XSF logo XSF Discussion - 2019-11-07


  1. moparisthebest has joined
  2. pep. Ok email sent to members.
  3. pep. moparisthebest, you might want to show up for that meeting, your wish about council members might be granted :p
  4. neshtaxmpp has joined
  5. debacle has left
  6. vanitasvitae has left
  7. jubalh has joined
  8. vanitasvitae has joined
  9. mukt2 has joined
  10. kokonoe has left
  11. kokonoe has joined
  12. mukt2 has left
  13. jubalh has left
  14. Daniel has left
  15. Daniel has joined
  16. remko has joined
  17. matkor has left
  18. matkor has joined
  19. Douglas Terabyte has left
  20. aj has joined
  21. Chobbes has left
  22. kokonoe has left
  23. kokonoe has joined
  24. Chobbes has joined
  25. moparisthebest has left
  26. krauq has joined
  27. Daniel has left
  28. Daniel has joined
  29. pdurbin has joined
  30. Daniel has left
  31. pdurbin has left
  32. adiaholic has joined
  33. remko has left
  34. moparisthebest has joined
  35. Daniel has joined
  36. adiaholic has left
  37. Chobbes has left
  38. Chobbes has joined
  39. Chobbes has left
  40. Chobbes has joined
  41. moparisthebest pep.: Oh I'll be there :)
  42. Daniel has left
  43. Chobbes has left
  44. Chobbes has joined
  45. stpeter has joined
  46. Daniel has joined
  47. mukt2 has joined
  48. kokonoe has left
  49. kokonoe has joined
  50. mukt2 has left
  51. stpeter pep.: My interpretation of the bylaws (and of XSF history) is that we convince 5% of members that this item needs to be added to the agenda and then we vote on it during normal voting process. Because voting has already started, instead we would hold a special meeting and the voting on the agenda items for that special meeting could be handled in the usual way (via memberbot). While we are doing this, we might as well clean up *all* instances where "in writing" does not mention electronic transmission...
  52. lskdjf has left
  53. stpeter Also note §5.10 Rules of Procedure - it's not clear to me that we actually need to amend the bylaws here, although it's always better to make these things clear in an official way or in the main rules document, not in another document that we need to reference separately.
  54. Daniel has left
  55. pdurbin has joined
  56. Daniel has joined
  57. stpeter For completeness, I posted to the members@ email list on these matters.
  58. kokonoe has left
  59. kokonoe has joined
  60. neshtaxmpp has left
  61. neshtaxmpp has joined
  62. Chobbes has left
  63. strypey has joined
  64. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  65. Daniel has left
  66. Daniel has joined
  67. strypey has left
  68. strypey has joined
  69. stpeter has left
  70. Daniel has left
  71. Daniel has joined
  72. adiaholic has joined
  73. waqas has joined
  74. andy has joined
  75. matkor has left
  76. matkor has joined
  77. strypey has left
  78. strypey has joined
  79. mukt2 has joined
  80. krauq has left
  81. krauq has joined
  82. mukt2 has left
  83. Nekit has joined
  84. Yagiza has joined
  85. strypey has left
  86. strypey has joined
  87. neshtaxmpp has left
  88. adiaholic has left
  89. adiaholic has joined
  90. waqas has left
  91. strypey has left
  92. strypey has joined
  93. karoshi has joined
  94. mimi89999 has left
  95. mimi89999 has joined
  96. neshtaxmpp has joined
  97. strypey has left
  98. strypey has joined
  99. mathijs has left
  100. mathijs has joined
  101. adiaholic has left
  102. Shell has joined
  103. Tobias has joined
  104. rainslide has joined
  105. Daniel has left
  106. strypey has left
  107. Shell has left
  108. rainslide has left
  109. adiaholic has joined
  110. Daniel has joined
  111. j.r has left
  112. wurstsalat has joined
  113. strypey has joined
  114. j.r has joined
  115. strypey has left
  116. rainslide has joined
  117. emus has joined
  118. mukt2 has joined
  119. eevvoor has joined
  120. rainslide has left
  121. rainslide has joined
  122. Daniel has left
  123. mukt2 has left
  124. mukt2 has joined
  125. rainslide has left
  126. Douglas Terabyte has left
  127. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  128. Daniel has joined
  129. debxwoody has left
  130. DebXWoody has joined
  131. remko has joined
  132. remko has left
  133. debxwoody has joined
  134. pdurbin has left
  135. debxwoody has left
  136. Douglas Terabyte has left
  137. marc_ has joined
  138. COM8 has joined
  139. COM8 has left
  140. COM8 has joined
  141. COM8 has left
  142. rainslide has joined
  143. COM8 has joined
  144. COM8 has left
  145. rainslide has left
  146. debacle has joined
  147. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  148. mukt2 has left
  149. COM8 has joined
  150. lskdjf has joined
  151. COM8 has left
  152. COM8 has joined
  153. COM8 has left
  154. kokonoe has left
  155. adiaholic has left
  156. kokonoe has joined
  157. COM8 has joined
  158. COM8 has left
  159. COM8 has joined
  160. COM8 has left
  161. COM8 has joined
  162. COM8 has left
  163. emus has left
  164. COM8 has joined
  165. COM8 has left
  166. mathijs has left
  167. mathijs has joined
  168. COM8 has joined
  169. COM8 has left
  170. COM8 has joined
  171. karoshi has left
  172. COM8 has left
  173. adiaholic has joined
  174. karoshi has joined
  175. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  176. COM8 has joined
  177. COM8 has left
  178. COM8 has joined
  179. mathijs has left
  180. mathijs has joined
  181. Steve Kille has left
  182. COM8 has left
  183. COM8 has joined
  184. marc_ has left
  185. Steve Kille has joined
  186. COM8 has left
  187. COM8 has joined
  188. debacle has left
  189. COM8 has left
  190. COM8 has joined
  191. mukt2 has joined
  192. COM8 has left
  193. aj has left
  194. mathijs has left
  195. mathijs has joined
  196. COM8 has joined
  197. COM8 has left
  198. rainslide has joined
  199. rainslide has left
  200. COM8 has joined
  201. COM8 has left
  202. COM8 has joined
  203. COM8 has left
  204. debxwoody has joined
  205. Dele (Mobile) has left
  206. debacle has joined
  207. COM8 has joined
  208. eevvoor has left
  209. mathijs has left
  210. mathijs has joined
  211. COM8 has left
  212. COM8 has joined
  213. COM8 has left
  214. COM8 has joined
  215. COM8 has left
  216. COM8 has joined
  217. COM8 has left
  218. remko has joined
  219. rion I don't quite understand latest changes related to oob. If I prefer to send data via SIMS should I also add oob data in the same stanza? What if I want to share multiple files at once, should I abandon oob at all?
