XSF logo XSF Discussion - 2019-03-14


  1. Maranda has left
  2. Maranda has joined
  3. arc has left
  4. arc has joined
  5. UsL has left
  6. UsL has joined
  7. frainz has left
  8. frainz has joined
  9. frainz has left
  10. frainz has joined
  11. intosi has left
  12. frainz has left
  13. frainz has joined
  14. frainz has left
  15. frainz has joined
  16. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  17. pep. has left
  18. pep. has joined
  19. kokonoe has left
  20. kokonoe has joined
  21. tux has left
  22. tux has joined
  23. contrapunctus has left
  24. Half-ShotX has joined
  25. yon has left
  26. Half-ShotX has left
  27. Half-ShotX has joined
  28. contrapunctus has joined
  29. Half-ShotX has left
  30. Half-ShotX has joined
  31. Half-ShotX has left
  32. yon has joined
  33. Half-ShotX has joined
  34. Half-ShotX has left
  35. Half-ShotX has joined
  36. bowlofeggs has left
  37. Half-ShotX has left
  38. contrapunctus has left
  39. contrapunctus has joined
  40. Half-ShotX has joined
  41. Half-ShotX has left
  42. Half-ShotX has joined
  43. Half-ShotX has left
  44. lskdjf has left
  45. alacer has left
  46. larma has left
  47. alacer has joined
  48. Half-ShotX has joined
  49. Half-ShotX has left
  50. Half-ShotX has joined
  51. Half-ShotX has left
  52. kokonoe has left
  53. kokonoe has joined
  54. Half-ShotX has joined
  55. Half-ShotX has left
  56. alacer has left
  57. alacer has joined
  58. Half-ShotX has joined
  59. Half-ShotX has left
  60. Half-ShotX has joined
  61. Half-ShotX has left
  62. Half-ShotX has joined
  63. Nekit has joined
  64. Half-ShotX has left
  65. Half-ShotX has joined
  66. vaulor has left
  67. vaulor has joined
  68. Half-ShotX has left
  69. Half-ShotX has joined
  70. Half-ShotX has left
  71. contrapunctus has left
  72. contrapunctus has joined
  73. Half-ShotX has joined
  74. Half-ShotX has left
  75. Half-ShotX has joined
  76. arc has left
  77. arc has joined
  78. Half-ShotX has left
  79. Half-ShotX has joined
  80. Half-ShotX has left
  81. j.r has joined
  82. Half-ShotX has joined
  83. alacer has left
  84. alacer has joined
  85. alacer has left
  86. alacer has joined
  87. oli has joined
  88. Half-ShotX has left
  89. Half-ShotX has joined
  90. Yagiza has joined
  91. alacer has left
  92. alacer has joined
  93. Half-ShotX has left
  94. Half-ShotX has joined
  95. Half-ShotX has left
  96. Half-ShotX has joined
  97. Half-ShotX has left
  98. Half-ShotX has joined
  99. Half-ShotX has left
  100. efrit has joined
  101. arc has left
  102. arc has joined
  103. Half-ShotX has joined
  104. lnj has joined
  105. efrit has left
  106. Half-ShotX has left
  107. Half-ShotX has joined
  108. lnj has left
  109. karoshi has joined
  110. rtq3 has joined
  111. goffi has joined
  112. Half-ShotX has left
  113. goffi has left
  114. goffi has joined
  115. Half-ShotX has joined
  116. lnj has joined
  117. Half-ShotX has left
  118. Half-ShotX has joined
  119. blabla has left
  120. blabla has joined
  121. Half-ShotX has left
  122. waqas has joined
  123. j.r has left
  124. Half-ShotX has joined
  125. vaulor has left
  126. vaulor has joined
  127. Nekit has left
  128. Nekit has joined
  129. contrapunctus has left
  130. contrapunctus has joined
  131. intosi has joined
  132. karoshi has left
  133. karoshi has joined
  134. Half-ShotX has left
  135. Half-ShotX has joined
  136. Half-ShotX has left
  137. rtq3 has left
  138. andy has joined
  139. Half-ShotX has joined
  140. Half-ShotX has left
  141. blabla has left
  142. blabla has joined
  143. Half-ShotX has joined
  144. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  145. contrapunctus has left
  146. contrapunctus has joined
  147. Half-ShotX has left
  148. moparisthebest has left
  149. moparisthebest has joined
  150. Half-ShotX has joined
  151. contrapunctus has left
  152. contrapunctus has joined
  153. nyco has left
  154. nyco has joined
  155. contrapunctus has left
  156. contrapunctus has joined
  157. Half-ShotX has left
  158. Half-ShotX has joined
  159. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  160. nyco has left
  161. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  162. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  163. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  164. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  165. Half-ShotX has left
  166. frainz has left
  167. frainz has joined
  168. Half-ShotX has joined
  169. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  170. frainz has left
  171. frainz has joined
  172. Half-ShotX has left
  173. Half-ShotX has joined
  174. frainz has left
  175. frainz has joined
  176. nyco has joined
  177. frainz has left
  178. frainz has joined
