Just realised I completely missed the members meeting last night! Sorry everyone!
Alex
no problem ;-)
Lancehas joined
Ash
Glad to see I haven't been kicked out (yet)!
Ash
:)
Kev
Ash: You voted by proxy. That's more than far too many of our members managed.
ralphm
Kev: :-/
Kev
Or, at least, ISTR you did. If you didn't, shame on you :P
Ash
I did, Kev. Yes I did!
ralphm
Kev: publicly? Half-kidding.
Kev
ralphm: Not sure what the question is.
Santiago26has left
ralphm
the shaming
Zash
Public shaming, mouhahaa
ralphm
like with vote tallies for council, really
Kev
We explicitly note who did and didn't turn up for Council and Board meetings, because this stuff is important when voting on people.
ralphm
Kev: my point
Kev
There's a follow-up.
Kev
The problem with publicly shaming XSF members is that there're two possible outcomes:
Kev
1) Those members who aren't contributing anything don't pass re-votes.
Kev
2) Yet more people who blindly vote Yes on every issue, irrespective of whether they're sufficiently informed to do so.
ralphm
I think 2 can't be helped anyway. And maybe it really gives an incentive.
ralphm
I don't know to be honest
ralphm
just thinking aloud
Zash
Welcome to Democracy
dwd
I do wonder if we should switch to something like range voting.
Zash
range voting?
winfriedhas joined
dwd
So you'd mark each [re]applicant from 1-5. Makes people think more.
dwd
Also, range voting defeats Arrow's Theorum.
dwd
(Which basically says that all voting is unfair)
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas joined
Kev
I'm not sure how that would work. Each member application is independent, unlike Council/Board.
Lancehas joined
Kev
I think possibly we should re-raise the 'abstain' issue from a while back.
Kev
On the assumption that it's possible that many members vote 'yes' because they don't feel sufficiently informed to vote at all, and thus voting 'no' would be bad.
Kev
(One member did express this problem to me, which is why I brought up the issue months ago)
Kev
At the time I decided that abstaining was pretty much the same as voting No, but I think that if that person's vote is then not counted as part of the sum for testing majority, it'd be fine.
Kev
Little as I like the thought of fiddling with our bylaws.
intosi
How would you propose improving the informedness of members in this respect? Could lead to failed votes because people abstain, thus possibly not reaching quorum for (re)applicants voted on.
Kev
I think that a member deliberately casting an abstention counts towards quorum.
Kev
Is how you solve the second problem.
intosi
So in that case we could have a theoretical applicant X that gets 40 abstains, one yes, zero no and is thus voted in.
Kev
And for the first - well, you either have to make sure everyone's informed (which is a huge time sink - to be able to sensibly vote for XSF members you have to follow pretty much all the mailing lists and more), or let people say they're not well enough informed with an abstention.
Kev
intosi: Yes. This doesn't strike me as a problem.
intosi
Ok. That would make Abstain more of a 'Do not care either way'
Kev
Or, at least, far less of a problem than the current situation, where people are essentially casting Yes in place of abstaining.
Kev
Yes, that's what an abstention is.
intosi
Kev: that's a fair point.
simon
What's the problem we're trying to solve? Having too many members? Or voting for Council / Board?
Kev
If you wanted to vote against them, you'd vote No.
intosi
K
intosi
Fair point
Kev
simon: Current members see a new membership application and aren't sure if the person is really coming from nowhere without contributing (should be No), or has been contributing heavily and relevantly on a list they don't follow.
Kev
simon: So they vote Yes.
Kev
simon: So anyone applying to the XSF is guaranteed to be accepted.
simon
Do we need to limit members?
Kev
Yes.
simon
Why?
Kev
Because members vote on Council/Board.
simon
To be on the voting list you need to fill out a wiki page which suggests some interest in XMPP. And we want to reject these people (who probably won't be bothered to vote anyway) becasue?
Lloyd
Also apologies for not getting my proxy vote in, had planned some time to get it done but dwd can talk the hind legs off a donkey (never got that one) :)
Kev
simon: Because Council is critically important to the XSF's mission. If you have a system that encourages a disengaged membership, you move away from informed decisions on selecting a Council, and instead move to random selection.
intosi
Lloyd: if every member that didn't vote in time would feel the need to send appologies, we would have less of a discussion..
Kev
(And Board similarly has the power to screw everything up, so similar arguments apply)
simon
Kev: And the fear is that a disengaged member will just vote randomly?
Kev
I disengaged member cannot, by definition, make an informed decision on voting.
Kev
s/I/A/
simon
Are we seeing evidence of this?
Kev
One of the members asked a while back if I could raise the issue of abstentions because they were forced to vote by the bylaws, weren't sufficiently engaged to be able to do so properly, and so felt they had to vote Yes on everyone's member applications.