  220. goffi has joined
  221. pdurbin has joined
  222. COM8 has joined
  223. lskdjf has left
  224. Daniel rion, in the compliance suite?
  225. COM8 has left
  226. rion Daniel: yep
  227. emus has joined
  228. Ge0rG rion: I don't think OOB forbids adding multiple elements
  229. Ge0rG rion: also you should be happy that the latest change demoted OOB and SIMS from required to noteworthy
  230. jubalh has joined
  231. Daniel i mean for one it doesn’t force you to do anything. i think nobody is argueing that oob doesn’t have problems. however multiple people also feel like sims isn’t ready yet. that's why a number of implementations are still on oob (a lot of them have signaled willingness to switch once sims is ready though). if you just want recommendations on what to do; i'd just send multiple messages for mulitple files for now
  232. rion I remember these talks a few days ago here about multiple OOBs. And honestly I don't remember what was the point of not doing this.
  233. Daniel note i'm not defending that this is the proper, ideal way to handle that. but for now it should give you the best compat with other implementations
  234. Daniel i really like what sims is trying to do. i really don’t like how it is doing that
  235. pdurbin has left
  236. rion Daniel: do you mean missing encryption for metadata?
  237. COM8 has joined
  238. Ge0rG Daniel: feel free to write a SIMS2 XEP that just defines a meta-data element with file_size, content_type, width, height, blurha_sh
  239. Daniel i mean we rightfully complain about about oob being weird hacky, under specified legacy crap. but i highly suspect that if we implement sims now in 2 years we will have the same feelings about references
  240. Ge0rG and that can be part of a message like OOB or attached-to a different message
  241. rainslide has joined
  242. Daniel rion, no. i'm worried about references
  243. Kev I don't think we need SIMS2, SIMS can just be updated can't it?
  244. Ge0rG Kev: shouldn't somebody™ update References first?
  245. Kev Daniel: I know references needs cleaning, particularly with the split into references/fastening, but in principle this is sane isn't it? You're trying to say that here we have a reference to some other resource that we're sending you and is treated as part of the current flow, which is all that References does (post-split), so it seems like the right application.
  246. Kev Ge0rG: Yes, ^
  247. Daniel i just want a sims that can be used stand alone. i’m ok with SIMS also being able to be used within a reference
  248. mathijs has left
  249. mathijs has joined
  250. rion as for me we still need to reference some text from sims. just to have the text for legacy clients while removing it for compliant. It works pretty well when this text has an http link for example (same link as in <source>), but in case of SIMS we remove the link and download one in <source> on our own with caching and checksum checking.
  251. Kev Daniel: Probably thinking of a different use case. What's the case for the 'stand alone' use?
  252. Ge0rG Kev: sending a single file as a message
  253. Daniel and when i mean stand alone i mean without referenceing a body
  254. Daniel i don’t care about the syntax
  255. Daniel just send a file without a body
  256. Kev Ah, so you still want it to be 'part of the conversation', just that there's no text attached?
  257. mathijs has left
  258. mathijs has joined
  259. Daniel yes
  260. Ge0rG rion: how should the UI for that work out? show just the message, with an underlined link, and when you click the link it will open a popup with the media file?
  261. Kev So just https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0385.html#usecases-sending-photo Example 1 without the <body/> would do for your case Daniel?
  262. Ge0rG Kev: in that case, wrapping it in <reference> doesn't make any sense
  263. Daniel Kev, yes. but then there is no reference.
  264. Zash Or cry a tear of backwards compat and stick some fallback text there?
  265. Daniel because what is begin and end refering to?
  266. Daniel and you can’t have a reference without those attributes
  267. Ge0rG Daniel: are there any open issues with SIMS that won't be solved by making <media-sharing> a direct child of <message>?