  179. Half-ShotX has left
  180. Half-ShotX has joined
  181. mimi89999 has left
  182. frainz has left
  183. Half-ShotX has left
  184. frainz has joined
  185. Half-ShotX has joined
  186. frainz has left
  187. frainz has joined
  188. frainz has left
  189. frainz has joined
  190. Half-ShotX has left
  191. Half-ShotX has joined
  192. contrapunctus has left
  193. contrapunctus has joined
  194. Half-ShotX has left
  195. mimi89999 has joined
  196. Half-ShotX has joined
  197. Half-ShotX has left
  198. Steve Kille has left
  199. frainz has left
  200. frainz has joined
  201. kokonoe has left
  202. Half-ShotX has joined
  203. kokonoe has joined
  204. frainz has left
  205. frainz has joined
  206. pep. has left
  207. pep. has joined
  208. Steve Kille has joined
  209. frainz has left
  210. frainz has joined
  211. frainz has left
  212. frainz has joined
  213. vanitasvitae has left
  214. Half-ShotX has left
  215. Half-ShotX has joined
  216. vanitasvitae has joined
  217. Half-ShotX has left
  218. wurstsalat has left
  219. Half-ShotX has joined
  220. larma has joined
  221. wurstsalat has joined
  222. larma has left
  223. larma has joined
  224. rtq3 has joined
  225. yon has left
  226. frainz has left
  227. Half-ShotX has left
  228. frainz has joined
  229. yon has joined
  230. Seve One question about that `XMPP WG`, what would be the difference between the XSF and that?
  231. Seve Or would it be just like a bridge?
  232. ralphm zinid was questioning the usefulness of the XSF (to him)
  233. ralphm You'd have to read yesterday's logs
  234. Seve I was paying attention
  235. Seve Still, if he pursues to have that group be reopened, would the XSF and that group clash?
  236. ralphm I don't think so. Who do you think would be in that group?
  237. Half-ShotX has joined
  238. ralphm Also, it seems he's left these channels.
  239. Dele Olajide has joined
  240. oli has left
  241. Guus If there is benefit from having an IETF XMPP WG, we should consider doing it.
  242. Guus It was hard to deduce the arguments, though.
  243. Half-ShotX has left
  244. Half-ShotX has joined
  245. ralphm dwd mentioned something yestersay, unrelated to zinid, I think
  246. Guus I've read one: marketing. People would be more inclined to work on XMPP when it is affiliated with the IETF, as that's more well known that the XSF.
  247. ralphm That he thought might be useful to have the WG for again.
  248. debacle has joined
  249. ralphm No it was work already done at IETF
  250. Guus I don't think that the marketing angle in itself is enough to warrant this. XMPP already is an IETF protocol.
  251. Guus I got the impression that the suggested move to the IETF had more to do with him not finding the XSF to be effective, and wanting to go around that.
  252. rtq3 has left
  253. Guus a) I disagree, and b) you'd likely end up with the same people and similar processes at IETF>
  254. Guus a) I disagree, and b) you'd likely end up with the same people and similar processes at IETF.
  255. Seve Aftear reading him I couldn't get an idea of what was the problem. I understood that he feels the image of the XSF does not help him enough when contacting customers, but the image of the IETF would.
  256. Seve And also that he would expect the XSF to be more active regarding the direction of the protocol, writing XEPs and so on
  257. Guus The latter was Andrews wish/opinion/point of view, I think, not Zinids. I think it's unrelated to the IETF WG discussin.
  258. Guus The latter was Andrews wish/opinion/point of view, I think, not Zinids. I think it's unrelated to the IETF WG discussion.
  259. Seve Well, it was not clear enough the point of the discussion in my opinion :D
  260. ralphm I think that using an IETF workgroup is to foster more interaction with people outside of our community, to align with existing efforts for encryption, authentication, alternative bindings (like QUIC), etc.
  261. Guus As we spend a good deal of time on this, I've heard barely any arguments, and I've not heard anyone else express the same wish, I think it'd be good to pause this discussion.
  262. Guus ralphm i believe to suggestion was: "replace XSF with an IETF workgroup". The XSF working with IETF is something that I think we've been doing, and should consider doing so.
  263. Half-ShotX has left
  264. Half-ShotX has joined
  265. Seve Yes, what ralphm mentions is what I though dwd was explaining
  266. Guus ralphm i believe the suggestion was: "replace XSF with an IETF workgroup". The XSF working with IETF is something that I think we've been doing, and should consider doing so.
  267. Guus ralphm i believe the suggestion was: "replace XSF with an IETF workgroup". The XSF working with IETF is something that I think we've been doing, and should keep doing.
