XSF Discussion - 2014-02-12

current agenda items for todays board meeting: Editor Team

doh!

Editor Team GSoC Update ???

did we want to mention anything about the upcoming SSL test day?

yes please

Woah bear, you're awake!

Editorial Team GSoC Update Upcoming Ubiquitous Encyrption Test Day

Also, this is still pre-meeting, yes?

hush ralphm - you may scare me into going back to sleep

yes

Did anyone write a summary of the last test day?

I don't believe so - I was finding it hard to know how well it did

There was some ML discussion, iirc

if you point me to some words that are close to a summary, I can polish them and make a post

Stop poking me! I;m here :)

:)

current agenda: Editorial Team update by Kev GSoC Update XMPP Test Day ???

XMPPUK meetup / IETF

To save issues if I don't pay attention in the meeting, Council would like to suggest Matt Miller, Ashley Ward, Stefan Strigler, Lloyd Watkin, Steffen Larsen and Winfried Tilanus as the Editor team.

thanks Kev

(This is, for those paying attention, the list of all non-Council and non-Board volunteers who posted to the list request. It does not include those who implicitly volunteered by not raising their hand when I asked who was not willing to volunteer at the summit :))

heh

bear: You have a PM from me, if you'd take a look please :)

uhhh

is that what a ducks does when it decloaks?

ok, with dave here - we have everyone present - shall we start? laura, ralphm, Simon, dwd ??

Wow. Full house.

It's a miracle!

and with that I shall...

current agenda: Editorial Team, GSoC, XMPP Test Day, XMPP UK Meetup

any other agenda items?

here

no other items to add to the agenda?

Yeah, could we try and enumerate all the things we said we'd put off until after FOSDEM?

dwd: :-)

Also, FOSDEM renumeration etc.

ok, first item - the Council has suggested a starting list of folks for the Editorial work team:Matt Miller, Ashley Ward, Stefan Strigler, Lloyd Watkin, Steffen Larsen and Winfried Tilanus

we're numbering FOSDEM again?

unless any objects, I say we vote yea/nea for that list and then send out an email to members@

That should be everyone in the "Editorial team" thread, sans Board/Council.

+1 om the Team

If someone could double-check that, it'd be good.

+1

The list looks good, and with enough people. I'm +1.

kev - the list is accurate

bear: TY.

(Without feeling a need to go hunt for more).

simon?

+1

WOOOO

thanks - I will email the members@ team and cc the above with the info

great

Oh - is stpeter volunteering for the team, or is this a complete handover?

Assuming bear voted +1, too

+1

we'll schedule an organizational meeting next week sometime

stpeter is specifically denied a spot on the team

:)

heh

I'm fine either way, just want to know.

well, we will need to work out processes and procedures and all that, so I suppose I'll be an advisor of some kind

I think yes, he is on the team

righ

OK, cool.

ok, on to the next item: GSoC update

we have had two groups add items to the project list but they are still lacking some details - emails have gone out for more information but the deadline is fast approacching.

what I would like the board to do is agree that Kev and myself will be making the final call to apply or not later this week after we have reviewed the projects.

Sure.

is that ok with the board?

I'm confidant that bear and Kev can make that call.

Is the aim to do a "good" XSF GSoC application, or merely a "good enough" one?

+1

a good one

dwd: Good.

+1

OK, I'm fine with that as the policy.

+1 (for the sake of clarification)

"Good enough" doesn't get in to GSoC, generates work for the XSF, and generates work for the GSoC team who have to review all the applications.

So unless we can be confident that our houses are well and truly in order (or made of cards, or something), I'd like us to not enter.

simon has dropped off - i'll add his vote later, but right now it's 4 +1's

yes, given the status and nature of the work, I do not want to get us involved unless we have a firm set of projects

As things stand at the moment, the IoT and BC ones are almost there, but not quite. Smack has appeared from nowhere without knowing who's involved, and the Gajim ones are incomplete. So unless things change, I think we should gracefully skip another year.

ok, that is a Yes to allowing Kev and myself to making the final call for GSoC

indeed

thanks Kev for riding herd on that task

ok, next item: XMPP Test Day

sorry - connectivity issues.

here

do we have anyone who wants to write up a blog post about the upcoming test day?

thanks simon

At the risk of sounding immeasurably ill-informed, what test day?