  268. Zash Implied entire <body>?
  269. Daniel i mean i don’t really care about the syntax. but semantically it doesn’t make sense
  270. Daniel Ge0rG, not that i'm aware of
  271. Daniel and yes media-share as a direct child of message is kinda what i'm talking about when i say i want it stand alone
  272. Ge0rG Speaking of semantics. You will want <body> to contain the original URL for legacy clients.
  273. mathijs has left
  274. Ge0rG But then you also need a mechanism to tell modern clients that it can remove all of the body.
  275. mathijs has joined
  276. Daniel Ge0rG, yes. but then the reference thing becomes more problematic
  277. Daniel because of what you just said
  278. rion Ge0rG: kind of. for images/audio messeges I show the media directly (picture/player) right in the log. for other files I think to show a special button with file name and context menu to download/save us/etc. all the SIMS links are removed from body. remaining text is preserved as a description
  279. Ge0rG Daniel: just the opposite. Let me draft an XML example.
  280. Ge0rG <message to='julient@shakespeare.lit' from='romeo@montague.lit'> <body>https://download.montague.lit/4a771ac1-f0b2-4a4a-9700-f2a26fa2bb67/summit.jpg</body> <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' begin='0' end='77' type='data'> <media-sharing xmlns='urn:xmpp:sims:1'> <!-- stripped meta data --> <sources> <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' type='data' uri='https://download.montague.lit/4a771ac1-f0b2-4a4a-9700-f2a26fa2bb67/summit.jpg' /> </sources> </media-sharing> </reference> </message>
  281. Ge0rG Daniel: make the reference reference the full body, that way a modern client will just replace the full body with the inline image
  282. Daniel Ge0rG, where is it encoded that the body is just a fallback
  283. Daniel and not a 'link' to show the image
  284. Daniel like in example 1 of sims
  285. Ge0rG We just need to mandate that in the XEP
  286. Ge0rG that example doesn't make sense in that regard
  287. Ge0rG maybe we need a new reference type / mode, "replace"
  288. Daniel so when ever i reference the entire body it's a fallback?
  289. rion s/all the SIMS links are removed from body/replaced with media elements/
  290. Daniel when i reference just 90% of the body it's a link?
  291. Daniel also that link usecase is super weird
  292. Ge0rG rion: do you replace the referenced text with an inline representation of the media?
  293. Ge0rG Daniel: I agree
  294. Daniel who is going to enter that as a user like that
  295. rion Ge0rG: yes
  296. Daniel how would the ui even look like
  297. Ge0rG Daniel: the only UI that makes sense is not to use link text but to place the media inline
  298. Daniel so it will be rendered as "Look at the nice [picture] from the summit?"
  299. Ge0rG <message to='julient@shakespeare.lit' from='romeo@montague.lit'> <body>Look at this nice view! https://download.montague.lit/4a771ac1-f0b2-4a4a-9700-f2a26fa2bb67/summit.jpg</body> <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' begin='24' end='101' type='data'> <media-sharing xmlns='urn:xmpp:sims:1'> <!-- stripped meta data --> <sources> <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' type='data' uri='https://download.montague.lit/4a771ac1-f0b2-4a4a-9700-f2a26fa2bb67/summit.jpg' /> </sources> </media-sharing> </reference> </message>
  300. Daniel wtf?
  301. Ge0rG > Look at this nice view! [Image]
  302. Kev Daniel: My thought in this case was that you would have a body that was http://picture, and the reference would be the full body, and the media-sharing would cover the metadata.
  303. Daniel that's not what the examples says
  304. Ge0rG Daniel: yes, the example doesn't make sense.
  305. Ge0rG (am I repeating myself)
  306. Ge0rG I mean, there is "Inline" in SIMS
  307. kokonoe has left
  308. Daniel Ge0rG, in your example will it be mandated that the text you are 'linking' must be an url?
  309. Ge0rG Daniel: no. I would just recommend that, and mandate that the referenced part of the body, whatever it is, will be replaced by the media element
  310. Ge0rG Daniel: making it an URL makes sense for legacy clients, if you use HTTP Upload
  311. Daniel > Daniel: My thought in this case was that you would have a body that was http://picture, and the reference would be the full body, and the media-sharing would cover the metadata. i’m generally fine with that approach. but if the same xep also allows hot linking like in the example i need to somehow discover which it is going to be
  312. kokonoe has joined
  313. aj has joined
  314. Ge0rG if you use JFT, it would be something like "[the file I just shared]"
  315. Ge0rG Daniel: looks like everybody here agrees that hot-linking doesn't make sense
  316. Daniel so we agree that the xep isn’t ready yet?
  317. Daniel that's all i said
  318. Ge0rG Daniel: we've just gone beyond that, by identifying what needs to be changed: - mandate that the referenced text is replaced by the inline media. Done.
  319. COM8 has left
  320. Ge0rG + recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text
  321. Kev I don't think there's any need to mandate that bit of the UI, is there? Just to describe what the semantics of the referenced text are.
  322. Kev A client can then choose how to render it.
  323. Daniel > + recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text that too
  324. Ge0rG Kev: oh god no.
  325. rion > mandate that the referenced text is replaced by the inline media. Done PR?