  268. dwd You can't form an XMPP WG in the IETF without some fairly explicit work to do (in IETF parlance, a charter).
  269. dwd Charters give the scope of the Working Group, and also a set of milestones - witth dates - that they try to meet.
  270. Seve Sounds efficient :O
  271. dwd There's an interesting discussion to be had around charters, since I think both Andrew and Evgeny expressed concern at the timeframe of MIX, for example.
  272. Guus I feel that we've been spending an imbalanced amount of time on this, based on the malcontent of _one_ (maybe two) persons. Let's drop this, until we have indication that the membership wants to pursue this further.
  273. dwd Guus, FWIW, I would suggest we (the XSF) look into establishing a formal liaison with the IETF.
  274. Guus dwd what would that look like in practice?
  275. dwd Guus, Beyond that, the rest is a Council issue of what work we think might be better redirected to the IETF.
  276. ralphm Guus: I'm talking about what I consider good reasons to attempt to reestablish a WG. Since zinid did not make a convincing case, and literally said he wanted to end the conversation, I am not going to spend much time on his supposed reasons.
  277. dwd Guus, https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/
  278. Seve And also what would we need to do
  279. ralphm dwd: yes, that's definitely interesting.
  280. dwd Seve, Write a charter, and get a relevant AD to be interested. That's all a WG needs.
  281. kokonoe has left
  282. alacer has left
  283. alacer has joined
  284. ralphm And people
  285. Guus I wonder if setting up and maintaining an IETF liaison would be more trouble than it's worth. I'm not seeing the two motivations for having a liaison apply to us much ("Prevent inadvertent duplication of effort, without obstructing either organization from pursuing its own mandate", "Provide authoritative information of one organization’s dependence on the other’s work")
  286. dwd Guus, ralphm - I note that some guy called Matt Miller is already a Liaison Manager, it might be worth asking him on his opinion.
  287. Guus I'm not rejecting the thought outright, though.
  288. Guus oh, that's interesting 🙂
  289. ralphm dwd: why would we contact this random individual?
  290. kokonoe has joined
  291. ralphm 🤣
  292. Half-ShotX has left
  293. Half-ShotX has joined
  294. ralphm Or should I say, (-:
  295. dwd Previously the... Board? COuncil? decided that we had enough folks who regularly worked within the IETF not to bother, but I think most of our heavywieght IETFers have drifted away from the XSF in their day tto day work (including M&M, Joe, StPeter).
  296. ralphm dwd: indeed
  297. Seve That's interesting but on the other hand, as it was explained to Zinid, XEPs are made by the community, and so on. Looks like we would need to set a some kind of internal `charter` in order to approach them.
  298. ralphm The standards JIG has a charter. It just doesn't have specific goals in terms of direction or timelines.
  299. dwd Seve, Oh, gosh no. The IETF works much the same as the XSF. It has a little more process and a lot of people involved, but it's still just a bunch of tch people.
  300. Seve Haha ok :)
  301. Guus Seve setting up a liaison relation with the IETF would not in any way make the IETF produce XMPP stuff. It's more about knowing about eachother, and keeping track of what the other is doing.
  302. Seve Guus, yes yes, that is what I understood. But I also thought we would need to provide some work we would like to do, let's say. Like what ralphm mentioned about, encryption or whatever the topic is.
  303. alacer has left
  304. dwd Seve, It would have meant the XSF being formally notified about the SACM/MILE work using XMPP, for example. We might choose to notify them in return about Zinid's RELOAD work.
  305. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  306. Seve nods.
  307. Seve Thank you :)
  308. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  309. Guus dwd maybe make your case on the members list?
  310. dwd Seve, Moving work to the IETF is a different matter - though a liaison statement might help a bit, we'd really just have a bunch of interested people go do the work there.
  311. ralphm I think this is a matter for the standards list, to be honest. Members is too narrow and e.g. zinid and Andrew aren't members, right?
  312. Ge0rG I was under the impression that the IETF is aware of the XSF and that it's the body responsible for XMPP. Is a liaison giving us more than that?
  313. ralphm If someone would really want to charter the work on MIX, they can propose a SIG for it. We've had those before. Not sure if it is a good idea.
  314. ralphm Ge0rG: a more formalized relationship
  315. Half-ShotX has left
  316. Half-ShotX has joined
  317. yvo has joined
  318. matlag has left
  319. matlag has joined
  320. contrapunctus has left
  321. contrapunctus has joined
  322. Half-ShotX has left
  323. Half-ShotX has joined
  324. Seve thought we had that formalized relationship
  325. ralphm No
  326. Seve But yes, good idea to move it to the standards list, ralphm.
  327. Half-ShotX has left
  328. Half-ShotX has joined
  329. Guus I think this is more of an organisational list than a standards discussion </pedantic>
  330. ralphm Guus: well, that list happens to be the venue for all XEPs, including procedural ones
  331. Guus ... we're going to use a XEP for this?
  332. Seve Guus, true :)
  333. ralphm That's not what I said, but I think that a) this topic is wider than just the membership, b) the primary objective is to establish a liaison for standards development.