Happy to write a quick post and forward it.

we should also get someone to write up a summary of the last one

Just a "hey - we're testing security again"

that works for me - email it to me and i'll get it posted

bear: will do.

Dave won't be writing the blog then

Laura: :-D

this will have the same tone as the last one - that we are notifying of the event and without any explicit XSF endorsements

22nd is a Saturday incase anyone is wondering

Oh, this is for the manifesto thing.

heck, I don't even know what today is

is there a non-saturday test scheduled?

don't know.

Laura, I'll be *reading* the blog post, though.

fippo: http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Security_XMPP

ok, anything else for test day item?

they are all Saturdays

intentionally, I assumed

the next ones are February 22, March 22, and April 19

yes

well, at least one of the tests should be on a day when people using jabber at work should notice.

stpeter: last I heard Google was promising to do something s2s wise. But not it seems not.

Simon, I was told this by an anonymous Googler at FOSDEM, too.

btw, is jabber.org taking part in the tests?

It is.

It did for the last one, at least.

Simon: they promised by May 19, not necessarily before

ok - unless there is other security stuff, let's move on.

next item - XMPP UK Meetup

laura?

Yes, just to say that Dave is helping me to organise the XMPP UK Meetup in March

And I would like to share a blog post about the ITEF / XMPPUK meetup days

If I may

I am?

what's the final date?

Tues 4th March

please do post to the blog and to members@

And yes Dave, you are

This is the meetup Lloyd promised me would be in February, so I could plan to attend :p

I got bullied into moving it

To align with IETF event?

Kev, March is the new February.

Laura: bullied? Oi!

I have written ITEF / IETF - it's something like that

Internet Task Engineering Force.

I can believe that.

Ahhh

That

Kev, :-)

Kev: you can still plan to attend

Internet Engineering Task Force aka IETF

ralphm: I can. That day is just jolly inconvenient.

well, yeah, carnival and all that. I understand

That is all from me, just wanted all to be aware

Oh. This reminds me of another agenda entry.

laura - will be posting to blog and members@ (or forward me the words and i'll do it)

wow - my english sucks today

Will do. Fabulous

thanks

stpeter made the (very sensible) suggestion of the XSF funding day-tickets for the IETF, so we could help people attend the XMPP_WG meeting.

we should mention that in the members@ post

I'd second this, and also extend it both beyond XSF members, and also beyond just the IETF fee, on a case-by-case basis.

bear: what is your native language?

We should probably vote on both.

ralphm, Growls.

ralphm - grunts

:-D

anyhone opposed to funding the IETF day pass reimbursement?

(doing it as two votes)

No

i'm +1 on day pass funding

I do have a question about this.

sure

Which is has anyone formulated what the benefit to the XSF is of arbitrary members being sponsored to attend?

(blanket, rather than case by case - there are certainly members whose attendance is beneficial. I'm less convinced that it's all)

the benefit is getting XSF members present and participating in the WG discussions

That's what it does, it's not clearly a benefit :)

I can imagine a hardship fund in extreme cases - but to be funding "arbirtary" members seems a little odd to me.

increasing participation by removing a financial barrier

BTW, the student fee is less than the day pass fee

for locals of course

arguably, one can participate without being physically present

Q: what is a day pass fee?

$350

stpeter, been reading that in a couple years they'll be back in berlin (:

$650 early bird all days

well, given that this is probably the last XMPP WG meeting, it might be beneficial to have some people who know about XMPP participating while we make decisions

I am with Kev, I don't understand offering to pay for people 'outside' of our community?

(<=21 Feb)

I think the benefit to the XSF is providing increased participation in specification development.

and $800 after

Laura: well, these are people inside our community

I can see this making sense in the one-off case for xnyhps - but let's deal with this on a case by case basis rather than trying to establish a blanket rule.