  326. MattJ Kev, what are the client's other options in your mind?
  327. MattJ I don't like open-choice standards
  328. Kev To show the message, including the link, with the image below it, for example.
  329. Daniel are references going to be used somewhere else? or is references only going to be used for sims where it is (imho) 'ok' but not really ideal to use
  330. Kev A la Slack, Discord etc.
  331. MattJ We've had a fair few of them, and we either ended up tightening them or it just became a mess or people adopted de-facto standards
  332. Kev MattJ: I think mandating UI behaviour in protocol standards is usually not right. It's not needed for interop.
  333. Kev It needs to be clear what the semantics of the protocol are, definitely, and it's currently not, but exactly where on the screen an image is rendered isn't needed here, I think.
  334. MattJ In this case the semantics are clear - the text is a fallback for the media
  335. Kev Ah. I don't agree there.
  336. Kev It's more than a fallback when it's the URI identifying the media.
  337. Daniel also did we cover rions mulitple files use case yet?
  338. Kev You might click it to open it in your browser, for example, or copy it to share with someone else.
  339. Kev Unfortunately, I can't keep going with this right now, have other work, but could we take this on list and I'll try to chime in later (and maybe see if Tobi has cycles to update SIMS with the outcomes).
  340. Ge0rG Kev: if we define the semantics as "the referenced text is supposed to be replaced by the media", I would agree.
  341. Ge0rG Kev: if we define the semantics as "this could be a URL, a link text or the verbatim string 'yaddayadda'", then good luck
  342. LNJ has joined
  343. rainslide has left
  344. rainslide has joined
  345. rainslide has left
  346. DebXWoody has left
  347. rainslide has joined
  348. lskdjf has joined
  349. karoshi has left
  350. karoshi has joined
  351. rainslide has left
  352. Syndace has left
  353. pdurbin has joined
  354. pdurbin has left
  355. kokonoe has left
  356. pep. dwd, "and that moreover we avoid doing this kind of thing if at all possible", I don't like resolutions that say "we should avoid doing this" when the alternative is not clear either. that means everybody is afraid and nothing ever changes
  357. pep. I guess we can add another agenda item yo clarify this :)
  358. pep. I guess we can add another agenda item to clarify this :)
  359. Ge0rG dwd: very nice Special Meeting Agenda mail! 👍
  360. kokonoe has joined
  361. karoshi has left
  362. karoshi has joined
  363. mukt2 has left
  364. kokonoe has left
  365. mukt2 has joined
  366. kokonoe has joined
  367. mathijs has left
  368. mathijs has joined
  369. mathijs has left
  370. mathijs has joined
  371. kokonoe has left
  372. kokonoe has joined
  373. mukt2 has left
  374. strypey has joined
  375. strypey has left
  376. DebXWoody has joined
  377. mukt2 has joined
  378. adiaholic has left
  379. adiaholic has joined
  380. mukt2 has left
  381. remko has left
  382. gav has left
  383. adiaholic has left
  384. gav has joined
  385. adiaholic has joined
  386. mukt2 has joined
  387. kokonoe has left
  388. kokonoe has joined
  389. adiaholic has left
  390. mukt2 has left
  391. mukt2 has joined
  392. adiaholic has joined
  393. stpeter has joined
  394. jubalh has left
  395. Syndace has joined
  396. Chobbes has joined
  397. stpeter has left
  398. mukt2 has left
  399. mukt2 has joined
  400. marc_ has joined
  401. mukt2 has left
  402. mukt2 has joined
  403. mukt2 has left
  404. MattJ I managed to double-book myself (thank DST) and I won't be able to make the board meeting today, sorry!
  405. Seve We will miss you <3
  406. pep. In 0158, what does "An entity MUST NOT send a challenge stanza under any other circumstances." mean? knowing that "Upon receiving a triggering stanza, an entity MAY send a "challenge stanza"" is already subjective (somebody might say a stanza is concidered as triggering, somebody else not)
  407. pep. §3.1.2
  408. pep. I'm mostly curious about the usefulness of the MUST NOT
  409. pep. Also still §3.1.2, "The 'xml:lang' attribute of the challenge stanza SHOULD be the same as the one received from the sender, if any.", there is always an xml:lang attribute (if not on the captcha element or message, on the stream)
  410. krauq has left
  411. Guus Fellow board members: I'm faced with an emergency at work, and can't attend the meeting.
  412. Chobbes has left
  413. nyco no worries
  414. nyco time
  415. Seve time is it
  416. nyco ok... :)
  417. Seve ralphm, are you around?
  418. Seve (Maybe we are not enough)
  419. ralphm I'm at a company event all week, as mentioned last week. Sorry!