  334. Half-ShotX has left
  335. Half-ShotX has joined
  336. contrapunctus has left
  337. contrapunctus has joined
  338. ralphm Doing it as a XEP doesn't seem like a bad idea, to me, though.
  339. Guus I disagree, but don't object.
  340. rtq3 has joined
  341. ralphm A XEP is just our typical vehicle for formalizing protocols, best of practices, and things like SIGs, beyond what's in our bylaws.
  342. ralphm Even though the last P current stands for Protocol, I think that the previous meaning of Proposal was more apt.
  343. ralphm Because it is closer to how we've used them.
  344. Zash has left
  345. Zash has joined
  346. ralphm E.g. if you want to know what a SIG is and how to form one, I'd direct you to XEP-0002.
  347. ralphm If you want to know what the Registrar does: XEP-0053.
  348. Guus although tempted to discuss this further, I think we should first decide on the color of the shed in which bikes are stored temporarily. 🙂
  349. ralphm I'm not really discussing, I'm just relaying how things have been done.
  350. ralphm There are procedures for creating new functions and where to discuss them.
  351. oli has joined
  352. ralphm Even if the proposal would say: Board appoints, having that written down in a short XEP, instead of hidden in Board minutes that are made intermittently, seems like a smart (but existing) idea.
  353. wurstsalat has left
  354. Half-ShotX has left
  355. Half-ShotX has joined
  356. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, btw I've considered that xep-385 issue I raised with backwards compatibility. Solution is quite simple: all links in <body> can be hidden with a special "hide" reference. Problem is, 385 is based upon 372 which is deferred and looks half baked
  357. ralphm Yeah, and XEP-0385 doesn't even reference XEP-0372 (no pun intended).
  358. ralphm I agree XEP-0372 needs quite some love.
  359. ralphm I think the people involved have been focussing more on MIX, discussions on which caused References to be specified during last year's Summit.
  360. Half-ShotX has left
  361. Half-ShotX has joined
  362. Ge0rG References is a nice idea, but it lacks any description of how to practically implement it
  363. Half-ShotX has left
  364. Half-ShotX has joined
  365. Guus "We welcome your PR"
  366. ralphm As I said, the document needs work. I might pick it up.
  367. Guus Converse has the mention bit, which I like.
  368. Guus it's used with @<tabcomplete> (or when clicking on a user name)
  369. ralphm Does it mark that up some way?
  370. Guus sure ralphm
  371. Guus https://xmpp.igniterealtime.org:7483/httpfileupload/bd8842ef-c82c-4f96-b237-5d1fd9bbb328/bBjZEL-3SNmF8Wyavhkcgg.jpg
  372. ralphm In protocol, I mean
  373. Guus but the mention bit is probably the most straightforward
  374. Half-ShotX has left
  375. igoose has left
  376. igoose has joined
  377. Guus Other than what's described in the XEP you mean, ralphm ?
  378. Guus The message above: <body>Other than what's described in the XEP you mean, ralphm ?</body><active xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/chatstates"/><reference xmlns="urn:xmpp:reference:0" begin="49" end="55" type="mention"/>
  379. ralphm Oh, you are already using References?
  380. ralphm Nice
  381. Guus yes, Converse does.
  382. Half-ShotX has joined
  383. contrapunctus has left
  384. contrapunctus has joined
  385. Ge0rG It doesn't contain a reference to who is mentioned?!
  386. Guus That seems to be true
  387. Guus probably because it's used for markup only.
  388. Guus I'll raise an issue
  389. Half-ShotX has left
  390. Ge0rG Because the markup is the easy part. How to actually reference other entities is the hard part.
  391. lskdjf has joined
  392. Guus https://github.com/conversejs/converse.js/issues/1495
  393. bowlofeggs has joined
  394. Half-ShotX has joined
  395. kokonoe has left
  396. kokonoe has joined
  397. ta has left
  398. Ge0rG Guus: you can get the xml colored by using ```xml as the block prefix 😁
  399. edhelas has left
  400. lumi has left
  401. Half-ShotX has left
  402. Half-ShotX has joined
  403. Guus you underestimate my level of lazyness, Ge0rG .
  404. Guus but, there
  405. Guus it made me add newlines too
  406. Ge0rG Guus: oh, sorry! 😉
  407. Half-ShotX has left
  408. ralphm One obvious thing would be an xmpp URI to the real JID
  409. Half-ShotX has joined
  410. andy has left
  411. Half-ShotX has left
  412. andy has joined
  413. Guus Unless in an anonymous MUC
  414. Ge0rG There are no anonymous MUCs. But you can obviously reference the full JID of the occupant
  415. Ge0rG Except this is prone to the same problems we can't solve with LMC already, where occupant identity may change in between
  416. Half-ShotX has joined
  417. ta has joined
  418. Half-ShotX has left
  419. Half-ShotX has joined
  420. Guus which for references might be less of a problem, as it's a reference that's valid only at the time the reference was made.