I don't believe it was for outside of XSF people

Laura, XSF members are (or should be) involved with helping to run the XSF. XMPP folk, though, are a broader community.

Do we have count(XSF Members) * $350 we can easily spare from the XSF kitty?

Got you. I take my comment back. As you all were.

Kev, Actually, yes, I think we probably do.

realistically how many people do we think might take advantage of this offer? let's poll the members to find out

I would say perhaps only a few, but I don't know

count(XSF) = 52 but I don't think we will get 52

Who in this room would maybe apply for this?

Laura, Ah, but there's a little point in my comment, which is that sponsoring XSF members without question probably isn't in line with our goals.

and if we have that problem, then I will back up my thought with getting the sponsor for that value

I'm am personally thinking about going.

bear: I don't either. I just worry about writing checks we can't cash (sic).

(I'll not again that I think this is a one-time event)

ralphm, I honestly don't know whether I would ask for the cash or not.

s/not/note/

dwd: and that, too

We could be creative here

If people did want funding to attend, we could ask for a commitment from them

I will probably try to attend, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to ask Isode to pay for it (given Isode's Alexey involvement in the IETF), or to ask Cath to let me pay it myself. So I might well.

A little 'I will scratch your back if you scratch mine'

People will have to pay to get there. If they show that commitment, I'm ok with funding a day pass.

if I were already near the event for other reasons, but traveling just for that, there is just too much costs involved (aside from the meeting fees)

Tobias: yes

Tobias: the meeting fee is the smallest part of it, really

stpeter: you'd be surprised for europeans

stpeter, FOr the whole meeting, yes. Not so much for a couple of nights.

indeed...i heard london isn't the cheapest place across europe

do we have a consensus on this: let's email the members@ list and poll to find out how many people would be interested in having the XSF cover their day-pass cost

We could see about a block booking at a hotel to cut costs. We've enough London or London-savvy people to help folk navigate.

bear, I would rather email standards@ actually. Those are the people who would bring most benefit.

What do people planning on attending the XMPP WG hope to achieve that is not being achieved at the Summits and on mailing lists?

+1 to poll

dwd: not, say, the xmppwg list?

Simon: that's a fair question

Simon: I do generally feel I have things to say in the WG meetings, and saying them remotely is a bit of a bind.

Simon, I think the simple answer is that the XMPP WG meetings are to the core RFCs what the Summits are to XEPs.

(That is - I almost always attend the XMPP WG meetings, remotely)

simon: the audience at the IETF is quite different from the summit one.

fippo, indeed :D

Also, I think a clearly visible, vibrant community would encourage the reverse - IETF folk joining in with XMPP related activity.

summit == people deeply involved in xmpp. ietf == mostly people doing other ietf stuff

Simon: decisions on the WebSocket draft, DNA/POSH, etc. - and perhaps this is an inducement for people to also participate in the XMPP-UK meetup (or perhaps the other way around: participate in the XMPP WG session if they're already planning to be at the XMPP UK meeting)

ralphm, And finally - the xmppwg list also works for me, but my possibly erroneous feeling si that the standards@: folk are the ones we really need - the broader XMPP community.

I suggest we set up a wiki page like we did for FOSDEM/Summit and have people sign up there

oh I don't think it would be good to post about this to the xmpp@ietf.org list

dwd: yes. I was already in favor, though.

that would seem strange to IETF folk

stpeter: ok

what is the name of the ietf meeting - XMPP_WG?

IETF 89 - we care about the XMPP Working Group session, but there are other sessions on that day, too

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/index.html

the agenda is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/agenda.html

An alternate way of doing this would be to agree a budget for sponsoring people to attend.

That is, how much are we willing to spend on this?

I note that the cut-off date for hotel reservations is in 3 days

ralphm, Yeah, but I sort of assumed I'd not be able to afford the hotel. :-)

dwd: sure, but people might want to know

ralphm, We could arrange an XMPP hotel, as it were.

nod

the IETF conference hotel is always hugely expensive

Do we have a treasurer avaliable?

we don't have a treasurer, only me

Can you give an indication of the current balance?