  420. Seve Ohh right
  421. Seve my bad
  422. nyco so no quorum
  423. andy has left
  424. Seve Then I will say just thanks nyco for the newsletter!
  425. nyco welcome, not finished though
  426. andy has joined
  427. mukt2 has joined
  428. pdurbin has joined
  429. krauq has joined
  430. mukt2 has left
  431. strypey has joined
  432. mukt2 has joined
  433. pdurbin has left
  434. Chobbes has joined
  435. jubalh has joined
  436. Chobbes has left
  437. Chobbes has joined
  438. mukt2 has left
  439. lovetox has joined
  440. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  441. adiaholic has left
  442. adiaholic has joined
  443. mukt2 has joined
  444. mukt2 has left
  445. Chobbes has left
  446. mukt2 has joined
  447. Chobbes has joined
  448. strypey has left
  449. mukt2 has left
  450. strypey has joined
  451. mukt2 has joined
  452. david has left
  453. david has joined
  454. neshtaxmpp has left
  455. David Cridland has joined
  456. David Cridland has left
  457. neshtaxmpp has joined
  458. David Cridland has joined
  459. strypey has left
  460. jubalh has left
  461. Ge0rG Kev: you should work on making your statements less British and more understandable... re "I think we need to either not be introducing voting items that people effectively can’t vote in"
  462. Kev Summary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.
  463. patrick has joined
  464. nyco that's a general problem, if you allow me given the diversity of our community, we should all be responsible for understandable communication using a simple English form helps
  465. Kev It's a general problem, but from what people keep saying I'm the worst offender.
  466. jonas’ something about hithertofore
  467. Zash jonas’, that word made me retroactively confused about everything said in the last hour
  468. Kev hitherto is one of the few unhelpful words that I /don't/ use, I think.
  469. emus has left
  470. Kev I do try, when I remember, I just often forget.
  471. Kev (And I like the way I speak :( )
  472. pep. "Kev> Summary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.", I agree
  473. emus has joined
  474. pep. To me what dwd says rings an alarm anyway, it means there's no appropriate process in place if we're trying to workaround bylaws.
  475. Dele (Mobile) has left
  476. waqas has joined
  477. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  478. waqas has left
  479. !XSF_Martin has left
  480. !XSF_Martin has joined
  481. Dele (Mobile) has left
  482. David Cridland To quote Kev, I do not disagree.
  483. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  484. MattJ Neither me also
  485. pep. British and their fancy language
  486. David Cridland FWIW, it was useful that one time to have an escape hatch. What had happened was that we'd had a tie in voting for Board, and we had no method available to resolve the tie. Our solution was to use the meeting to reduce the Board positions, so the tie was irrelevant, and then by the next meeting we'd worked on a long-term fix for that problem in the bylaws.
  487. mukt2 has left
  488. Dele (Mobile) has left
  489. winfried has left
  490. winfried has joined
  491. emus has left
  492. winfried has left
  493. winfried has joined
  494. Maranda has left
  495. Maranda has joined
  496. pep. David Cridland, Kev, maybe this needs to be brought as an agenda item for the next annual meeting? :-°
  497. winfried has left
  498. winfried has joined
  499. winfried has left
  500. winfried has joined
  501. lovetox has left
  502. Zash Bylaws overhaul?
  503. pep. Well we have identified a problem
  504. lovetox has joined
  505. pep. When I tried to correct a typo..
  506. pep. So yeah
  507. adiaholic has left
  508. pep. The process is unclear an definitely not used often enough :)
  509. ralphm well, I think that is a bit strong
  510. pep. The process is unclear and definitely not used often enough :)
  511. David Cridland In fairness, it's the kind of process we shouldn't be using opften at all.
  512. pep. David Cridland: why not?
  513. David Cridland Changing our bylaws?
  514. ralphm I agree
  515. pep. Tbh, bylaws are quite hard to read. I'd be happy yo have a more understandable language being used
  516. lovetox has left
  517. lovetox has joined
  518. mathijs has left
  519. mathijs has joined
  520. Zash pep., legalese tho
  521. pep. Sure, we can get that reviewed
  522. Zash Bylaws /should/ be hard to change, so that you don't accidentally let something bad trough.
  523. pep. I disagree
  524. winfried has left
  525. pep. With the "should be hard to change"
  526. winfried has joined
  527. ralphm I personally believe that your particular changes aren't pressing enough to be classified as a problem.
  528. pep. These bylaws have obviously not been written for this era with all the "in writing" appearing in there
  529. pep. ralphm: surr
  530. ralphm If the Secretary is willing to accept e-mails over handwritten letters as
  531. pep. ralphm: sure
  532. ralphm 'writing', and there's an actual meeting subsequentially, that's perfectly fine.
  533. Zash I'm personally wondering if it's not too easy to change the bylaws.
  534. krauq has left
  535. ralphm Zash: well, the corporation == the body ofmembers. If there's a majority for a change, you can change things.
  536. pep. Zash: dunno about that. Maybe member quorum can be changed to more members or sth.
  537. pep. Majority of 1/3 does seem low
  538. pdurbin has joined
  539. ralphm That's a valid point. I dont' remember why that number was chosen.
  540. Zash I'd find it more normal to require 2/3 majority on two consecutive members meetings.
  541. ralphm Well, we're not writing the Constitution here.
  542. Zash ralphm: It's kinda standard for random gameing associations here.
  543. Zash Random non-profit organizations for any purpsoe even
  544. Kev I think there is a problem here that it is worth solving, and I think that problem is that it's unclear how items can be added to an agenda for a meeting, and who is eligible to vote on them.
  545. ralphm I think that our Bylaws actually require Board to suggest changes, which then have to be approved by the membership.
  546. Kev I think the other concerns are secondary, really.
  547. j.r has left
  548. patrick has left
  549. j.r has joined
  550. ralphm So before changing things you need a willing Board. If you don't currently have one, you need to follow procedures to fix that first.