  421. Guus (not that that buys you anything)
  422. rtq3 has left
  423. Half-ShotX has left
  424. Half-ShotX has joined
  425. Ge0rG The interesting thing is what to do with such an occupant reference.
  426. Ge0rG And the really really interesting question is how to reference other messages.
  427. Half-ShotX has left
  428. andy has left
  429. j.r has joined
  430. Half-ShotX has joined
  431. Half-ShotX has left
  432. rtq3 has joined
  433. j.r has left
  434. ralphm Right unique IDs for messages, and some way to, probably, embed that in URIs
  435. neshtaxmpp has left
  436. andy has joined
  437. contrapunctus has left
  438. contrapunctus has joined
  439. Ge0rG With MAM, we could use the archive ID. But that only works for rooms, not for private chats...
  440. Ge0rG And obviously we need a URI scheme for messages
  441. Ge0rG All the important things that are missing from the XEP
  442. alacer has joined
  443. alacer has left
  444. alacer has joined
  445. andrey.g has left
  446. ThibG has left
  447. ThibG has joined
  448. neshtaxmpp has joined
  449. andrey.g has joined
  450. alacer has left
  451. ralphm I'm not sure if the definition of the construction of URIs to point to individual messages should be in this spec. The topic of message IDs in itself is already complicated.
  452. ralphm But, again, I agree that the References spec is in its early stages.
  453. Dele Olajide has left
  454. Zash has left
  455. Zash has joined
  456. alacer has joined
  457. 404.city has joined
  458. 404.city has left
  459. alacer has left
  460. alacer has joined
  461. Guus M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-Monstermeet!
  462. Guus </unreal-tournament-voice>
  463. ralphm bangs gavel
  464. Zash Oh the memories
  465. ralphm 0. Welcome + Agenda
  466. ralphm Who? What?
  467. Guus me
  468. Guus what's on trello
  469. Guus (maybe MattJ, Seve mentioned he'd try to make it but was unsure, nyco apologized)
  470. ralphm waiting for number 3
  471. Guus Which is kind of why I mentioned candidates by name.
  472. ralphm I guessed
  473. MattJ Hey
  474. Guus \o/
  475. Seve half around
  476. ralphm 1. Minute taker
  477. ralphm Who can do this? Someone from the floor?
  478. rtq3 has left
  479. Guus hargh. I just got called by daycare - my kid has a fever, need to pick her up in a few moments.
  480. ralphm ok, no worries
  481. Guus I can stick around for one or two short topics, but 10 minutes max
  482. ralphm 2. Server outage
  483. ralphm I guess I'll start with this one then
  484. ralphm Guus asked for a post-mortem on the outage over the weekend.
  485. ralphm There's been some back and forth about this on the iteam and board mailinglists
  486. neshtaxmpp has left
  487. Guus I'm grateful for everyone that pitched in to help resolve the issue.
  488. ralphm A few questions come to mind. * Should we worry about this? * Is the Infrastructure Team happy with the current setup, or would it like to consider things along the lines Peter sketched? * Do we have sufficient monitoring in case things go awry? * What can Board to help out the Infrastructure Team?
  489. ralphm Guus: indeed
  490. neshtaxmpp has joined
  491. Guus Most of that depends on how important we deem the continuous availability of services to be.
  492. ralphm Sure
  493. Guus if we can live with unexpected outages, then I don't see a need (maybe a desire, but no need) to change things.
  494. MattJ I think generally having our website be available at all times is a need, we lost GSoC because of it one year
  495. ralphm It depends. We once missed out on GSoC because of an outage, but other than that it is mostly inconvenient.
  496. MattJ If this situation had been worse, or similarly timed, it could have had the same effect
  497. ralphm Right
  498. Guus the GSoC issue was horrible, but also a very unlikely combination of things
  499. Kev Well, that was the wiki, rather than the website.
  500. MattJ Kev, same server, no?
  501. Kev The website is trivially mirrorable.
  502. Kev The wiki would be more work to make resilient.
  503. ralphm Kev: sure, but unfortunately Guus didn't get an answer on what was affected, yet, so we're shooting in the dark a bit.
  504. moparisthebest as far as "website is always available" you could just slap cloudflare in front of it :'(
  505. Kev Everything except mail, pretty much.
  506. ralphm Kev: right
  507. ralphm So what can we do to help?
  508. Guus moparisthebest I think everyone can think of possible improvements. Let's first see if improvements (which take effort to realise) are needed.
