XSF Discussion - 2013-11-27

  1. Lance has joined

  2. dwd has left

  3. tato has joined

  4. Alex has left

  5. Ashley Ward has left

  6. tato has left

  7. tato has joined

  8. Zash has left

  9. Lance has joined

  10. Lance has left

  11. bear has joined

  12. fippo

    zash: it only mixes audio

  13. Lance has joined

  14. SouL has left

  15. tato has left

  16. tato has joined

  17. SouL has joined

  18. jabberjocke has left

  19. SouL


  20. intosi has joined

  21. Alex has joined

  22. Alex has left

  23. Alex has joined

  24. bear has left

  25. Ashley Ward has joined

  26. Zash has joined

  27. dwd has joined

  28. Zash has left

  29. Lance has joined

  30. jabberjocke has joined

  31. Ashley Ward has left

  32. Zash has joined

  33. Ashley Ward has joined

  34. tato has left

  35. Ashley Ward has left

  36. Ashley Ward has joined

  37. Alex has left

  38. dwd

    Zash, It's muxing video but mixing audio. One "PeerConnection", many streams.

  39. fippo

    https://jitsi.org/Projects/JitsiVideobridge explains it

  40. Lance has joined

  41. Lance has joined

  42. Kev has left

  43. SouL has left

  44. Lance has joined

  45. SouL has joined

  46. Lloyd has joined

  47. jabberjocke has left

  48. Lloyd has left

  49. Laura has joined

  50. Alex has left

  51. Lloyd has joined

  52. Ashley Ward has left

  53. Ashley Ward has joined

  54. Alex has joined

  55. Lance has joined

  56. Lance has joined

  57. Zash has left

  58. Ashley Ward has left

  59. Ashley Ward has joined

  60. Ashley Ward has left

  61. Ashley Ward has joined

  62. bear has joined

  63. Zash has joined

  64. bear

    laura - ping?

  65. Laura


  66. bear

    trying to connect

  67. Laura

    We could hear you, could you not hear us?

  68. bear

    evidently all my devices need new hangout software

  69. ralphm waves

  70. dwd is following the Council meeting.

  71. bear

    this is why I want to use xmpp video for this - I have a single JID but I have 4 gmail accounts :/

  72. ralphm

    are we doing a VC today?

  73. ralphm

    didn't get any memo

  74. Kev

    I hope not :p

  75. intosi

    Did you move the board meeting to !XMPP now?

  76. dwd

    I hope not :-P

  77. bear

    no - this was a test for something else

  78. intosi

    Ah, okay :)

  79. ralphm


  80. fippo

    ah, you have a video call and don't use this fancy colibri stuff yet?

  81. dwd

    fippo, Does OTalk do it yet?

  82. fippo

    for 1-1 it might

  83. Simon has joined

  84. bear

    are we ready for the board meeting?

  85. Simon is ready.

  86. Laura


  87. bear

    cool - I saw dave earlier, I know he is lurking in the council meeting

  88. bear

    and ralph

  89. MattJ


  90. ralphm

    I am. Kev is running out.

  91. bear

    ok, that's quorum - let's get this started

  92. bear bangs the gavel

  93. dwd

    Yeah, I'm here, just paying attention to the COuncil meeting.

  94. bear

    is council still going?

  95. ralphm

    bear: yes

  96. MattJ


  97. bear

    shall we wait 5 for it to finish?

  98. ralphm


  99. MattJ


  100. ralphm

    bear: go

  101. bear

    and I see it's done

  102. bear

    ok, agenda bashing - anything anyone wants to add?

  103. Tobias has joined

  104. dwd

    bear, What is the current agenda?

  105. Kev

    Did you send out an agenda?

  106. Laura

    Link please

  107. bear thanks Dave for sending to members the two items started last week

  108. Simon

    I'd like to add: Mozilla outreach / Google + Federation

  109. bear

    The only agenda item for today talk about the test day

  110. dwd

    Both of which are outreach/liaison issues, actually.

  111. Laura

    Background needed please (just a little)

  112. ralphm

    We didn't have minutes of last meeting, did we?