I can try and help to find cheap hotels if needed

Simon, It's roughly $16k, as I recall, with approximately $1k committed.

we have $16,866.37 in the bank, before reimbursing people for FOSDEM

Damn, I was almost 1k out.

ok.

Ok, people, I have to leave the meeting early. I'll vote later.

I need to leave soon too.

Can we agree for someone to take an action on this and move on please?

Simon, What action would we like, though?

imho that next step needs to be to come up with some options.

the option on the table is do we offer to cover the day pass to those who ask

Simon, I'm good with polling standards@ to gauge interest, and/or deciding on a budget for this.

who, how much and exactly what they will be doing on the XSF's behalf.

I will create a wiki page, send an email to member@ and standards@ asking people to sign up

Simon, Participation in the IETF is, like participation in the XSF's STandards SIG, purely individual.

after getting that data we can then discuss what the cost will be

dwd: if it's purely individual then why the XSF involvement?

@bear seems reasonable

because, IMO, we should help folks attend who may not have companies behind them to help increase the XSF's visibility to outside groups

Simon: because we need to finish our deliverables in the XMPP WG at the IETF and if getting more people with clue involved will push us over the line, that's great for XMPP in general

stpeter, Right, that.

IMHO this should be effort driven not budget driven - what's the WG trying to achieve, who needs to be there, then who can't be there becasue of costs.

I'd be amazed if more than 7 people would apply for this.

ralphm: agreed

and I'd support that

I would forecast maybe 5 people

stpeter - thanks. I was missing that part.

so were around the 2k mark there

we're

k, let me get the wiki page up and start beating the bushes for people who will be attending

then we can have some data to discuss next time

ralphm: I'd expect so, yes

bear: WFM

k, anything else to add or discuss?

+1 for next topic.

that was the last topic

There are people who wouldn't because of the other costs involved; I think we should be prepared to consider further bursaries as needed, but we can deal with that later.

[16:30:27] dwd: Yeah, could we try and enumerate all the things we said we'd put off until after FOSDEM? [16:31:10] dwd: Also, FOSDEM renumeration etc.

We can put off the first until next meeting. :-)

I will take it as a task to prepare that list for next meeting

I think bursaries for a select few people who can usefully contribute would be quite sensible. More so than offering entrance fees for everyone, probably.

and have the agenda in hand before

+1 Kev.

The second, though, I just need an invoice form - stpeter, I think you were going to send a sample to the board@?

dwd: I just sent that

a few minutes ago

dwd - are you handling the invoice generation?

bear, Just this once. I'd rather not end up being the treasurer. :-)

anyone have anything else to discuss?

Last minute addition: Unless there's any other business, I'd like to mention the need for some kind of Tweet action and see if we can rustle up @XMPP or @XSF or something appropriate for the XSF to use to promote ourselves on Twitter.

I tried reaching out to the owners of those accounts but didn't hear back.

Unless anyone objects, I'll ping some friends who work at twitter and see if they can put me in touch with someone that handles dormant accounts.

Sounds good! I would really support this

+1 simon

And will help Simon

ok - leave it with me.

I'll report on progress next week

+1

anything else?

Not here

Don't forget your members vote

dwd, ralphm?

Nothing more from me.

we could easily register xmppfoundation at Twitter etc.

that at least is available

i'll register that now

ok

ok, calling this meeting done - i'll get minutes up tonight

stpeter: that's a smart thing to do, and makes it possible to transition over to another one when it comes available

ralphm: yep

thanks everyone for a great meeting and discussion!

*waves*

date of next: +1W

Laura: I will review your ISOC blog post right now!!!

stpeter: thank you!

twitter.com/xmppfoundation registered

wiki page created (but it is very empty - I ran out of words)

email sent to members@ asking people to register on wikipage

bear: lorem ipsum

:)

OK I updaed http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/IETF_89 a bit

:)

thanks peter

pushes "publish" on ISoc blog post

oh... thanks whoever fixed the voxeo logo btw

stpeter: what? This is still isn't your real job?

for the life of me I cannot figure out how to get the main page side bar to update

Verdomme!

bear: ^, thought I'd help you