  551. Kev But Ralph is right that only the Board can change the Bylaws.
  552. waqas has joined
  553. ralphm Zash: does that give you more assurance?
  554. Kev (And need the members approval)
  555. moparisthebest that's not at all what dwd said yesterday
  556. Kev And that couldn't happen e.g. during a members meeting, because of periods of notice for Board meetings.
  557. David Cridland You might find, BTW, that the "in writing" bits result from Delaware law.
  558. waqas has left
  559. ralphm deposing board is not necessarily easy
  560. Zash ralphm: Some, as long as Board can't do it without support from the Members
  561. ralphm David Cridland: ah yes. So this may apply: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c012a/index.shtml
  562. ralphm Zash: it can't
  563. Zash Good
  564. David Cridland ralphm, Probably. Delaware Corporation law is notoriously loose - it's why so many companies are incorporated there - but it probably has various constraints.
  565. ralphm David Cridland: particularly § 12A-107, so arguably we don't need pep.'s change
  566. waqas has joined
  567. David Cridland Ah, good spot.
  568. waqas has left
  569. ralphm And there are similar provisions in Dutch law, and I'm sure in most other modern jurisdictions.
  570. Yagiza has left
  571. pdurbin has left
  572. stpeter has joined
  573. Nekit has left
  574. emus has joined
  575. mukt2 has joined
  576. ralphm pep.: I reviewed both changes, and consider them unneeded.
  577. ralphm (and recorded that on the respective PRs)
  578. Kev Well, one's possibly unneeded, the other is wrong, isn't it? Having just checked the typo one myself.
  579. ralphm proviso is just a word that means what it is supposed to
  580. Kev Right - I mean that changing it to provision isn't simply unneeded, it isn't the right word for the intention there.
  581. Kev I've done the negatives thing again, haven't I.
  582. Kev "provision is the wrong word"
  583. mukt2 has left
  584. pep. Ok, so the typo is not a typo. Now how many members do need to say the other is unneeded for it to be unneeded
  585. Kev None.
  586. pep. They can only say so during a vote, no?
  587. Kev It's Board, not the members, you need to take this to.
  588. pep. Why
  589. Kev Because that's what the Bylaws require.
  590. Kev The Board makes changes to the bylaws, with the Members' approval.
  591. jubalh has joined
  592. pep. Members can override this right?
  593. Kev I don't see where the Bylaws say that - which bit are you looking at?
  594. pep. I'm not at the moment
  595. pep. If so, that is missing, IMO. I don't want one person to be able to veto everything going through
  596. jubalh has left
  597. Kev Where's the veto coming from?
  598. Kev I don't see that bit, either.
  599. ralphm You can initiate the removal of a board member
  600. ralphm Or all of them.
  601. pep. Kev: ok I read ralphm's message above too fast
  602. ralphm The power is ultimately still with the membership.
  603. mathijs has left
  604. mathijs has joined
  605. Zash Removing all of them via new elections or just rm -rf board/ ?
  606. Steve Kille has left
  607. Kev Either can be done by the Members.
  608. jubalh has joined
  609. pep. Imo bylaws would be members matters and board here only to address daily business, not block members from changing bylaws (which is what I understand with "So before changing things you need a willing Board. If you don't currently have one, you need to follow procedures to fix that first.")
  610. Kev Well, Board are the legal custodians of the XSF (which is a legal entity). Any change to the Bylaws needs to be legally valid, so having the Board as the keepers of such changes (with the proviso that they can't make changes the Members don't like) seems right to me.
  611. Steve Kille has joined
  612. mukt2 has joined
  613. pep. I'm not saying that's not what it is currently
  614. Kev What you desperately don't want (must not have) is a subset of the Members, probably well-meaning, making some mistaken edits to the Bylaws that are in some way mistaken.
  615. Kev And if you remove Board from the equation that's what you get.
  616. Kev Now, Board could propose 'bad' changes to the Bylaws too, but they're the ones who're legally responsible for it, so at least it's on their heads.
  617. pep. Kev: which is why I would increase member quorum, rather than leaving this to 5 (potentially non-)members
  618. Kev But this isn't left to 5.
  619. Zash Kev, maybe that's why it's common to have two readings of changes to the bylaws here.
  620. Kev Zash: There's two for the XSF too, essentially. One is that the Board must approve the change, then the Members must also approve it.
  621. pep. Kev: ok. My original point was that I don't want board blocking changes
  622. Zash Also usually any (member?) usually get to propose any changes to any document.
  623. Zash Works I suppose
  624. debxwoody has left
  625. Zash Kinda like how the govt proposes laws and parliment votes on them
  626. Kev Zash: Well, I don't think that Board are going to refuse to consider a change brought forward by Members (and if Board do start refusing to listen to Members, Members have a mechanism for removing them).
  627. pep. Kev: in any case I agree with you that the way to propose agenda items should be clarified.
  628. moparisthebest could a proposed vote be something like "Fire current board. Amend bylaws to do X. Rehire current board." ? then members could just vote on that themselves?