  113. bear

    no, I failed to get them out in a timely manner - my logs were gone and my link to the XSF one was wrong

  114. dwd

    Laura, Mozilla Presence is an effort by Mozilla, we naturally think they should be using XMPP. Google Federation is broken and lame, and doesn't have any security.

  115. Simon

    Laura: Mozilla is planning on spinning up a new push network to support FF OS devices and to support webapps on browsers. We need to ask them good questions to see if using XMPP would help them.

  116. bear


  117. dwd

    Simon, Oh, yeah, push, too.

  118. Laura

    Do we have links with Mozilla? Or do we need them?

  119. ralphm

    bear: the link is in this room's subject :-D

  120. ralphm

    Lance: yes and yes

  121. ralphm

    Laura even

  122. ralphm

    (yay tab-completion)

  123. Simon


  124. Laura


  125. Laura


  126. Simon

    I think our best approach here is to ask sensible questions - not the "we think they should use XMPP" approach.

  127. Laura


  128. Simon

    it adds credibility and helps them think they discovered XMPP

  129. Simon

    which is much more powerful.

  130. Laura

    We should understand why they haven't considered it, or if they have.

  131. bear

    i've been lurking in their IRC chat room to be available for questions, as has MattJ

  132. dwd

    Simon, Certainly understanding their requirements, and seeing if those actually are addressed by XMPP, would help.

  133. ralphm

    Laura: they actually did

  134. Simon

    "how will you deal with xyz issues?"

  135. ralphm

    Laura: in the meeting notes I read, XMPP pops up quite a bit

  136. fippo

    right. especially if xmpp doesn't address the requirements.

  137. ralphm

    as well as personal eventing

  138. Laura

    We need to get the message clear and address their concerns

  139. bear

    they have a couple concerns that would require a custom module for one of the xmpp servers

  140. Simon

    I also fear that they see (as many do) that XMPP is some kind of monolithic stack. If we can sell them on one feature, we're in a better position.

  141. Laura

    Are they willing to sponsor that module being developed?

  142. Kev

    If there are things they need that XMPP can't do, starting a discussion on standards@ seems like a sensible sort of idea.

  143. bear

    right now they are still working thru their own flow - they are working out even for them what the service would do and require

  144. Kev

    (Whoever knows what the issues are, not necessarily Moz)

  145. Simon

    Who has experience building push notification networks?

  146. bear

    so we are in the very early stages with them, just need to remain engaged so they don't skip over us because of a lack of response

  147. ralphm

    Simon: I think that feeling originates from the fact that all such endevours (like yours and Facebook and ...) start out from an IM implementation (like ejabberd).

  148. Laura

    Bear - can we help them to do this?

  149. Laura

    Generous of us, and will help us understand their thinking

  150. bear

    Laura - yes, being on hand with early prototype and/or specs for them to use

  151. Kev

    Simon: XMPP /is/ a push network, I think the question might need rephrasing :)

  152. Laura

    And the offer of our experience and knolwedge

  153. Simon

    Mobile push :)

  154. bear

    the two biggest concerns is that they do not want the devices (which would have UUIDs) to know about which users (also UUIDs) they are pushing to

  155. dwd

    As I said on the list, I think we just treat this as a Liaison form our end.

  156. bear

    but the users would know

  157. Simon

    Ralph - didn't Apple use some of your code for building their APN?

  158. ralphm

    Simon: that is a frequent myth.

  159. ralphm

    Simon: they use Idavoll in OS X Server for the Calendaring notifications.

  160. Simon adjusts his opinion of Ralph slightly.

  161. Tobias

    at least google's push protocol is XMPP based

  162. ralphm

    Simon: it is called NotificationServer and makes the whole space muddy.

  163. dwd

    Can I also suggest that we absolutely do not need to discuss any technical issues here and now.

  164. Tobias

    on some level

  165. bear

    they use twisted xmpp pubsub in their data center for the proxy between web and device

  166. bear

    (apple does)

  167. Simon

    So I agree this will need to be a liason - lets get some council members in there asking the right questions. But we'll need to move fast - there's code already being written.

  168. bear

    yes, let's consider this something to put onto the liason list

  169. ralphm

    bear: are you sure about that, because if that's the case, that's likely also Idavoll, but I have no idea, really.

