Tobiassubscription request rejections are broadcasted to other resources, right?
jonaswTobias: hmm, I cannot find that in RFC 6121. There is only (in section 3.2.3):
The contact's server then MUST send a roster push with the updated
roster item to all of the contact's interested resources, where the
subscription state is now either "none" or "to" (see Appendix A).
CS: <iq id='pw3f2v175b34'
CS: <iq id='zu2y3f571v35'
and that doesn’t apply for un-approved contacts because of:
Security Warning: Until and unless the contact approves the
subscription request as described under Section 3.1.4, the
contact's server MUST NOT add an item for the user to the
in section 3.1.3
jonaswI may be overlooking something but it seems as if this isn’t broadcast.
jonaswthere is nothing about broadcasting the <presence type="unsubscribed"/> to other resources
Tobiashmm..feels strange to distribute the request to all resources, but not the response
jonaswcould be an oversight
danielYes this actually leads to undesired effects when I can't dismiss the notification on the other device
danielBut yes I noticed that before as well
Tobiaswonder what could be a possible workaround for that
Tobiascarbons obviously does only deal with messages
danielThat's probably something that should just be fixed at one point or another in the protocol
Ge0rGdo we have some kind of tracker for "the RFC needs to be amended in the next revision"?
Flowso someone should write a xep with a stream future subscription-rejection-broadcasts which clients can negotiate, no?
Flowor, hmm, not sure, maybe part of bind2?
Flowor just wait for XMPP 2.0
Zashbind2 sorta seems like XMPP 2.0
Flowhmm I thought in XMPP 2.0 we would get rid of priorties
Flowor is there any current use case for priorities?
ZashThere are probably non-IM use cases
SamWhitedI forgot priorities were a thing… again.
Flowhmm priority based balanced round-robin fan out
FlowI think I wrote a xep about that
dwdCould do a roster:2 which does all this by storing roster events in a pair of PEP nodes.
dwd(We discussed roster:2 in San José a few years back)
ArcGuus: well our board meetings are UTC, thankfully. before it was british time, which is different daylight savings than everyone else so we switched 4 times a year.
Arcit should be 1700 UTC. so its an hour later today than last week, the question is out of the 5 of us who will show up an hour early expecting a meeting ;-)
KevArc: Well, no, British DST is the same as almost everyone else except the US ;)
dwdKev, For another two years. Then, finally free of the shackles of the EU, we shall be able to select our own DST dates!
dwdSurely this is why we voted to take back control.
ArcKev: except 2 states in the US that don't do DST like reasonable people
Arcwhen I run for house in Oregon, i'll introduce a bill to eliminate DST there too.
dwdArc, I didn't think it had managed to be state-wide; I thought there were states were it split along county lines.
Arcexcept """Arizona (except for the Navajo, who do observe daylight saving time on tribal lands), Hawaii, and the overseas territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands."""
Arcthere's bills in 3 states right now to kill DST
Arcits a populist position right now, nobody likes DST.
Arcauspiciously it was created for farmers or industry workers, but its been shown to hurt productivity for both
dwdArc, no, it's for golfers.
jonaswlet’s make it UTC everywhere.
jonaswMattJ: for you it would be like simply abolishing DST, right? people here always complain when I suggest UTC.
MattJI used to keep my watch, when I wore one, in UTC year-round
MattJI did it a couple of years on my laptop, but it had too many interesting consequences
MattJso I don't bother any more
jonaswhm, I had a UTC clock around me until I figured out that having irssi update the clock once per second via wifi can actually be seen on battery drainage :(
Arcnyco arrived on time!
ArcMattJ: you here?
ralphmI will be in 5 minutes :-D
nycoalways here but not really, but still...
Archoly crap we have quorum on a DST meeting
ArcMartin: you here?
ralphmArc: well, I expected no less. Except possibly you :-D
MattJI'm going to be semi-here, I have another meeting that *was* unfortunately shifted by US DST
jonaswhas the board to deal with PSA stepping down?
ralphmI have Executive Director
jonaswif so, that should probably be on the Agenda.
ralphmAs well as reaffirming other officers
Ge0rGDepreciation of deprecated software on the website
ralphmI was kinda expecting board members to respond.
nycoGe0rG, would be good, we kind of reached a rough consensus on what neutrality means, while at the Summit
MartinShould we work through the "Items for discussion" on Trello? Or have we deprecated that.
Arcexecutive director is a big one. software id like to get a vote on to move forward on it
MattJralphm, the only thing missing afaics is sponsorship follow-up
MartinOh, wait, I'm out of sync, ignore me
Arcand due to PSA's resignation we really need to discuss the other roles he held such as liasons
dwdI don't *think* he had any roles left aside from ED and Treasurer.
Arcdwd: some people believe he held liason positions to IETF and ISO, at least.
