stpeterit seems that Jack, Florian, and bear are here
Florianright
FlorianWill and Nyco missing
stpeteror at least in the room :)
Florianbut we have quorum
stpeterif you're all awake :)
jacki'm here (and awake!)
Florian:)
FlorianAgenda over at: http://typewith.me/xsf
Florianso, should we start?
jack+1
Florianok ... so XMPP Validator
Florianthe idea here would be that the XSF would pay fo one
Florian*for
Florianto be developed
Florianquestion is: do we want to do this
stpeterit would be a good thing to have developed -- the question is if we can interest people in working on it, and whether we can build a sustainable project team
Floriancan we ask the Council for a list of things we'd want to have it test?
jacki think it would get done for free if we just wrote a spec for what it was
Floriangreat :)
FlorianKev: could the Council come up with a spec?
jacki'm not opposed to paying for its development, but i think the real issue is nailing down what it does and how
stpeterjack: yes, that is step one for sure
KevFlorian: RFC6120?
Floriandefinitely
stpeterlaughs at Kev's comment
KevYour spec is ready: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6120.txt
Florianlol
stpeterI think Jack means a requirements document for the software
jackare we testing clients? servers? components? all of the above? is it web based? are the tests written in javascript? is the harness an app anyone can run or a web service?
jacknone of those answers are in any RFC
stpeterright
FlorianI think it should be a webservice
Florianchecking clients / servers at first?
jackideally it would be delclarative
jackor at least mostly so
Kevjack: Right - but Florian asked for a spec for it to test against, and surely the RFCs initially, followed by the XEPs are the canonical definition of what needs to be tested.
stpetersure, for the protocol
stpeterit's been ages since I wrote any kind of requirements document...
KevFlorian: A webservice is fine as long as it's a webservice one can run themselves, I think.
Florianhmmm
jackso the intention is to have it be runnable by arbitrary developers
KevI don't really care what form it takes, or what language it's in, or anything like that. He who puts the effort in can choose that stuff, just so long as people can grab it and run it.
Kevjack: That was my assumption, but I grant that it is *my* assumption.
stpeterFlorian: as I said, I can probably raise some money to help with this effort, but we might use that to do something like hold a hackfest for the validator team at FOSDEM
Florianinteresting idea
KevIf there's money in it, I'd have thought an interesting way of spending it might be to have someone produce the bullet-point form of 6120 conformance.
stpetere.g. we pay travel and hotel for project contributors
Florianstpeter: I like the idea
KevThat's not something I'd be willing to do on my own time, though, because it sounds massing.
Kevmassive, too.
stpeterKev, could you explain what you mean by bullet-point form?
Kevstpeter: A test plan, I think I mean.
stpeterah
KevWriting the validator then becomes 'simply' codifying that, which is much less open-ended.
stpeterhttp://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#conformance might be a start toward that
KevYes.
stpeterto Jack's point, I think it would be good to test either servers or clients to start with, whichever is simpler
KevServers are easier to test.
stpeter(dialback testing could be interesting)
Florianyeah
Florianas well as certificates
stpeterKev: other than dialback, yes
Kevstpeter: Dialback too, no?
stpeteroh yes we'd need to test everything eventually, the question is what do we build in to start
KevTest it offers SCRAM? :)
stpeteryay
stpeteranother advantage to server testing is that presumably some server vendors could become interested in this project
stpetereven companies like Microsoft and IBM have s2s code
Florianyeah
KevIndeed.
stpeterplus it's good to encourage more federation
Florianindeed
stpeterscrolls up to look at Jack's questions
Florianso, who's willing to write up a project spec?
stpeterI'm out of the loop on testing methodologies, but what does it mean to write the tests in javascript?
stpeterphone call, attention reduced
jacki didn't mean anything by naming javascript, but i am of hte opinion that hte tests should be easily writable by most people
jacknot necessarily all tests, but the majority of them
stpeter+1 to easily writable
Florian+1
jacki think when fritzy and i discussed this in '09 we were talking about something like Expect
jackie, send this xml, response must match this XPath
Florianthat sounds interesting
jackand the schema obviously :)
KevI think that's one of many sensible approaches.
stpeterok off the phone
KevI'd go with whichever one someone was willing to code :)
stpeterright
stpeterit's all about the code
stpeterforget about all these specs :)
KevIf it were easy to write tests in this framework, I *suspect* server vendors would start to chip in code themselves.