  170. bear will talk about apple offline

  171. ralphm

    (Idavoll is a Twisted-based Generic XMPP Publish-Subscribe Service implementation, by me)

  172. bear

    ok, so presense-wg - take away is to add it to the liason list and make sure members@ knows about it

  173. Simon

    Having mozilla integrate XMPP into their (future) core would be very powerful.

  174. ralphm


  175. Simon

    who will do that?

  176. bear

    who can write up a members@ notification of that liason issue?

  177. dwd


  178. Laura

    Question - Are any of the developers on this part of the project based in London (do we know)

  179. Laura

    XMPPUK meetup on Monday

  180. Laura

    They could come and see?

  181. bear

    I will post that info to their irc channel

  182. Simon

    laura: not aware of any - seems like a large contingient are PST tz.

  183. bear

    tarek is involved - he is in/around Paris IIRC

  184. bear

    ok, i'll write up a quick blurb - please do call me out if this is not done in 2 hours

  185. bear

    next agenda item?

  186. bear

    google federation

  187. ralphm

    I'm still not sure about what happens with this liason team

  188. Simon

    We have an impeding PR disaster / security meh "XMPP cuts off Google" and our security efforts being for nothing.

  189. ralphm

    (re moz) Do we give them some kind of assignment, etc.

  190. bear

    ralphm - we will figure it out as we go, small iterations

  191. Simon

    2 sides: we should have end to end security / I'm not cutting off paying customers.

  192. bear

    ralphm, lets defer that to after

  193. ralphm

    bear: ok

  194. ralphm

    Simon, first off, this is a community effort, not a XSF one, per se.

  195. Simon

    I'd written to three different Google XMPP guys and not heard anything back.

  196. bear

    right - I think we need to let people know this is a *test*

  197. Zash

    Has anyone heard anything from anyone at Google?

  198. Simon

    +1 on test.

  199. Simon

    Zash: nothing for close to a week.

  200. bear

    and that not all Operators have to be in on it - but once we get numbers we need to shout them loud and wide

  201. Simon

    I'll re-ping them.

  202. Simon


  203. bear

    we should make the appeal to the Operators that if they want google to change, show them impact numbers

  204. ralphm

    Also, GTalk has always been in this rough spot regarding proper certs for a hosted IM service.

  205. Simon

    so message is a) it's a test b) we're trying to work with Google.

  206. ralphm

    Are Google actually able to fix GTalk in short term so that they could participate, technically?

  207. Simon

    did I mention that XMPP.net is great?

  208. MattJ

    ralphm, right now I think we'd be happy even with a mismatched cert!

  209. Simon

    ralphm: answering emails would a nice start :)

  210. Kev

    I'm a little curious as to what the test is really going to show. It's not like we're talking about /enabling/ something for the first time, like IPv6 day. It's just going to show people which servers theirs is connecting to without TLS - and they know that already.

  211. dwd

    One thing I have noted about Google infrastructure in the past is that none of their services do a STARTTLS style switch.

  212. Simon

    mattJ: +1

  213. ralphm

    Simon: everyone agrees with this

  214. Simon has left

  215. dwd

    So it could be that there is a blocker on offering BTNS.

  216. Simon has joined

  217. Zash

    dwd: Allways the legacy ssl way?

  218. Zash

    dwd: Except xmpp-client?

  219. ralphm

    dwd: indeed, they way the Google Cloud Service thing with XMPP works, it expects one to start an TLS connection and then do XMPP, no STARTTLS

  220. ralphm

    (and no SRV either)

  221. dwd

    But in any case, it looks like we're not getting anywhere through the channels we have, so we need to look for other channels. We could presumably try the Open SOurce unit route?

  222. dwd

    ralphm, Right.

  223. MattJ

    I know at least one XMPP library that doesn't support that

  224. dwd

    Zash, They run xmpps only, right?

  225. ralphm

    MattJ: I had a bug report for it in Wokkel

  226. dwd

    Not that this matters much, mind.