  629. Kev moparisthebest: No, because the Board must make the change to the Bylaws"
  630. Kev If you fire the Board you need a new one before that can happen.
  631. Zash Which is in a way also two votes by members, first for a Board positive to the change, then for the change itself
  632. moparisthebest "Fire current board. Hire Y as board providing they immediatly amend bylaws to do X. Fire Y. Rehire current board."
  633. jubalh has left
  634. Kev They can't *immediately* amend the Bylaws.
  635. waqas has joined
  636. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  637. moparisthebest if they are all in the meeting they can't?
  638. Kev No.
  639. pep. *providing they agree with our bylaws change
  640. Kev I suggest, possibly unreasonably, that everyone currently proposing that we change our Bylaws in some way, goes away and reads the Bylaws first.
  641. Zash Can I request them in writing? 😛
  642. pep. When I was saying bylaws are not easy to understand..
  643. larma Kev, not sure how these things work in Delaware law, but usually the members can instruct the board to do specific things.
  644. Kev You may request many things in writing, as stated in the Bylaws :p
  645. ralphm I feel this discussion is what you get when software developers think legal documents are like code.
  646. larma Also bylaws are just bylaws, laws override them, so even if bylaws now say members can't do anything, it's just factually not true
  647. Kev larma: I think we're a long way off anything that would require the Members to get into a legal battle with the Board.
  648. ralphm I don't think there's an actual problem here and we're talking a many hypotheticals.
  649. Kev ralphm: I think there *is* a problem here, it's just not the one being discussed.
  650. pep. ralphm: ask lawyers to volunteer under a legal working group at the xsf?
  651. ralphm Hah
  652. ralphm pep.: To solve what?
  653. moparisthebest that probably happens when approx 100% of the members are software developers :) I know I'm guilty
  654. Kev The problem, I think, being that it's not clear how to get something onto the Agenda, and who then votes on it :)
  655. ralphm A legal team *wrote* this text.
  656. pep. I also think there is a problem, and I'm happy to retract both of my items for the one Kev is talking about
  657. Dele (Mobile) has left
  658. pep. Which tbh, was mostly what was I was expecting from all this. To figure out how to do it
  659. ralphm A good first step is: ask Board.
  660. Kev I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that it's possible to interpret the Bylaws such that a single person could, in the perfect storm, vote on something on behalf of all Members.
  661. Zash Legal team gonna legalese
  662. ralphm Or, if you want to bypass them, ask the Secretary.
  663. Kev (Which Dave's (a) reading leads to, I think)
  664. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  665. ralphm Kev: yes, I think that notion is false.
  666. Kev ralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would do, if it came to it.
  667. Kev ralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would go, if it came to it.
  668. ralphm Intent is the most important thing in legal terms.
  669. Zash While y'all are reading the Bylaws, is there anything in there that would prevent someone from being a member without their name being public?
  670. Kev That is, I don't agree with Dave's (a), but I don't think it's a completely unreasonable reading, either.
  671. Zash IIRC this came up last Summit
  672. ralphm Memberbot clearly lets you proxy specific *votes*, not a carte blanche to represent members in new matters.
  673. Kev Indeed.
  674. pep. Zash: I don't think so? And if required I'm sure only the secretary could be told
  675. Kev But I think Dave's (a) was that once you have cast your vote, you have left the meeting, and then the remaining members present could as quorum. So if only on member remained, a majority of that 1 could vote.
  676. Kev What I think I'd like to see Board (new, presumably) tackle is proposing a change to Bylaws simply that the items for vote at a meeting must be announced X in advance.
  677. ralphm I don't read it that way, per my email.
  678. Kev Which would mean that anyone proxy voting can be represented, and all is good, with minimal change to our process or bylaws.
  679. stpeter +1
  680. Zash pep., yeah, practically, only the secretary needs to know. As long as the secretary can't just make up a bunch of sock puppets and take over the world
  681. ralphm Kev: makes sense
  682. zach has left
  683. ralphm stpeter: hi!
  684. pep. Zash: we already trust the secretary with our proxy votes
  685. larma Actually the laws also only require the secretary to know
  686. emus has left
  687. kokonoe has left
  688. larma §6.7 The Secretary shall have general charge of the membership records of the Corporation and shall keep, at the principal office of the Corporation, a record of the Members showing the name, address, telephone number, facsimile number and electronic mail address of each Member.
  689. Seve Kev: I agree
  690. larma I wonder where the secretary got my phone and facsimile number from?
  691. Kev larma: Except that members can request those records, IIRC. (That's from memory, I haven't checked)
  692. stpeter In practice we have never gathered that information, nor have we gathered physical address.
  693. Kev stpeter: Probably we should either start, or amend the Bylaws.
  694. moparisthebest maybe the secretary is just extremely good at doxing people
  695. pep. I say amend.
  696. stpeter Kev: yes, amend.
  697. Kev I think start. I don't see why every Member shouldn't be required to have a fax number.
  698. ralphm Surprising 🤣
  699. pep. Kev, :)
  700. stpeter I have to say, this conversation includes wild speculation and some unnecessarily harsh language.
  701. mukt2 has left
  702. pep. stpeter, if the world was all flowers and rainbows..
  703. stpeter At least append jokey emojis if you're not serious about some of the claims and assertions here. No one, for instance, is doxing anyone.
  704. ralphm stpeter: quite
  705. stpeter Doxing is a violent act, in my opinion.