KevOr client vendors.
Florianyeah
KevAs they want to prove they're acting correctly and someone else isn't.
stpeterFlorian: I propose that we start to work on a short requirements page at the wiki
Floriansounds good
stpeternotices that he needs to retire http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Radar
Florianok, so Wiki page, and then we'll go from there
Floriannext item?
stpeteryep
FlorianBylaw enforcement
Florianwe talked about this last week ...
Florianlooks like we haven't been enforcing Bylaw 2.6? ...
stpeterwe'd need to ask Alex about that, but in general we have been as far as I know
stpeterthat is:
Section 2.6 Automatic Termination. Members may have their membership status automatically terminated and their names removed by the Secretary of the Corporation from all membership records of the Corporation if they fail to participate in three (3) consecutive meetings of the Members of the Corporation, held electronically or otherwise.
Florianah... we should add a notification to the members and members list
jackit definitely was enforced before. i got terminated in 05 or something
Florianright
stpeterheh
stpeterthe problem here is that one of our Council members missed 3 consecutive votes
stpeterthat happened long long ago with DJ Adams, too
stpeterDJ resigned, but missing 3 membership votes was not the primary reason he resigned
jackit almost hapepned with Ian right?
stpeterthe bylaws do say "may have their membership status automatically terminated" instead of "shall" or "must"
stpeterjack: quite possibly -- I don't remember that episode as clearly
jackis it fritzy?
jacki imagine if it was mamiller, stpeter would go kick him
stpeterRalph
jackweird. he emailed me just the other day
stpeteroh sure
stpeterhe's been voting on most Council items
stpeterjust missed 3 XSF votes
jackwhat a dork!
stpeteryeah :)
jacki seem to recall getting personal emails from alex if i hadn't voted by a few days before closing
jacki always vote early now
stpeterand since Council members need to be XSF members, if you're not an XSF member then you can't be a Council member
jackwell, is the issue that hte council will be hamstrung without him?
stpeterbut it's not the end of the world
stpeterthe Council would just continue on with its other members
stpeterI think :)
jackis the board even allowed to contradict the bylaws? :)
stpeterwell, there is wiggle room in the bylaws
stpeterwhich is a separate problem, perhaps
stpetermaybe that needs to be tightened
jackperhaps we should terminate his XSF membership, admonish him a little, give him dispensation to serve on the council until his term is up, but contigent on him not missing any more votes
stpeterheh
KevI don't think the wriggle room is for that.
KevI think the wriggle room is the ambiguity as to whether the ejection from membership is automatic.
KevThe Council must be Members thing is fairly unambigous.
jackAutomatic termination seems pretty clear as well.
KevI thought so, Peter doesn't :)
jackpeter: what's your argument?
KevThat it uses 'may' instead of 'will'.
stpetermay vs. shall
stpeterhttp://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
stpeterif you look at the other subsections there, it's pretty clear that 'may' is used for stuff that's optional, whereas 'must' and 'shall' are used for things that are not optional
stpeteryou may resign, you may be removed, etc.
jackok. then the question is what would the board like to do here?
stpeterfor example, Section 8.1 says:
If a Council member resigns his or her membership in the Corporation, is removed from membership in the Corporation, or is terminated from membership in the Corporation, he or she shall thereby relinquish all rights and responsibilities as a member of the Council.
KevAlthough I note
Kev"Section 2.5 Removal by Members. A Member may be involuntarily removed from membership by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Members of the Corporation."
stpeteryou may resign or be removed, but if you do then you shall relinquish all rights blah blah
KevSo by the same logic, that would suggest that an affirmative vote of 2/3 members to eject someone isn't binding.