  227. bear

    sounds like we have two angles to work with - what is exactly the technical angle on why/how gmail federates and who to work with it or around it; and a marketing angle to get everyone in the world aware that the test is happening and where google falls into that realm

  228. Zash

    dwd: No, _xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com @ starttls works afaik

  229. dwd

    Zash, Ah-ha, I slouch corrected.

  230. Simon

    with RC4 :) /me shudders.

  231. Laura

    Bear - marketing, start with a blog post that we can all shout about and link to?

  232. Kev


  233. Laura

    Get the conversation started?

  234. bear

    laura - yes

  235. bear

    I think we should do blog reports that can be linked/repeated on two levels

  236. ralphm

    But again, the test coming from the manifesto, is strictly not an XSF effort.

  237. dwd

    bear, I think we need to formally approach them somehow and at least be sure they're aware. Is Chris Messina still the Open Source Guy?

  238. ralphm

    While I do think having some kind of liason with Google.

  239. Simon

    I think it's important that we show operators that they can add an exception for Google domains in their "use TLS everywhere" config.

  240. Kev

    ralphm: I think that, given the people involved, the public perception will be that it is.

  241. bear

    one for test day prep and one for us looking for someone at google to work with

  242. dwd

    ralphm, Yes, true. So perhaps we need to first see if our intervention is even wanted.

  243. Simon

    but as MattJ pointed out this isn't possible technically.

  244. Simon keeps forgetting that.

  245. Kev

    So if the XSF doesn't want to endorse it, it probably needs to say that.

  246. MattJ

    Simon, actually I said it's not possible with a simple black/whitelist

  247. MattJ

    I later said that it is possible, and I wondered if it was worth working on

  248. dwd

    Kev, I don't think I want the XSF to explicitly not endorse it, either. :-)

  249. MattJ

    (hence my interest in peoples' opinions on its worth)

  250. ralphm

    Kev: you want the XSF to get a community started effort to note that it is not an XSF effort. Hmm

  251. Kev

    dwd: Then it's implicitly endorsing it.

  252. bear

    ok, one take away from this is a blog style "Test Prep Report" - who can work on that?

  253. Kev

    dwd: In this case, I think.

  254. dwd

    Kev, Yes, I agree.

  255. Laura

    I can peer review, but don't have the tech background

  256. dwd

    Kev, Or just for you, I don't disagree.

  257. Simon

    Bear: I'm happy to write that up.

  258. Laura

    But can help from the marketing spin

  259. bear

    the majority of the discussion now I would like to suggest that we do as part of a weekly pre-board liason meeting on the google issue

  260. Laura

    Simon, co-share this task?

  261. Simon


  262. bear

    simon - you and laura - done

  263. bear

    can we get one of you all to write up a technical reasons report for the members@ list and then let the operators@ list know about it?

  264. ralphm

    I am also going to repeat that I don't think that *technically* GTalk can succesfully participate, even if we got bidirectional contact with googlers and have them work on it.

  265. Lloyd

    first real task, one of us now laura :)

  266. Kev

    ralphm: Why's that?

  267. ralphm

    Because of the certificate thing.

  268. Kev

    (Given that some form of TLS is all that's needed to participate)

  269. ralphm

    Isn't this why all of DNA was thought up?

  270. MattJ

    Their cert doesn't need to be valid for all their domains,just to do TLS

  271. MattJ

    here's a fun thing though: they'll probably want to do RC4, which folk are scrambling to disable throughout the network now :)

  272. Simon

    MattJ: coming back to the "is it worth it?" - having all sites, except Google, on secure connections is a huge win. Giving operators a way to achieve that using black/whitelists shouldn't be underestimated.

  273. Tobias

    ralphm, don't they do opportunistic TLS for STMP for hosted google apps domains?

  274. Tobias


  275. ralphm

    Hmm, yes.

  276. Tobias

    dwd might know, since he's an email guy

  277. Tobias

    or you :)

  278. dwd

    Tobias, Possibly, I've not actually looked.

  279. Lloyd has left

  280. bear

    they have steps what is required for SMTP over TLS

  281. MattJ

    SMTP's hostname matching is... "different", to say the least

  282. MattJ

    Board meeting getting technical alert

  283. bear

    yes, that is why I wanted those tech participants just now to summarize their concerns

  284. dwd

    MattJ, Yes, the suits are talking tech again.