  706. pep. (I don't even know what that means.. /me looking for his translator)
  707. mukt2 has joined
  708. pep. oh
  709. ralphm The act of researching a person and expose private details, like address, phone...
  710. pep. I took that as a joke anyway
  711. larma Kev, even if members can request that records, they cannot publish them. And given the bylaws I think it should be possible to be elected as a member without publishing your private data, which we currently require. This could even get us into problems as there is no good reason to require this data to be published
  712. moparisthebest oh sorry I meant the doxing comment as a joke :)
  713. stpeter In general, yes, we should review the bylaws to ensure that they are consistent with our existing practices (and of course Delaware law).
  714. stpeter moparisthebest: thanks for the clarification.
  715. debxwoody has joined
  716. stpeter We once had someone ("Solarius") who applied to be a member without providing their real name. We'd discussed this matter before.
  717. larma stpeter, consider that not only Delaware law applies. As we have EU citizin members, some EU laws also apply (at least for those members)
  718. pep. stpeter, it's come up again when passing 345 to draft. (Which is still isn't. slack off editors.)
  719. Kev larma: The Board did go through a GDPR exercise at the time. So what we have now is considered reasonable by the Board (or at least the Board at that time).
  720. stpeter EU law does not govern the operation of the Foundation's articles of incorporation and bylaws per se, of course, because the Foundation is legally domiciled in Delaware. That doesn't mean EU doesn't apply in some respects to data the Foundation gathers.
  721. Kev Right.
  722. stpeter is off to another meeting
  723. Kev Enjoy! :)
  724. pep. (not?)
  725. larma Some EU laws apply if the organization is actively operating in EU, and that is obviously the case.
  726. zach has joined
  727. sonny has left
  728. Kev larma: I think what Peter was saying (mansplaining because he's not here now, rather than because he can't talk for himself) was that the EU laws don't apply to the bylaws. They apply to the XSF's interaction with the EU folks.
  729. stpeter Correct.
  730. eevvoor has joined
  731. larma Yeah, but we should better make sure the bylaws don't effectively prohibit the XSF to interact with EU folks 😉
  732. Dele (Mobile) has left
  733. Kev Yes.
  734. larma I don't think they do, whereas our current implementation might
  735. mukt2 has left
  736. Zash IANAL and I don't remember all the GDPR by heart but surely a members based organization must be able to keep a record of members
  737. mukt2 has joined
  738. larma Zash, it's not about keeping records, it's about publishing them
  739. debacle has left
  740. sonny has joined
  741. mukt2 has left
  742. j.r has left
  743. Chobbes has left
  744. mukt2 has joined
  745. sonny has left
  746. sonny has joined
  747. j.r has joined
  748. kokonoe has joined
  749. mukt2 has left
  750. mukt2 has joined
  751. marc_ has left
  752. waqas has left
  753. pdurbin has joined
  754. mukt2 has left
  755. mukt2 has joined
  756. Nekit has joined
  757. pdurbin has left
  758. mukt2 has left
  759. mukt2 has joined
  760. aj has left
  761. krauq has joined
  762. mukt2 has left
  763. mukt2 has joined
  764. rion has left
  765. rion has joined
  766. marc_ has joined
  767. kokonoe has left
  768. mukt2 has left
  769. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  770. Dele (Mobile) has left
  771. mukt2 has joined
  772. stpeter has left
  773. Douglas Terabyte has left
  774. kokonoe has joined
  775. mukt2 has left
  776. Chobbes has joined
  777. mukt2 has joined
  778. mathijs has left
  779. mathijs has joined
  780. mathijs has left
  781. mathijs has joined
  782. DebXWoody has left
  783. DebXWoody has joined
  784. mukt2 has left
  785. LNJ has left
  786. mathijs has left
  787. mathijs has joined
  788. mukt2 has joined
  789. Nekit has left
  790. waqas has joined
  791. waqas has left
  792. waqas has joined
  793. waqas has left
  794. waqas has joined
  795. waqas has left
  796. waqas has joined
  797. waqas has left
  798. eevvoor has left
  799. pdurbin has joined
  800. waqas has joined
  801. pdurbin has left
  802. Maranda has left
  803. Maranda has joined
  804. Chobbes has left
  805. Chobbes has joined
  806. stpeter has joined
  807. DebXWoody has left
  808. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  809. Dele (Mobile) has left
  810. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  811. alameyo has left
  812. alameyo has joined
  813. mukt2 has left
  814. debacle has joined
  815. mukt2 has joined
  816. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  817. Dele (Mobile) has left
  818. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  819. Dele (Mobile) has left
  820. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  821. Douglas Terabyte has left
  822. mukt2 has left
  823. mukt2 has joined
  824. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  825. Chobbes has left
  826. Chobbes has joined
  827. matkor has left
  828. matkor has joined
  829. debacle has left
  830. mimi89999 has left
  831. mimi89999 has joined
  832. mukt2 has left
  833. wurstsalat has left
  834. mukt2 has joined
  835. lovetox has left
  836. goffi has left
  837. Dele (Mobile) has left
  838. kokonoe has left
  839. karoshi has left
  840. kokonoe has joined
  841. marc_ has left
  842. Tobias has left
  843. andy has left
  844. Zash has left
  845. kokonoe has left