XSF Editor Team - 2014-03-18

  1. m&m

    T -10 minutes

  2. winfried

    Have to leave in T -5 min :-(

  3. m&m

    boo! )-:

  4. winfried

    good meeting & CU!

  5. Steffen Larsen


  6. Steffen Larsen

    wasn't it now?

  7. Lloyd


  8. Steffen Larsen

    ohhh ok

  9. Steffen Larsen


  10. m&m

    in 2 minutes

  11. m&m

    16:00 UTC

  12. m&m

    ding ding ding!

  13. m&m

    we're missing Winfried with apologies, everyone else here?

  14. Lloyd


  15. Steffen Larsen

    ding dong

  16. Ash

    Hello all!

  17. m&m

    just pinged him

  18. Steffen Larsen

    Hi Ash

  19. m&m

    well, I think we have quorum

  20. Steffen Larsen


  21. m&m

    I should have pushed out an agenda earlier

  22. m&m

    0) Roll Call

  23. m&m

    already have that determined

  24. m&m

    1) Status on Automation Options

  25. m&m

    Lloyd or Ash?

  26. stpeter


  27. Ash

    I think Lloyd was looking at that

  28. Steffen Larsen

    Hi Stefan

  29. zeank@jwchat.org

    hey ho :)

  30. Steffen Larsen

    Hi StPeter

  31. stpeter

    forgot to log into this account

  32. m&m


  33. m&m

    Lloyd: any updates yet on automation options

  34. m&m


  35. Lloyd

    With apologies, I haven't made much progress, I have scribbled notes but nothing worth sharing yet. Its our very busy time at Surevine and I've been snowed under with other projects too.

  36. m&m

    Lloyd: completely understand

  37. Steffen Larsen

    Lloyd: if I can give a hand.. just reach out with your ideas

  38. Ash

    It's coming up to the end of the financial year in the UK, so we're always busy around this time!

  39. m&m

    I might send along some of my personal musings for you all to ridicule and marginalize (-:

  40. Lloyd

    Basic plan is/has been to outline what we can automate, suitable methods of automation. I plan on sharing notes with Steffen Larsen and getting something together properly.

  41. Steffen Larsen


  42. m&m


  43. Lloyd

    Intend to share early and build upon it rather than get something concrete first.

  44. m&m

    is it worthwhile to pester you next week about it?

  45. Lloyd

    m&m: would be great to have as well.

  46. Steffen Larsen

    fail first is best. :-)

  47. Lloyd

    I'm good at failing first.

  48. m&m


  49. Steffen Larsen

    he he

  50. Lloyd

    m&m please keep pestering, I can always ignore you :)

  51. m&m


  52. m&m

    ok, since there's nothing else on automation ...

  53. m&m

    2) outstanding work

  54. m&m

    I think I've gotten all of the requests for ProtoXEPs and Experimental updates out last week, plus BOSH

  55. m&m

    anyone see anything else come in?

  56. zeank@jwchat.org

    \o/ :)

  57. stpeter

    yes, good work m&m!

  58. m&m

    I'm trying! (-:

  59. Lloyd


  60. Steffen Larsen

    noo I dont think so. But somethines its hard to seperate stuff on the editor list. But great work m&m!

  61. stpeter

    BTW I have been adding XEP authors to the "accepts" list in mailman - makes it easier to sort through all the spam in the queue

  62. m&m


  63. m&m

    thanks for that, stpeter

  64. Steffen Larsen


  65. m&m

    and I'm relying on those with list admin privs to help sort the other wheat from chaff

  66. m&m

    I think that includes Winfried and Steffan?

  67. m&m

    did you guys get admin access to at least editor@ yet?

  68. m&m notes to ask Winfried separately

  69. zeank@jwchat.org nods

  70. Steffen Larsen

    need to create key!

  71. m&m

    er, Stefan

  72. Steffen Larsen

    any requirements for the ssh key?

  73. m&m

    one "f", not two

  74. m&m


  75. stpeter

    I think it's only me, m&m, and zeank who have list admin privs

  76. m&m


  77. zeank@jwchat.org

    maybe stupid question but why would it be so hard to put a spamfilter in between?

  78. m&m

    I think Winfried volunteered to help with moderating there, too

  79. stpeter

    zeank@jwchat.org: yes, we're thinking about that too :-)

  80. m&m

    and that's a task for the i-team to work on, with whatever approvals they need from the Board

  81. stpeter

    I suppose we could do that just for the editor@ address instead of for the entire mailman install? not sure

  82. m&m

    they are aware of the issues, though

  83. m&m

    stpeter: possibly, since this list is the one with the most impact

  84. stpeter

    all the other lists require subscription in order to post

  85. m&m


  86. m&m

    this is the only one that wants looser posting privs

  87. m&m


  88. stpeter


  89. m&m

    alright, since there's nothing else on actual editor work outstanding ...