  285. bear

    to the members@ list

  286. ralphm

    Simon: I think that no implementations currently can whitelist all GTalk domains in one swoop. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  287. Tobias

    MattJ, yeah...just wanted to mention that there are things we should check first before drawing such conclusions

  288. MattJ

    ralphm, I can do that by the end of the day though, for Prosody

  289. bear bangs the "let's take this to the jdev or operators list" gavel

  290. Simon

    Ralph: agreed - but never underestimate MattJ :)

  291. Ashley Ward has left

  292. ralphm


  293. ralphm

    I think the only action for us is: see if we can get into Google on this.

  294. dwd

    So do we have any plan for that?

  295. bear

    yes, that is a seperate action

  296. ralphm

    Irrespective of the manifesto/test

  297. bear

    Simon, can you email Peter and team up on the google side-channel contact

  298. Simon

    Bear: will do.

  299. ralphm

    I'm going to try, too.

  300. bear

    and then work with Laura to rope in Chris messina and Tim Bray (or other Google OS types)

  301. MattJ

    We've never had strong relations with Google (the organisation), only with individuals who can't talk for their employer

  302. bear

    I think we need to word some open letters to them

  303. Simon

    I worked with Chris Messina in another life. Will ping him.

  304. bear

    right, let's take this to the formal level

  305. dwd

    Chris has left Google, it seems.

  306. bear

    they have liasons for open source, let's start reaching out to them to help them

  307. ralphm

    I will use the liason angle this time. Maybe that helps.

  308. Ashley Ward has joined

  309. bear

    yea, but Chris will still have recent internal contacts - so talking to him won't be a waste of time IMO

  310. ralphm

    I am going to contact Adewale Oshineye.

  311. bear

    shall we declare a liason team for this: Simon, Laura, Ralph ?

  312. Laura

    happy to get involved

  313. dwd

    ralphm, I'm not sure Ade has the contacts, but worth trying. I argue with him regularly. :-)

  314. ralphm

    I am ok, initially. But once we have an in, I want at least one Council member for this.

  315. bear


  316. dwd

    bear, We don't actually declare liaison teams, FWIW, the Council nominates them.

  317. bear

    but first we need to reach out on the political level

  318. ralphm

    dwd: he is Developer Advocate and from my perspective, he should?

  319. dwd

    bear, We agreed that whole liaison procedure last meeting.

  320. bear edits for the pendantic

  321. dwd

    ralphm, Yeah, true. We can try him, certainly.

  322. bear

    shall we declare a working group on the board for reaching out to Google?

  323. ralphm


  324. Simon


  325. Laura


  326. dwd


  327. bear

    ok, done

  328. Simon

    Pinging https://plus.google.com/+cdibona/ (Chis Dibona ) now

  329. bear

    let's get the contacts made and report back next week on any progress?

  330. Laura

    I may need some guidance (newest to this area) but will contact people as needed

  331. bear

    let me know if I can help by getting Leo Laporte to put some pressure on them thru his channels

  332. bear

    I think we need to ensure that our message is uniform in tone and well written

  333. bear

    so anything after the initial ping should be done in the same voice

  334. Laura

    We should all be using the same words, messaging etc

  335. dwd

    RIght, ensuring that Google (and others) see there's a coherent and unified community behind what we're saying is important.

  336. bear

    so please do share drafts of the emails with each other

  337. bear

    is their anything else to wrangle on this topic?

  338. Laura

    Is there somewhere we can hare these (off email) so we all have the latest version?

  339. Laura

    Google doc?

  340. Ashley Ward has left

  341. bear

    I would almost suggest the wiki

  342. Laura

    Wiki works. Can someone set up a page and circulate?

  343. bear

    i'll set up a Outreach page now

  344. Laura

    We should list on there who we are contatcing / needs to be contacted

  345. Laura

    So no duplication

  346. Simon

    let's add that to the wiki

  347. dwd

    OK, are we done on this?

  348. bear


  349. bear

    any other talk? shall we move on to next item (which I have completely forgotten what that is!)

