XSF Discussion - 2013-11-27

zash: it only mixes audio

https://jitsi.org/Main/JitSiCompromise20131126

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

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

laura - ping?

Hi

trying to connect

We could hear you, could you not hear us?

evidently all my devices need new hangout software

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

are we doing a VC today?

didn't get any memo

I hope not :p

Did you move the board meeting to !XMPP now?

I hope not :-P

no - this was a test for something else

Ah, okay :)

good

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

fippo, Does OTalk do it yet?

for 1-1 it might

are we ready for the board meeting?

*ready*

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

and ralph

"lurking"

I am. Kev is running out.

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

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

is council still going?

bear: yes

Just

shall we wait 5 for it to finish?

done

Done

bear: go

and I see it's done

ok, agenda bashing - anything anyone wants to add?

bear, What is the current agenda?

Did you send out an agenda?

Link please

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

The only agenda item for today talk about the test day

Both of which are outreach/liaison issues, actually.

Background needed please (just a little)

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

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

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.

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.

http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/131120/

Simon, Oh, yeah, push, too.

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

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

Lance: yes and yes

Laura even

(yay tab-completion)

https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/wg-presence

Great

Steps?

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

*agree*

it adds credibility and helps them think they discovered XMPP

which is much more powerful.

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

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

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

Laura: they actually did

"how will you deal with xyz issues?"

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

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

as well as personal eventing

We need to get the message clear and address their concerns

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

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.

Are they willing to sponsor that module being developed?

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

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

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

Who has experience building push notification networks?

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

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).

Bear - can we help them to do this?

Generous of us, and will help us understand their thinking

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

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

And the offer of our experience and knolwedge

Mobile push :)

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

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

but the users would know

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

Simon: that is a frequent myth.

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

at least google's push protocol is XMPP based

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

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

on some level

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

(apple does)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

agreed

who will do that?

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

Erm.

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

XMPPUK meetup on Monday

They could come and see?

I will post that info to their irc channel

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

tarek is involved - he is in/around Paris IIRC

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

next agenda item?

google federation

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

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

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

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

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

ralphm, lets defer that to after

bear: ok

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

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

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

Has anyone heard anything from anyone at Google?

+1 on test.

Zash: nothing for close to a week.

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

I'll re-ping them.

indeed.

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

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

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

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

did I mention that XMPP.net is great?

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

ralphm: answering emails would a nice start :)

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.

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

mattJ: +1

Simon: everyone agrees with this

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

dwd: Allways the legacy ssl way?

dwd: Except xmpp-client?

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

(and no SRV either)

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?

ralphm, Right.

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

Zash, They run xmpps only, right?

MattJ: I had a bug report for it in Wokkel

Not that this matters much, mind.

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

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

Zash, Ah-ha, I slouch corrected.

with RC4 :) /me shudders.

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

BTNS

Get the conversation started?

laura - yes

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dwd: Then it's implicitly endorsing it.

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

dwd: In this case, I think.

Kev, Yes, I agree.

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

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

Bear: I'm happy to write that up.

But can help from the marketing spin

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

Simon, co-share this task?

sure

simon - you and laura - done

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?

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.

first real task, one of us now laura :)

ralphm: Why's that?

Because of the certificate thing.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

*SMTP

Hmm, yes.

dwd might know, since he's an email guy

or you :)

Tobias, Possibly, I've not actually looked.

they have steps what is required for SMTP over TLS

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

Board meeting getting technical alert

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

MattJ, Yes, the suits are talking tech again.

to the members@ list

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

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

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

Ralph: agreed - but never underestimate MattJ :)

Agreed.

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

So do we have any plan for that?

yes, that is a seperate action

Irrespective of the manifesto/test

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

Bear: will do.

I'm going to try, too.

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

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

I think we need to word some open letters to them

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

right, let's take this to the formal level

Chris has left Google, it seems.

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

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

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

I am going to contact Adewale Oshineye.

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

happy to get involved

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

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

agree

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

but first we need to reach out on the political level

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

bear, We agreed that whole liaison procedure last meeting.

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

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

+1

+1

+1

+1

ok, done

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should all be using the same words, messaging etc

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

so please do share drafts of the emails with each other

is their anything else to wrangle on this topic?

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

Google doc?

I would almost suggest the wiki

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

i'll set up a Outreach page now

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

So no duplication

let's add that to the wiki

OK, are we done on this?

http://wiki.xmp.org/web/Outreach

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

+1: move on.

ok, moving on

what is next?

This is when agenda are convenient :p

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

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

As did the member applications thing.

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

without that we shouldn't apply

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

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

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

ok, is the board ok with applying?

+1 on being happy

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

ok, the board is happy

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

Happy to go with majority

I can be the org admin if we have mentors

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.

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

Oooh, sounds great!

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

Usually there is and we do.

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

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

yep - I'll do that tonight

ok, next item - member application form

which dave posted to members@ about

dwd?

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

I am fine with it

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

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

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

Real names are logically required.

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

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

real name, jid and email

And affiliation.

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

ya, company name or personal

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

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

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

Can we not have real name and 'nickname'?

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

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

No, not required. Just a field on the form

If there is one, we use thsat

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

If not, real name

Just that some fields are logically required.

can we take this to the list?

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

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

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

ok, any other issues for todays meeting?

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

Kev: this was mentioned before.

yes, I have a good hour of homework for tonight

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

*nods*

+1

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

see you all in a week

bye all

Bye

thanks all

Toodle pip.

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

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

* 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

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

GCS?

eh GCM

ah

it was called cloud services earlier

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

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/

I guess Bear.

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

Or, hrmm. Probably doesn't need asking.

just do it Kev

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

Laura: Did you have your blurb ready?

heck, laura should be given credentials to do it

she will be writing blog posts

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

laura.gill@surevine.com please

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

ok, she has been added

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

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

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

Drag race!

:)

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

yeah

it's never been really documented though

i still need to push emil to update 0176

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

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. :-)

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

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

ice isn't signalling...

erm...

i'll let emil handle this.

btw board guys still around...

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

No, they don't

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

and preserve dwd's sarcasm correctly

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

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

we do?

it's a new thing just started today

Conspiracy

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

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

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

Sharing a URL is handy

Until we have XMPP in the browser

it's not.

as much as I disagree that it's federation

xD

http://hancke.name/why-send-some-a-URI-is-not-a-signalling-protocol.html

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

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

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

and it's not handy?

who own talky.io/xx?

we haven't implemented reserved rooms yet

on talky.io

awww, use xmpp :-)

anonymous auth

the problem is in the 'at a certain time'

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"

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

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

bear: i know :-)

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

:)

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

yep

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

heh. i don't either

but the jitsi guys have

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

well... enough to avoid muxing video

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

"email stpeter"? :)

a patch to someone who has git access?

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

right

What is the change, out of curiosity?

changes font to comic sans ^^

mattj: support for the <sub> span element

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

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

what does it do for the PDF output? :)

oh blimey, we have multiple XSL stylesheets?

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

yeah, and fo.xsl.

fo.xsl is deprecated

oh, phew

what file do you need changed?

bear: xep.xsl

k, let me get setup

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

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

those two should be easy though

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

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

yeah

ah..ok

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

heh :)

remko - done, please sanity check the diff

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

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

Love the match report