Kev
So yes.
simon
Right - that makes sense.
Kev
I suspect if you were to go down the members list, you would manage to find some people who have never contributed in a meaningful way to the XSF's goals, yet are members.
Kev
You can take voting attendance as some sort of evidence of members not doing their job, if you like.
Kev
I'll accept a handful of members missing single votes because Dave talks too much.
simon
yes. Although to become a member shows some interested in XMPP and perhaps we should be reflecting on what we can do to better rope them in and turn them into an army of XMPP supporters. I don't know the answer to this, but do think that we should find a better way of mobilising someone that goes through the effort of creating a page about themselves on the XMPP website.
Kev
But when around a third of your membershp (I didn't count) is missing, that's not screaming to me "I'm taking my role in the XSF seriously".
Kev
I think that's a dodgy basis.
Kev
I think becoming a member shows some interest in being a member.
Kev
The barrier to entry for voting is very very low. If people aren't even doing this, I don't see how we can hope to mobilise them into action.
Kev
There is also a group of people who /do/ vote and are interested and could be motivated into doing more, I'm sure.
Kev
See the group of people stepping up to the Editors team, for example.
simon
XSF membership was never very clear to me and when I asked was explained to me about 4 years ago as "Simon you should become a member becasue it looks good and you don't have to do very much" (or something along those lines).
Lloyd
So maybe, no vote, no apology + 3 strikes == out? Can reapply immediately?
Kev
Lloyd: Well, that's pretty much what we already have.
Lloyd
kev: is it enforced?
simon
I've learnt what membership entails. But I'm not sure it's clearly laid out anywhere or if it is, it's not publicised well.
Kev
Lloyd: Not always.
Kev
simon: Right, I think many membership applications are similarly motivated purely by "Hey, this makes me look good" arguments.
Kev
That's not an interest in XMPP, it's an interest in being an XSF member, and these aren't the same thing.
Kev
(Of course, there's the argument of whether just having an interest in XMPP is enough to justify being a member, but that's a must less clear-cut debate)
simon
Do we have any ideas of how do other communities handle this?
Kev
The IETF has somewhat involved rules around eligibility for things, and does away with having a wide membership that votes on it.
Kev
I like our simple model better, I just think it could do with slight tweaking.
Ash
I wonder if section 2.6 may help for members that don't attend or vote at meetings. Has that ever been used?
Kev
It has.
Kev
But that doesn't address the current issue :)
Ash
On another note, I just noticed this clause: "An applicant for membership may not be admitted if, at the time of application or consideration, fifteen percent (15%) of the Members of the Corporation are employed by or represent the same corporation or organization as that corporation or organization which employs the applicant or is represented by the applicant."
simon
Is there a page that explains the role and requirements of members?
Ash
I think we're getting close to that limit :O
Kev
simon: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
simon
Kev: maybe that's the problem - there's bylaws and then there's day-to-day expectations that need to be clearer and not buried in legalese.
simon
as much as I enjoy reading bylaws...
Kev
Maybe our membership application form should have a static block of "I understand my obligations..." that everyone has to paste.
Kev
But: I'd have thought that all members should probably have read the bylaws at least once.
Kev
This may be overly optimistic, though.
simon
I think you are assuming that everyone is a Kev. Nice as that would be...
Kev
So yes. Having some "This is what being a member means" page that it's impossible for an applicant to not have read, would probably go some way towards this.
Ash
That's a great idea Kev
intosi
It's not unreasonable to expect members of a standards org to read the actual standards governing that same org. The by laws are part of that.
Kev
Then the applicants can copy the text into their applications.
Lloyd
Reading the by-laws is somewhat like reading the instruction manual - I'd admit that I only did it after becoming a member (but had asked an existing member about responsiblities, etc)
simonhas added it to https://trello.com/b/ml9e82sE/xmpp-org-website
Kev
simon: This needs more than just going on the website, I think. It needs entwining into the application process.
Lloyd
kev: +1
Kev
I think this is supplemental to, rather than obviating the need for, the abstention thing, though :)
simon
Kev: yes - a "I've read <url> and agree to uphold my duties as a member" type blurb
simon
Kev - can I put you down to write a "What is expected of members" page for the new website?
dwdhas joined
dezanthas left
dezanthas joined
Kev
Not in the near term.
simon
we'd need this in about 8-12 weeks time.
Kev
Ask me again in a few weeks then.
Kev
I have no capacity at all for volunteering for additional stuff right now.
Santiago26has left
Santiago26has joined
Tobiashas joined
dwd
Hmm. I may have restabilised my DSL sufficient to join in the debate now it's ended.
Kev
Well done.
dwd
So... The nice thing about range voting vs abstaining is that if it's set to, say, 1-5, then '3' can be made equivalent to an absention. For things like Council/Board, though, it gets more interesting, because things like "split votes" cease to apply - that is, voting for someone makes them always more likely to get in, and never less.