  350. Simon

    +1: move on.

  351. bear

    ok, moving on

  352. bear

    what is next?

  353. Kev

    This is when agenda are convenient :p

  354. Simon

    bring the meeting to a close before anything new pops up.

  355. Kev

    You've not covered GSoC yet, which last week went on the agenda for this week (theoretically).

  356. dwd

    As did the member applications thing.

  357. bear curses his brain

  358. bear

    GSoC - we need to determine if we have anyone who will be a mentor

  359. bear

    without that we shouldn't apply

  360. Kev

    First thing is whether Board are happy that we apply, I think.

  361. bear

    Last year we put out a call for projects and mentors - we should do that again

  362. Kev

    If Board are happy, then we find whether there's support in the community.

  363. bear

    ok, is the board ok with applying?

  364. Simon is happy to mentor agian.

  365. ralphm

    +1 on being happy

  366. dwd

    I'm happy if we have the support within the community. I'd be happier if we had an org admin.

  367. bear

    ok, the board is happy

  368. Laura

    I am unaware of what this is, so will hold back opinion

  369. Laura

    Happy to go with majority

  370. bear

    I can be the org admin if we have mentors

  371. Kev

    Laura: Google thing each summer where they pay students to work on OSS, on behalf of OSS projects who apply for slots to give to students who apply to the orgs.

  372. Kev

    Laura: The XSF often acts as an umbrella project through which projects like Swift, Gajim, Prosody get students.

  373. Laura

    Oooh, sounds great!

  374. Kev

    Last year there wasn't much interest from projects in it (or not enough), so we didn't apply.

  375. Kev

    Usually there is and we do.

  376. bear

    the board has +1'd this - can we get a post to members@ about finding projects and get the wiki page started?

  377. Kev

    Sure, I think you appointed yourself org admin, so that's your job :)

  378. bear

    yep - I'll do that tonight

  379. bear writes task down

  380. bear

    ok, next item - member application form

  381. bear

    which dave posted to members@ about

  382. bear


  383. dwd

    If we're good with my proposal, I can write that up as a XEP.

  384. Alex

    I am fine with it

  385. dwd

    Obviously it's not a final choice at this stage - it becomes so when we last call and approve it.

  386. bear

    since it's a proposal, let's get it written and off for debate to the list

  387. dwd

    Any comments about the full name business? The last time this cropped up we didn't really come to a conclusion.

  388. Kev

    Real names are logically required.

  389. bear

    yes, real name + jid - that's about the minimum we should expect

  390. dwd

    Kev, I think so, yes. But I left is as a SHOULD because of the debate last time about Solarius.

  391. Alex

    real name, jid and email

  392. dwd

    And affiliation.

  393. Kev

    There was much debate last time because it wasn't covered anywhere, which essentially made it a discussion about Solarius, not about thegeneral case.

  394. Alex

    ya, company name or personal

  395. bear

    but I defer about what constitutes a real name - I would love to be just "bear"

  396. Kev

    There's time to talk about the general case now, and I'm not sure why we wouldn't require real name.

  397. dwd

    Right, yes, you remind me that a full name includes the possibility that it's a company membership, which we also allow.

  398. Laura

    Can we not have real name and 'nickname'?

  399. dwd

    Laura, Nickname hardly seems mandatory, though. :-)

  400. Kev

    Laura: Require people to have a nickname before they can join? :)

  401. Laura

    No, not required. Just a field on the form

  402. Laura

    If there is one, we use thsat

  403. Kev

    There's no form, it's just a wiki page.

  404. Laura

    If not, real name

  405. Kev

    Just that some fields are logically required.

  406. bear

    can we take this to the list?

  407. Alex

    once we decided all this stuff I create a new wiki text and a template

  408. dwd

    I'll write it up with full name required on what I'm hearing, and submit a XEP.

  409. bear

    that is what we currently do, so let's make that the first prototype

  410. bear

    ok, any other issues for todays meeting?

  411. Kev

    Only a reminder that I think we're still due last week's minutes.

  412. ralphm

    Kev: this was mentioned before.