  509. Kev Help depends what we want out of it vs. the effort.
  510. Kev The 'gsoc outage' was a case of us doing something daft.
  511. MattJ Namely?
  512. Kev This one, as far as we've seen, was an unexplained server wibble.
  513. ralphm Kev: sure, but it could be that you have already made plans, but lack time, or money, or skills.
  514. MattJ Oh, you mean the backups, not bringing the server down
  515. Kev Running unchecked code on a production machine.
  516. Kev xmpp.net brought it down during the gsoc outage. But that's another story.
  517. Kev We did, a little while ago, have an indication that (previous) Board was going to get sponsorship from someone in terms of sysadmin to help maintain all our systems, but I think that fell through.
  518. MattJ iirc the xmpp.net server used to be separate (?)
  519. MattJ I agree that this is part of a broader issue with iteam currently
  520. Kev No, the observatory was on the same server as the wiki, and brought the server down by DoS, essentially.
  521. MattJ e.g. we used to have a list of XSF infrastructure. That list still exists, but is years out of date.
  522. Guus apart from trying to improve things: what is the state of our hardware? Is it in need of replacement?
  523. MattJ I don't think we have a central record of who has (or should have) access to what systems
  524. Kev I think our most critical bit of infrastructure is the website.
  525. MattJ or disaster recovery plans
  526. MattJ If atlas went down, I'm not sure where we'd begin with replacing it
  527. Kev If we're willing to throw a little money at it, or othersponsorship, or whatever, we could easily docker swarm that so it's resilient.
  528. Kev But I'm more or less out of action today, ill, so I'd be better having that discussion another time.
  529. MattJ Why docker swarm when there are numerous easier ways to host a static website?
  530. Kev Or those.
  531. ralphm Kev: that's ok. Do you want to schedule a time for a next chat on this topic?
  532. MattJ Which brings us to Peter's questions
  533. waqas has left
  534. waqas has joined
  535. contrapunctus has left
  536. contrapunctus has joined
  537. ralphm I'd be happy to talk to Edwin tonight (around our rehearsal) to see what we could do.
  538. Guus One thing that I'd like to discuss (later)
  539. Guus if we do deem at least part of the infrastructure critical, then I'd prefer if we could find a way to not depend on the availability of volunteers to do disaster recovery.
  540. ralphm Shall I take this up this (broad) topic together with iteam?
  541. Kev Sure.
  542. ralphm (instead of all of Board)
  543. mimi89999 has left
  544. Guus ok
  545. Guus I do need to leave now
  546. mimi89999 has joined
  547. ralphm Thanks Guus
  548. Guus afk
  549. Guus thanks!
  550. mimi89999 has left
  551. mimi89999 has joined
  552. ralphm In that case, with Seve half around, I'm not sure if that counts as quorum.
  553. MattJ I'm fine with ending
  554. ralphm 2. AOB
  555. Dele Olajide has joined
  556. ralphm There's one thing I'd like to mention.
  557. waqas has left
  558. waqas has joined
  559. waqas has left
  560. ralphm There was some heated debate yesterday about a bunch of topics, including the usefulness of the XSF itself. I'm not sure if it helps going into this right now fully.
  561. waqas has joined
  562. Seve wishes to be on the loop of this
  563. waqas has left
  564. waqas has joined
  565. ralphm But I learned that zinid is no longer persuing https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-car.html with the XSF.
  566. ralphm And chose another approach.
  567. waqas has left
  568. waqas has joined
  569. ralphm I think that means it is no longer going to be resubmitted, so the Editors are aware of this.
  570. ralphm That's it for me.
  571. MattJ Same here
  572. ralphm 2. Date of Next
  573. ralphm +1W
  574. ralphm (this is item 3)
  575. ralphm 4. Close
  576. ralphm Thanks all!