Kev
I don't think this is really equivalent.
Lloyd
Heard back from the decentralise folk, they are taking proposals for another couple of days then will start deciding on talks/workshops (cc simon & fippo)
Kev
That 3 will still pull the average in.
Zashhas joined
simon
Lloyd - also heard back from them. Same story.
Kev
I don't have the cycles to run the maths, though.
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
fippo
lloyd/simon: smae here ;-)
winfriedhas left
Alex
I think thats a social problem which we cannot solve. I have been in many orgs, institutions or local (hobby) clubs. Always the same problem. A small amount of people is doing the most work, while others only enjoy their benefits.
Lancehas joined
Kev
"Can't solve" isn't the same as "Can't improve"
Alex
Kev: I agree
Tobiashas joined
dezanthas left
Lancehas joined
fippo
dwd: any objections against me submitting the starttls-dialback thing that has been lying around in my customxeps github thingie since last november?
dwd
fippo, Oh. Can I give it a once-over first?
dwd
fippo, I wanted to add some stuff.
fippo
dwd: git pull and then update :-)
dwd
Basically instead of just looking at the impact of TLS on dialback, I wanted to expand it to cover DNSSEC as well.
fippo
that would be excellent. i think this will make the whole DNA discussion alot more clear
Syhas joined
winfriedhas joined
Syhas left
winfriedhas left
kevinhas joined
kevinhas left
Neustradamushas joined
Neustradamus
We are february end, when will be the date of the meeting?
http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q1_2014
but I have informed that there is a problem with the ML...
Kev
Well, problem with your mail provider, in fact.
Santiago26has left
intosi
Neustradamus: switch to hosting your own mail while we try to resolve various mailing list issue. You then get to decide whether or not something is unwanted or spam, instead of Microsoft. I know that's a sucky answer, but it really works wonders for these kinds of issues.
ralphm
Also, the meeting is in the XSF calendar
Zash
I got spam from Google today. Much fun.
emchohas left
Alex
Neustradamus: I can add other mail addresses for you to mailman if you want
emchohas joined
emchohas left
emchohas joined
Laurahas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
dezanthas joined
xnyhpshas left
Laura
Just reminding anyone who can make the London XMPP meetup on Tuesday to sign up. Need numbers for pizza and beer (the things that matter) Meetup link broken but Lanyrd here: http://lanyrd.com/2014/xmppuk/
Kev
Can you count me without me signing up? :)
Zash
There's some names on the wiki too right?
intosi
Lauta: do me a favour, and include at least one pizza with meat, but without mushroom ;)
Tobiashas left
fippo
00hey kev, I just noticed a new face on isodes managment team ;-)
Tobiashas joined
simonremembers isode's whitepapers and adds them to the whitepaper victims^w provider list
Kev
fippo: Because you like to just check that page for fun? :)
Tobias
fippo, VP in Presence :) he'll be present everywhere soon
intosi
He's not VP in omnipresence, Tobias.
Kev
I should probably register for the WG.
Tobias
intosi, not yet
Zash
Laura: I would also appreciate if you could count me in without me needing to sign up somewhere
Kev
Zash: Oh you're coming over? Fab.
fippo
kev: well, because i had to unsub an email address that will be gone actually
Zash
Kev: Yup
Laura
Zash: will do, thanks for letting me know
Kev
Laura: You caught me in that too?
Kev
Also - seems there's 50 minutes left to register for the IETF thingy. I should get on with that.
Laura
Have now
Kev
Diolch.
Zash
Maybe I should too
Kev
And the country codes link is broken \o/
Ashhas left
emchohas left
emchohas joined
Lancehas joined
emchohas left
Tobiashas joined
emchohas joined
emchohas left
xnyhpshas left
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Laurahas left
Lancehas joined
Lancehas joined
emchohas joined
dwd
fippo, I've done a quick edit or two. If I knew how to do a pull request in github I would do one now.
Santiago26has joined
dwd
fippo, Ah-ha, I figured it out now.
Santiago26has left
Laurahas joined
Kev
I've been using Github recently for some non-XMPP code (shock!), and I really like just about everything about it other than the pull request model.
dwd
It's just as well no future employer of mine is likely to spot that I don't understand pull requests, isn't it?
simon
Kev: what is it about pull requests that you don't like?
Kev
I don't like the merge model in Git.
Kev
Rebase all the way :)
Laurahas left
dwd
Oh, I mostly like merges, but only for real merging. Rebasing makes more sense in most cases.
Kev
The big problem with merging is that it breaks bisect.
Kev
And bisect is lovely.