  90. m&m

    3) Next Meeting

  91. m&m

    I personally find a short weekly meeting worthwhile, so lets assume we have something next week

  92. Ash


  93. m&m

    same time, or do we want earlier?

  94. Steffen Larsen

    hhmm I need to get home from work

  95. m&m

    16:00 UTC is now 10:00 my time

  96. Steffen Larsen

    so 16UTC is fine for me :-)

  97. m&m

    I know it switches in a couple of weeks for the rest of you

  98. stpeter

    although not for too much longer I suppose

  99. zeank@jwchat.org


  100. m&m

    well, let's plan on 16:00 UTC for next week, and discuss a possible change when Daylight Savings hits (most of) the rest of the world

  101. zeank@jwchat.org


  102. Ash

    Add that to next week's agenda

  103. stpeter


  104. m&m

    will do

  105. Ash

    Will probably affect the council and board too

  106. Lloyd

    sounds good

  107. m&m

    4) Any Other Business

  108. m&m

    I assumed everything else was stuff we talked about last week, so wasn't a surprise for the unannounced agenda (-:

  109. m&m

    I have an AOB

  110. stpeter

    go for it

  111. m&m

    When it comes to accepting patches

  112. m&m

    one request came from a non-author, and one came without an actual patch file

  113. m&m

    for the non-author, I asked the listed authors if it was ok to accept the patches (and it was)

  114. m&m

    I think that's a reasonable requirement, but it's not documented anywhere that I could see

  115. Ash

    There are some interesting potential issues with that. What if we can't contact any xep authors?

  116. stpeter

    side topic: if the person sent large patches, why not make that person an author?

  117. m&m

    so, my question on this one is — should we update -0143 to be clearer on this?

  118. m&m

    stpeter: I asked the original author that, and he was reluctant

  119. Steffen Larsen

    heh difficult question

  120. m&m

    it is

  121. stpeter

    m&m: I had the same experience before with that spec or a related one, and it strikes me as odd

  122. m&m

    I figured

  123. m&m

    on one hand, adding this person as an author would streamline our process and ease my ethical compass

  124. m&m

    and the owner of the work is the XSF, not the author

  125. m&m

    on the other, I don't want to scare serious contributors off by making (seemingly) arbitrary changes

  126. Kev

    FWIW, I don't think the Editor team is the right group to make decisions about the author list of XEPs.

  127. zeank@jwchat.org


  128. m&m

    Kev: I agree, and in this case, I told them I would bring it to the Council

  129. stpeter

    Ash: we have had authors disappear in the past, and what we do is try to contact them - if that's unsuccessful and someone else wants to become a maintainer, we add the new person

  130. Lloyd

    agree with Kev, we're just update monkies :)

  131. stpeter

    after posting to the standards@ list and all

  132. m&m

    I just think we ought to have this better documented, possibly in a XEP

  133. stpeter

    but yes, some of this might need to be added to XEP-0001 or XEP-0143 or something

  134. stpeter

    +1 to m&m

  135. Kev

    Also FWIW, I think there's a difference betwe 'own' in the legal sense and 'own' in the maintenance sense.

  136. m&m

    Kev: right

  137. stpeter


  138. m&m

    I think it's within the purview of the editor to make a best effort for maintenance owners

  139. Steffen Larsen

    can you as an owner give your XEP to others for further maintainance ?

  140. Kev

    (I also think it'd be good to have a process for adding authors without the existing authors documented)

  141. m&m

    Steffen Larsen: yes, and that has happened in the past

  142. Steffen Larsen


  143. m&m

    ok, so I think I see consensus for formalizing a process

  144. Ash

    Would be good to get some of this down and in front of council

  145. m&m

    for now, let's try to think of our arguments, and put them into a XEP format

  146. Ash

    (or board in this case?)

  147. m&m

    My initial thinking is this is a Board matter, but can be readily persuaded in other directions

  148. Kev

    Fuzzy line for me, I'd go along with either.

  149. m&m

    I think it comes down to whether it's most appropriate for this to go into XEP-0001, go into XEP-0143, or go into something new

  150. m&m

    I can bring it up with the council and board tomorrow

  151. Kev

    143 doesn't seem right, to me.

  152. m&m

    Kev: me neither

  153. Ash

    This feels like a 0001 thing to me

  154. m&m

    it feels like a change to 1

  155. m&m


  156. stpeter

    yeah, me too (at the moment)

  157. m&m

    how about we approach the board and council for input before we go too much further

  158. Kev

    Either 1 or a How Editors work XEP.