  577. ralphm bangs gavel
  578. MattJ Thanks ralphm
  579. andy has left
  580. waqas has left
  581. UsL has left
  582. edhelas has joined
  583. j.r has joined
  584. Dele Olajide has left
  585. Dele Olajide has joined
  586. UsL has joined
  587. j.r has left
  588. j.r has joined
  589. alacer has left
  590. kokonoe has left
  591. kokonoe has joined
  592. j.r has left
  593. Dele Olajide has left
  594. Dele Olajide has joined
  595. j.r has joined
  596. rtq3 has joined
  597. 404.city has joined
  598. rtq3 has left
  599. Dele Olajide has left
  600. rtq3 has joined
  601. j.r has left
  602. lumi has joined
  603. Seve Hey guys, sorry, the train was going through a tunnel and lost connection
  604. ralphm Long tunnel
  605. Dele Olajide has joined
  606. Seve ralphm: I didn't press enter and I realized now :(
  607. j.r has joined
  608. 404.city has left
  609. waqas has joined
  610. Guus > Long tunnel Or slow train.
  611. kokonoe has left
  612. kokonoe has joined
  613. moparisthebest anyway what I was saying earlier, I'm not the biggest fan of this approach, but the lowest effort thing that can be done to keep the website available is to put it behind cloudflare, it's almost just clicking a button
  614. moparisthebest could also just host it on github pages and let them worry about it, still using xmpp.org domain
  615. Kev The main issue with github pages is https. Unless LE has changed things like that.
  616. Nekit has left
  617. MattJ HTTPS works with Github pages, if you satisfy some requirements around DNS
  618. MattJ which is to use a CNAME, or an A/AAAA specifically, I forget which - it's in their docs
  619. MattJ and depends on whether you want them to serve the whole domain or a specific subdomain, and weirdly whether that subdomain is called 'www' or not
  620. Zash Can't CNAME xmpp.org
  621. moparisthebest yea I know github pages can do https, haven't looked at the details
  622. 404.city has joined
  623. alacer has joined
  624. benpa has left
  625. Matthew has left
  626. uhoreg has left
  627. Half-Shot has left
  628. ralphm -> iteam room
  629. benpa has joined
  630. uhoreg has joined
  631. Half-Shot has joined
  632. Matthew has joined
  633. wurstsalat has joined
  634. alacer has left
  635. ThibG has left
  636. ThibG has joined
  637. edhelas has left
  638. nyco has left
  639. dwd has left
  640. kokonoe has left
  641. 404.city has left
  642. kokonoe has joined
  643. edhelas has joined
  644. nyco has joined
  645. Dele Olajide has left
  646. Andrew Nenakhov https://coggle.it/diagram/XIpAaxc5Aoy4z505/t/-
  647. Yagiza has left
  648. Andrew Nenakhov Drew a simple diagram how xmpp standards depend on each other
  649. Andrew Nenakhov Didn't list all xeps, just those mentioned in compliance suites , and some we're currently interested in
  650. Andrew Nenakhov Service isn't best, does not allow to paint arrows the way I like. I'd prefer arrows to dependencies being colored according to parent status.
  651. Andrew Nenakhov But still, picture doesn't look pretty. Probably, if we list only "strong" dependencies, it'll look more clear.
  652. ralphm You may want to try doing this with graphviz/dot.
  653. ralphm Maybe there's already a script in the xeps repo
  654. Andrew Nenakhov Well I was looking for a fancy tool for my managers and to test started drawing the first thing that came to mind.
  655. Andrew Nenakhov Got carried away a big 😂
  656. ralphm Hehe
  657. Andrew Nenakhov But there are obvious formal problems, like 0280 carbons dependency on deferred 0296
  658. Steve Kille has left
  659. Steve Kille has joined
  660. Maranda has left
  661. Maranda has joined
  662. Nekit has joined
  663. lorddavidiii has joined
  664. wurstsalat has left
  665. waqas has left
  666. kokonoe has left
  667. wurstsalat has joined
  668. kokonoe has joined
  669. flow Andrew Nenakhov, why is that a (formal) problem?
  670. Andrew Nenakhov Because when you build a set of rules, subsequent rules must be based on valid predecessors.
  671. lorddavidiii has left
  672. flow What makes xep296 invalid?
  673. Andrew Nenakhov It's not invalid, it's deferred
  674. flow It is not like that it is marked as such or obsolte
  675. Andrew Nenakhov Deferred kinda means 'not ok'
  676. flow Andrew Nenakhov, I don't think that this is the case
  677. flow It just means nobody worked on it in a while
  678. Zash Huh
  679. Andrew Nenakhov It's not even listed by default when you go to extensions page.
  680. Zash Is that meant to be XEP-0297?
  681. Zash Ie Stanza Forwarding
  682. Zash Carbons uses that, but it's not listed in the dependencies
  683. andrey.g has left
  684. flow Andrew Nenakhov, possibly, but that doesn't change the meaning of "deferred"
  685. andrey.g has joined
  686. flow Zash, yeah, looks like a off-by-one
  687. Andrew Nenakhov flow, English is not my native language, and vocabulary gives translation to Russian that is roughly similar to rejected.
  688. flow Andrew Nenakhov, think of "postponed"
  689. flow Oxford defined it as "Put off (an action or event) to a later time; postpone."
  690. Andrew Nenakhov Postponed, like, indefinitely )
  691. flow Possibly, but that only means that it was not explicitly marked as obsolete
  692. mimi89999 has left
  693. mimi89999 has joined
  694. Andrew Nenakhov Anyway I don't think it's ok when subsequent XEPs have deferred dependencies. Also very bad marketing.