Lloyd
rebasing is wrong imo and I don't like it one bit
Kev
Lloyd: You have every right to be wrong.
dwd
I was always fascinated by the Monotone suggestion for branching at the point a bug is introduced, fixing the bug on the branch, and then merging on release branches. So the VCS becomes your bug tracker. (Branch not meregd at this point? Bug exists at this point.)
Lloyd
:)
Kev
(I actually like the /concept/ of merges, in that it preserves information that is lost in a rebase. But they're unpleasant to manage, and break bisect. So pragmatism wins over principle in this case)
dwd
Lloyd, If it's one small change, rebase. Developing a lengthy feature, I'd go for a merge, since it'll preserve the history. Rebasing would work, but means you either have weird history that doesn't reflect the changes actually made, or else lose the history entirely and squash.
Lloydhas left
simonhas left
dwd
fippo, Ta.
simonhas joined
Laurahas joined
Laura
Working on a gsoc blog for Philipp
fippo
laura: thanks!
dwd
fippo, Laura - What's this for? I thought we didn't apply for GSoC? I is confuddled.
Kev
I assume to say how happy we are that other XMPP-related projects are participating.
fippo
kev: exactly
fippo
and pointing people to jitsi and instantbird
dwd
Right, OK. TAB.
Laura
dwd: shout out about 'we may not be sponsoring, but projects still include xmpp' etc
Laura
I spent too long typing. What they said.
ralphm
Kev: if you think that bisect doesn't work with merges, I think you are doing it wrong
dwd
Yup. As I said, TAB. (Or rather, TaB, really)
Kev
ralphm: There are some (quite specific) cases where it doesn't.
Laura
fippo: all done
Kev
Where the breakage occurs in one branch, but the other branch contains build fixes (e.g. for new versions of dependencies or whatever).
Tobiashas left
emchohas left
emchohas joined
emchohas left
emchohas joined
Kev
(Which sounds contrived, until you actually suffer through it)
ralphm
Kev: this isn't really a property of branches, but the way you are looking for breaking changes, IMO
Tobiashas joined
ralphm
arguably, though, git doesn't actually *have* branches, even though they are called that
ralphm
it does have branch heads
ralphm
unlike, say, mercurial, where git-style branches are called 'bookmarks'
Kev
Right. I think the Git model for branches is great.
ralphm
Kev: You have every right to be wrong.
Tobias
:)
Kev
Indeed. I'll take advantage of it some day.
xnyhpshas left
fippo
laura: thanks. i'll see about tweeting it, my #webrtc audience might be larger (-:
ralphm
The problem I have with rebases is that people generally tend to write horrible commit messages while working on a branch. Merging gives a (second) change of writing a good one, that also has the general overview.
Kev
ralphm: I don't think that's a problem with rebases, really, though, is it?
Kev
It's a problem with terrible commit messages, and I can appreciate that.
dwd
ralphm, Actually, rebasing gives the oppoertunity too. git rebase -i is your friend.
dwd
ralphm, You even get to squash commits together for the pointless commits you did.
simonhas left
simonhas joined
simonhas left
martin.hewitt@surevine.comhas left
emchohas left
emchohas joined
Laurahas left
Laurahas joined
Laurahas left
m&mhas joined
m&mhas left
m&mhas joined
emchohas left
emchohas joined
emchohas left
emchohas joined
emchohas left
Tobias
does our mediawiki instance allow fancy tables like that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#Web_browsers
ralphm
dwd, Kev: as long as those branches haven't been shared, I'm fine with that. In fact I like mercurial queues, which also really are mostly equivalent to sqashed rebased branches
+1 for the github web interface. it allows submitting changes even under the influence of alcohol
Lancehas joined
Lancehas joined
Lance
Ge0rG: again, placeholder. the idea is to be able to set a generic, blanket configuration and also be able to modify a config for a particular service
ralphm
I am really excited about this stuff
Lance
Ge0rG: yes, multiple client-push-services are allowed (but i may be misunderstanding what you meant there)
Santiago26has joined
Santiago26has left
Ge0rG
Lance: I am talking about how a client can get the general config, and the per-backend config, and how it can set them
Lance
ah, right. i updated the document to hopefully clarify that
Tobiashas left
emchohas joined
Alexhas left
dwd
http://www.ggmania.com/pics//14/feb/evo/evo.jpg
Tobiashas joined
Ge0rG
yay! I contributed to a proto-XEP!
Ge0rG
dwd: I know I'm pestering you way too much, but do you have a feeling if/when you can bring the yaxim-MUC project into a state where someone else could look at it?
fippo
ge0rg: if he promised, it will take less than five years ;-)
stpeterhas joined
Ge0rG
fippo: this is a sensible upper bound
dwd
Ge0rG, For you, less than four years.
Lancehas joined
dwd
Ge0rG, More seriously, I'll find some time next week to run through a bunch more rebase steps.
Ge0rG
dwd: that's great. Next week is perfectly right, I'm having some days off...