  413. bear

    yes, I have a good hour of homework for tonight

  414. dwd

    I've nothing more for this time. We're on for next week?

  415. Laura


  416. ralphm


  417. bear

    unless someone vetoes next week, that will be the next meeting

  418. bear bangs gavel

  419. bear

    see you all in a week

  420. Simon

    bye all

  421. Laura


  422. bear

    thanks all

  423. dwd

    Toodle pip.

  424. bear

    I have dayjob meetings now - will work up my tasks in a bit

  425. ralphm

    I had some back and forth with Ade. Some notes:

  426. ralphm

    * that we probably should make it clear that the manifesto is not the thing we (XSF) want to push, but that we want to work so that the side effect is not that everyone on GTalk gets shut out

  427. ralphm

    * that we also want to have ways to work on other XMPP efforts like GCS

  428. Simon


  429. ralphm

    eh GCM

  430. Simon


  431. ralphm

    it was called cloud services earlier

  432. ralphm

    and I personally would like to stress the harmful situation of the current way interoperability fails between the XMPP network, GTalk and Hangouts

  433. ralphm goes for dinner

  434. Laura

    I think I have asked this before, but now that the Board will be making approaches to Google and we are bound to get looked up - who updates this page? http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/the-xsf-board-of-directors/

  435. Kev

    I guess Bear.

  436. Kev

    Although I (and many others) have access to do it, if Bear doesn't mind.

  437. Kev

    Or, hrmm. Probably doesn't need asking.

  438. bear

    just do it Kev

  439. bear

    I thought i had gotten to all of the wiki pages and web pages for this new board and council

  440. Kev

    Laura: Did you have your blurb ready?

  441. bear

    heck, laura should be given credentials to do it

  442. bear

    she will be writing blog posts

  443. bear

    laura what email address is good for you - I will add you to the wp config

  444. Laura

    laura.gill@surevine.com please

  445. Kev

    It has people's names on there now, at least.

  446. bear

    ok, she has been added

  447. bear has left

  448. Simon has left

  449. Laura has left

  450. bear has joined

  451. SouL has left

  452. SouL has joined

  453. Simon has joined

  454. tato has joined

  455. Lance has joined

  456. Lance has joined

  457. Tobias has joined

  458. Tobias has left

  459. Tobias has joined

  460. dwd has left

  461. dwd has joined

  462. Simon has left

  463. Simon has joined

  464. Simon has left

  465. Simon has joined

  466. fippo

    http://www.chriskranky.com/the-need-for-speed-connecting-faster/ :-)

  467. fippo

    i hope that tsahi's wheels include trickle + early transport warmup

  468. fippo

    otherwise his webrtc car lose against my jingle one :-)

  469. ralphm

    Drag race!

  470. MattJ


  471. dwd

    Trickle ICE has been in Jingle since year zero pretty much, right?

  472. fippo


  473. fippo

    it's never been really documented though

  474. fippo

    i still need to push emil to update 0176

  475. fippo

    https://twitter.com/HCornflower/status/405800002909241344 :-)

  476. dwd

    We've allowed trickling candidates since at least 2009, I see that in 176. I'll claim we've done trickle all that time and more. :-)

  477. fippo

    imo, emil has been doing more for trickle than ekr and justin

  478. fippo

    ah... it's draft-ivov-mmusic.. so it's clear.

  479. Simon has left

  480. fippo

    ice isn't signalling...

  481. fippo


  482. Simon has joined

  483. fippo

    i'll let emil handle this.

  484. fippo

    btw board guys still around...

  485. fippo

    do you want to motivate me by using the jitsi video bridge for your next meeting? :-)

  486. MattJ

    No, they don't

  487. MattJ

    unless you build in realtime text-to-speech and speech-to-text

  488. MattJ

    and preserve dwd's sarcasm correctly

  489. bear

    fippo - yes please, we have pre meeting chats that it would/could be used

  490. bear

    but yes, the actual meeting I feel should always be text as that allows everyone to be included

  491. ralphm

    we do?