  159. Kev

    Both/either seem appropriate.

  160. stpeter

    I could also see it go into an Editorial Team Procedures document

  161. m&m

    me, too

  162. m&m

    the non-patch instance was mostly annoying to me, and I think is best handled with an update to XEP-0143 and/or this new "How to Editor" XEP

  163. m&m

    I think XEP-0143 ought to be updated to 2119 mandate an actual patch file

  164. m&m

    so what is the action to be taken from all this discussion

  165. m&m wants to end already! (-:

  166. Ash

    Depends how we want to accept patches. A gitorious merge request would count (although I suppose that;s just a fancy patch)

  167. stpeter

    "send patches" is a fine policy to me!

  168. m&m

    I do want to be flexible, but we can't be expected to go hunting around

  169. stpeter


  170. m&m

    it took me almost an hour to suss out what the real changes were for the non-patchfile case

  171. m&m

    well, an hour including the disruptions

  172. Ash

    m&m can we get the main points from this and add them to the agenda next week?

  173. Steffen Larsen

    m&m auch

  174. m&m

    Ash: I want to see if there's something actionable now first

  175. Steffen Larsen

    isn't there any requirements for updates of xeps?

  176. m&m

    Steffen Larsen: 143 provides woefully little requirements on this front

  177. m&m

    and I'm not aware of any others still in existence

  178. m&m

    so actions

  179. Ash

    143 has a whole section about generating patch files

  180. Steffen Larsen

    m&m that should be further specified.. that would ease the workload ALOT!

  181. Steffen Larsen

    Ash: reading

  182. Ash

    Section 4

  183. Ash

    Although it uses the term "prefers"

  184. m&m

    Ash: yes, but I think this is inadequate, and assumes a specific work flow

  185. m&m

    I'm happy to work on an update to this to be more forceful on the patchfile requirements

  186. Steffen Larsen


  187. m&m

    so that's one action (-:

  188. Steffen Larsen

    would be good

  189. Steffen Larsen

    ha ha yes

  190. m&m

    how about others? Should we approach Council and Board with anything right now?

  191. Steffen Larsen

    Guys.. I need to get out of here and get some food

  192. m&m

    or should we draft a new XEP? Or a proposed update to -0001?

  193. m&m

    Steffen Larsen: I'm trying to end this quickly (-:

  194. Steffen Larsen

    propose an update for 0001 would be great

  195. Steffen Larsen

    ok.. waiting 1 min more. ;-)

  196. Ash

    Update to 0001 makes most sense to me

  197. m&m

    anyone else?

  198. m&m

    ok, that's two for an update to 0001

  199. m&m

    alright, so by next week we should think about who's willing to work on said patch

  200. Steffen Larsen

    ok. bye guys

  201. m&m

    s/think about/decide on/

  202. Lloyd


  203. Ash


  204. Steffen Larsen

    cheers and see you next week

  205. Steffen Larsen


  206. m&m

    I think that's it, unless you y'all have something else?

  207. m&m

    er … s/you//

  208. Ash

    I can't think what to make for dinner. Does that count?

  209. m&m


  210. zeank@jwchat.org


  211. m&m

    I'm going to rule that one out of scope (-:

  212. m&m

    ok, so that's it

  213. m&m dings bell

  214. m&m

    thanks everyone

  215. Ash

    m&m have they taken your gavel away?

  216. zeank@jwchat.org

    bye bye

  217. Ash

    Bye everyone!

  218. m&m

    Ash: I like to change things up

  219. Ash


  220. m&m

    maybe next week it'll be a schrödinger observation (-:

  221. stpeter

    oops, I wandered off because I thought we were done :-)

  222. m&m

    we are now (-:

  223. stpeter

    yeah yeah yeah

  224. m&m

    I've got a start on updates to xep-README on my gitorius fork

  225. m&m

    all of it is breaking out the "login to webserver, and" steps into separate <li/>'s

  226. m&m

    since I keep skipping things in those lists!

  227. stpeter

    yeah I threw those together quickly before the first editor team meeting

  228. stpeter

    I knew they needed to be broken out separately

  229. stpeter

    m&m: shall I add anyone else as list admins?

  230. m&m

    I think winfried offered to help with moderation

  231. m&m

    Steffan, Lloyd, and Ash were concentrating on automation

  232. m&m wonders off for lunch before addressing draft-miller-xmpp-e2e feedback

  233. stpeter


  234. stpeter

    I'll add winfried then

  235. stpeter

    spread the joy :-)