  695. Andrew Nenakhov This all does not look clear at all.
  696. Andrew Nenakhov I understand that there are "strong" and "weak" dependencies of course
  697. oli has left
  698. Andrew Nenakhov Maybe if we get rid of weak not too important links, graph would be easier to digest
  699. m has joined
  700. Zash I think we had this discussion already, about not being able to advance XEPs that depend on Experimental or Deferred. And then https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0297.html was made Draft
  701. flow I think it is ok, but I also believe that the terms of XEP states could be improved. Some people wonder why 'Draft' is an XEP which got past experimental
  702. lorddavidiii has joined
  703. Andrew Nenakhov Yes, Draft does not look like very advanced stage of standard lifecycle from the outside
  704. waqas has joined
  705. waqas has left
  706. Maranda has left
  707. Maranda has joined
  708. igoose has left
  709. igoose has joined
  710. oli has joined
  711. debacle has left
  712. Zash https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/7d4f99b5a66187aacd289cb210d6636f3b1185cd
  713. dele has joined
  714. m has left
  715. Zash Sure looks like a typo and it was meant to be 297
  716. waqas has joined
  717. dele has left
  718. Andrew Nenakhov Lol )
  719. Andrew Nenakhov I thought it was weird, yes )
  720. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: on the other hand, SMTP, currently at RFC 5321, is Draft, too.
  721. flow thankfully we use numbers to reference the XEPs…
  722. ralphm There are only very few documents that IETF has beyond that.
  723. flow ralphm, surely just because someone else (IETF) does it the same way isn't a good argument?
  724. flow if you look at it that way, we only have a handfull of internet standards
  725. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, true. But matrix's documentation is nearing 1.0.0! See the difference? )
  726. Zash The main difference is that the IETF gives documents a new RFC number when they advance
  727. flow the rest are just documents waiting for comments :)
  728. Dele Olajide has joined
  729. wurstsalat has left
  730. rtq3 has left
  731. ralphm Zash: well, there's a level beyond Draft and that's Internet Standard.
  732. rtq3 has joined
  733. Zash Isn't it Internet-Draft (number of iterations) -> Proposed Standard (given RFC number) -> Internet-Draft (thing-bis) (iterations) -> Internet Standard (new RFC number)
  734. Zash Where we do ProtoXEP -> Experimental (iterations) -> Draft -> Final
  735. Zash And the number is issued earlier
  736. ralphm Zash: it's about the label, not that it is a new document
  737. Zash ralphm: Hm?
  738. flow Zash, nearly, as far as I understand there is an additional step after RFC number assignment, which makes it an Internet Standard
  739. flow https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards
  740. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: hah, we've had XMPP 1.0 since 2004.
  741. waqas has left
  742. waqas has joined
  743. flow Zash, ahh wait, you are right
  744. flow there appears to be a new number requirement
  745. ralphm Zash: that Andrew was talking more about the 'weight' of the status of a spec. Experimental, Draft, Final, etc.
  746. ralphm For marketing purposes
  747. Zash ralphm: So it boils down to the word "draft" not being as obvious on Draft Standard RFCs?
  748. moparisthebest since words mean nothing, or rather, different things to different people anyway, maybe we should just create made up ones for different statuses :D
  749. Zash Wait
  750. Zash 3920 and 6120 are both "Proposed Standard"?
  751. ralphm Zash: depending on how you look at it, IRC is either Experimental or Infirmational
  752. ralphm So, it seems no one really cares.
  753. Zash The way I looked at it, the IRC RFC was a dissapointment. Writing a server seemed to require more trial and error and squinting at packet captures to implement than XMPP.
  754. ralphm My point it is 25 years old and definitely a standard.
  755. Zash ralphm: Sure. People also consider expired, independently submitted internet-drafts to be IETF Approved™
  756. kokonoe has left
  757. waqas has left
  758. kokonoe has joined
  759. Nekit has left
  760. debacle has joined
  761. waqas has joined
  762. wurstsalat has joined
  763. waqas has left
  764. waqas has joined
  765. Wiktor has left
  766. arc has left
  767. arc has joined
  768. oli has left
  769. moparisthebest has left
  770. rtq3 has left
  771. moparisthebest has joined
  772. waqas has left
  773. Wiktor has joined
  774. oli has joined
  775. moparisthebest has left
  776. dwd has joined
  777. lovetox has joined
  778. ThibG has left
  779. ThibG has joined
  780. moparisthebest has joined
  781. rtq3 has joined
  782. blabla has left
  783. blabla has joined
  784. oli has left
  785. lorddavidiii has left
  786. ThibG has left
  787. ThibG has joined
  788. Maranda has left
  789. Maranda has joined
  790. waqas has joined
  791. yvo has left
  792. lovetox has left
  793. alacer has joined
  794. rtq3 has left
  795. rtq3 has joined
  796. m has joined
  797. waqas has left
  798. waqas has joined
  799. waqas has left
  800. ThibG has left
  801. ThibG has joined
  802. arc has left
  803. arc has joined
  804. m has left
  805. ThibG has left
  806. ThibG has joined
  807. Dele Olajide has left
  808. j.r has left
  809. j.r has joined