  492. bear

    it's a new thing just started today

  493. MattJ


  494. bear

    simon, laura and my late self were talking about the new web pages

  495. fippo

    i think it should be ready until next week ;-)

  496. fippo

    bear: and after that it's talky which doesn't support the http://bloggeek.me/webrtc-federation/ argument anymore please :-)

  497. MattJ

    Sharing a URL is handy

  498. MattJ

    Until we have XMPP in the browser

  499. fippo

    it's not.

  500. MattJ

    as much as I disagree that it's federation

  501. SouL


  502. fippo


  503. fippo

    basically sending an url is useless unless you have a bidirectional realtime channel

  504. bear

    it may not be federation or signalling, but it sure makes it great for event planning

  505. fippo

    sure. henriks "my parents open talky.io/xx at a certain time" is a great usecase

  506. MattJ

    and it's not handy?

  507. fippo

    who own talky.io/xx?

  508. bear

    we haven't implemented reserved rooms yet

  509. bear

    on talky.io

  510. fippo

    awww, use xmpp :-)

  511. MattJ

    anonymous auth

  512. ralphm

    the problem is in the 'at a certain time'

  513. fippo

    i still think that having talky as an argument against federation is somewhat silly when henrik says "yup, talky is a silo. this is bad"

  514. ralphm

    Using hangouts, my wife first checks if I'm online before calling me there, when abroad.

  515. bear

    we are working on something that is more federated and uses xmpp

  516. fippo

    bear: i know :-)

  517. ralphm

    bear: haha, fippo is indeed, together with Lance, I assume.

  518. bear


  519. fippo

    bear: once you move over to xmpp, you get a great video bridge for free ;-)

  520. bear


  521. remko has joined

  522. bear

    I would love to have the skills to work on a video muxer

  523. fippo

    heh. i don't either

  524. fippo

    but the jitsi guys have

  525. bear

    sure I can hack up something - but proper muxing requires mad audio/video skills

  526. fippo

    well... enough to avoid muxing video

  527. remko

    sorr for being too lazy to look this up, but what's the recommended way of submitting a change to the XEP XSL stylesheet?

  528. MattJ

    "email stpeter"? :)

  529. Tobias

    a patch to someone who has git access?

  530. remko

    i'll go with 'email stpeter', i'm sure he doesn't get enough email

  531. Tobias


  532. MattJ

    What is the change, out of curiosity?

  533. Tobias

    changes font to comic sans ^^

  534. remko

    mattj: support for the <sub> span element

  535. Tobias

    what does it do? what's the use case?

  536. remko

    brace yourself: it adds support for a <sub> element and transforms it into ... a <sub> element

  537. Tobias

    what does it do for the PDF output? :)

  538. remko

    oh blimey, we have multiple XSL stylesheets?

  539. Tobias

    yup...there is a xep2texml.xsl i think

  540. remko

    yeah, and fo.xsl.

  541. Tobias

    fo.xsl is deprecated

  542. remko

    oh, phew

  543. Tobias is working on image support for the PDF too

  544. bear

    what file do you need changed?

  545. remko

    bear: xep.xsl

  546. bear

    k, let me get setup

  547. remko

    tobias: the xep2texml seems to be missing other stuff too, no? I don't see 'em' or 'pre' in there

  548. Tobias

    probably...it's on my todo :)

  549. Tobias

    those two should be easy though

  550. remko

    well, then <sub> should be easy too. Just add it to your todo list ;-)

  551. Tobias

    what does it do? subscript? so the latex _{} or so?

  552. remko


  553. Tobias


  554. remko

    although that's only in math; googling seems to come up with some packages to do it in plain text mode. Yay LaTeX :)

  555. Tobias

    heh :)

  556. Simon has left

  557. bear

    remko - done, please sanity check the diff

  558. remko

    bear: thanks a bunch, i'll check it when it goes public

  559. bear

    yea, that is the flip side to this - do I have to poke something to get it in use

  560. remko has left

  561. jabberjocke has joined

  562. Tobias has joined

  563. Tobias has left

  564. Alex has left

  565. bear submits meeting minutes for today and last week

  566. bear sends members@ post about GSoC

  567. bear goes to dinner

  568. Zash has joined

  569. ralphm

    Love the match report

  570. dwd has left

  571. tato has left

  572. tato has joined