Florianhmm
jacki guess i agree with peter about the may thing
stpeterloves parsing legalese
jackwhich means the board could vote ti keep/remove ralph
Kev"The membership has voted to eject you"
'Sorry, it says May and I don't want to'
"Oh, ok then"
stpeterI think 2.5 "the membership may choose to remove a member..."
stpeter^means
stpeterI'll grant that I have not reviewed the entire bylaws in many years
KevThere seem to be other cases that explicitly say "may, but need not" too.
stpeterJack, BTW we had a wideranging discussion in this room last week, see http://xmpp.org:5290/muc_log/muc.xmpp.org/xsf/110622/ for the archives -- it makes for interesting reading
jackSo we can choose to remove or keep Ralph, and I assume we're only having this conversation because most people want ot keep him on the council
KevSo whatever happens, I think some amount of clarification might be good.
stpeterKev: I think we need either some clarification or a revolution
jackclarification is easyish if you know what you want. what do we want?
Kevjack: I think the question is "Do you get special dispensation for failing to comply because you've been generally helpful", although the question is also "Is Board in a position to give such dispensation".
FlorianI don't think the board is
jackit's the ED's choice I think.
Florianyeah
jackthe bylaws give the organization leeway to keep/remove him in this case, and the ED is authorized to make that call
KevI don't think his Councilness is relevant, Council will carry one way or the other, it's because it could be considered a mean thing to do to Ralph when he's done a great deal over the years.
stpeterthe clearest thing to do is to enforce the bylaws without exception
Florianthe thing that came out of the discussion last week, we should enforce them and avoid situations where people get special treatment
jackreally teh board should not get involved with the day to day details :)
stpeterheh
stpeterok
Florianstpeter: right
jackralph can still participate if he's not on the council
stpeterI'll have a chat with Ralph, but it seems best for Ralph's membership to lapse for the next 2 weeks or so
stpeterphone again
jackhe just can't vote
jacki feel like there should be some repercussions for the not voting thing
Florian+1
jackdo the bylaws have any l anguage about reinstatement if you've been terminated?
jackif not, then i think we can do whatever we want assuming he reapplies and is voted in
stpeterI'll be on the phone for a while here
Kevjack: You're back in, and so's Bear.
KevSo I'm assuming it's fine to reapply.
jackSo he gets 2 weeks of not being on the council
KevOnly 2 weeks?
jackwell, i don't know when the election is
jackso i guessed :)
KevWouldn't it be until the next membership vote (3 months I guess, given you're having this discussion because of the just-past last election).
jackah, yes
jackso 3 months.
jackcan the council survive with ralphm's input but not his vote for 3 months?
KevI would have thought so.
KevCouncil doesn't do any real work anyway, right? That's all done by people contributing on the lists.
stpeterKev: not quite :P
jackFrom my own experience, lapsing was embarassing enough to be just punishment
KevEqually, given the circumstance, I'm sure that if Ralph had comments to make, Council will make sure to listen.
jackand i don't htink i've ever missed a vote since
jackso if I were ED, i suppose i'd terminate hiim and let him reapply. ralphm can learn not to miss three votes in a row
jackand next week we can decide what to do about the bylaw modifications to give us more or less leeway on this issue.
jackor next meeting
jackI have got to run to lunch with the wife (we're at an hour already). I'll check the room when I get back and respond via email to anything else.
stpeterok
stpetersorry, family distractions here...
Florianok
FlorianI'm just wondering ... should we move this bylaw discussion to the mailinglist?
stpeterabout fixing the bylaws?
stpeter(off the phone)
Florianyeah
stpetersure, doesn't hurt -- although I'd prefer to discuss some of the bigger issues, too
Florianright
stpeterhowever, I really need to finish reviewing a whole stack of documents for my meeting tomorrow and I've made zero progress on that so far today :(
Florianright ... so let's move this to the list
Florianand see when we can have another meeting
stpeteryes
Floriancools
Florianthx all :)
jackhas left
stpeterhas left
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
Kevhas left
Koodahas left
stpeterhas joined
bearstpeter - do we know for sure how much of google+ is xmpp related?
bearsome of it is "obvious"
bearbut i'm wondering how loudly we should be banging the drum about it being xmpp backed (or if we should at all)
Tobiasnormal IM + group video chat...that all, right?
bearyea, but it also feels like MUC, SIP, video, presence....
Tobiasdon't know..haven't tested/analyzed it myself...just know what others wrote
Tobias:P
Tobiashttp://juberti.blogspot.com/2011/06/announcing-google-hangouts.html <-- at the bottom it doesn't mention SIP...but that doesn't mean it's not there
XSF Discussion - 2011-06-29