526. jabberatdemo has joined
  527. Ge0rG has joined
  528. Kev I realise you can reasonably make the argument that it's good to put us there. I don't agree, but this isn't a thing where I'm clearly right and you're clearly wrong :)
  529. jabberatdemo has left
  530. Ge0rG has left
  531. Ge0rG has left
  532. ralphm has joined
  533. waqas has joined
  534. Ge0rG has left
  535. hannes has joined
  536. Ge0rG has left
  537. daniel has left
  538. daniel has joined
  539. suzyo has joined
  540. lumi has left
  541. ralphm has left
  542. goffi has left
  543. daniel has left
  544. daniel has joined
  545. ralphm has joined
  546. hannes has left
  547. hannes has joined
  548. jjrh has left
  549. suzyo has joined
  550. Guus has joined
  551. ralphm has joined
  552. jjrh has left
  553. ralphm has joined
  554. jjrh has left
  555. moparisthebest has left
  556. SamWhited has left
  557. remko has left
  558. ralphm has left
  559. daniel has left
  560. daniel has joined
  561. zinid has joined
  562. ralphm has joined
  563. Alex has joined
  564. marc has left
  565. pep. Is this up-to-date? https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XSF_Infrastructure Some services are using docker now right? And systems on the machines seem particularly old
  566. moparisthebest has left
  567. hannes has joined
  568. moparisthebest has joined
  569. valo has left
  570. Holger has left
  571. Ge0rG has left
  572. Holger has joined
  573. hannes has left
  574. hannes has joined
  575. marc has left
  576. hannes has left
  577. hannes has joined
  578. Alex has left