Arci'd have to look back through the minutes on those tho
nycodwd, hidden/implicit roles, like community leader in the most noble sense?
ralphmWe don't have a liason to IETF, we are the IETF
ralphm(and other people)
dwdArc, we have no formal liaison to the IETF; never had. We do have several XSF members who are active within the IETF too, though.
ralphmAnyway, still at Agenda
Zash( I believe the IETF to actually be a sort of ongoing event organized by the IAB or ISOC, not an organization )
Arcin any case i think those two are more than enough for the next 20 mins
dwdZash, It's an "activity" of the ISoC, indeed.
ralphmOk, let's go
ralphm1. XSF Officers
ralphmSo, our bylaws state that the Board will have an Annual Meeting to appoint officers
ralphmThis includes the EO, but also the Secretary and Treasurer.
Arcand we haven't done that yet this year.
dwd(And the Chair)
ralphmdwd: sure, but I guess we did do that already
dwdralphm, Yup. It's daft to try and do the other Officers when you pick a Chair, though.
Arcok so we put a call out for volunteers? or does someone have someone in mind? or should we seek an experienced EO from outside the community
Arcoutside the xmpp community i mean
ralphmSo, I think that Alex has to announce this Annual Meeting as per 5.5 of the bylaws
ralphmAnd before we do that, we should indeed look for candidates
ralphmBylaws call it CEO
Arcsince we only have one, (s)he is by default the CEO ;-)
dwd(And Executive Director, in equal measure. Hmmmm)
ralphmSince Peter has been EO for as long as can remember, it will be hard to fill those shoes as he filled them.
ralphmAs a role, though, we should be able to find someone to take it up
dwd"Unless provided otherwise by a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors, the Executive Director shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation" (§6.6) but the position is "Executive Director" normally.
Arcmany foundations go quite awhile without an EO, searching for the right fit
dwdSo "EO" is rather confusing - either ED or CEO, please - and I think you guys mean ED.
ralphmI don't have a particular preference for in- or outside of the community, but having some knowledge of the technology would be good, I believe
ralphmdwd: thanks for that
dwdArc, I mean: These two are different positions, though the CEO is normally the ED.
nycook, so who?... ;-)
ArcIf we have a CEO, we should have one with CEO experience - but who at least knows what XMPP is before we approach them. But I also don't feel strongly that we need an officer position at the moment.
ralphmSo let's all think hard on how we want to find a candidate
Arca bad or ineffective CEO is worse than none.
ralphmIn the meanwhile, we should ask the current Officers if they want to resume their position for another year.
dwdArc, The bylaws seem to suggest the position of ED must be filled, and that the CEO role must be filled (and by the ED by default), so...
Arcdwd: lazywebbing, can the ED be the chair?
KevI note that Peter suggested he was interested in working with the Board on finding a replacement, didn't he?
KevPerhaps including him in the discussion would not be stupid, as he has a better idea than anyone else what he's done in that role over the yeras.
KevAnd over the years.
dwdArc, Unclear. We have had the same person hold multiple officer positions for some time, though.
ralphmI'd be happy to take that up with Peter and see how we can start going about this.
KevI believe Peter's had a policy of not being on Board because of his ED role, FWIW.
Arc+1 to ralph
ralphmWell, the ED actually is another Director, and will be the deciding voice in case of a tie.
ralphm(when voting on matters)
Arcralphm: that sounds like a way to proceed; discuss this with PSA about how we can start going about this
Arc6 minutes remain
dwdI think that when Peter started handing over the Editor role, he wrote up a job description.
dwdThat would seem an excellent start.
ralphmThen I motion that Board thanks Peter for huge amount of work he has done as ED and inspiration he's brought to community.
KevThe peanut gallery wishes to support the motion.
ralphmArc: thanks for the reminder
ralphm2. Deprecation of deprecated software
ralphmHow do we commence this?
Arca suggestion has been made by a few members on this
ralphmThere's been a lot of talk already. We just need to have people doing this now.
jonaswI can comment on what I did to the website.
jonasw(with respect to that)
Tobiasget lazy folks of the iTeam review the stuff that's already in PR and have it work
Arcwe ask council, by the end of this year, to draft a 2018 recommended list XEP as they've done in previous years to be published early next year
nycoget a rough consensus on the criteria
nyconon-binary criteria, as we showed during the summit
dwdnyco, I didn't notice your vote on ralphm's motion back there - need something for the mintues.
nycothat was implicit
Arcand that for now, this year, we simply send out an announcement to the project maintainers for software currently on the website to apply, and include that in the Q2 or Q3 vote
Tobiasjonasw, will do a full review of your PR this evening and will try getting it working on the website
nycoand we should offer him a teddy bear
jonaswTobias: that’d be great. that would at least give us semi-automatic expiry.
nycowhy not ;-)
Ge0rGArc: can we please send out an announcement right now and remove everything that does not reapply in a month?
Arcor, until we have a more formal process, informally ask the project maintainers to put in a PR like someone suggested, and that be that.
ArcGe0rG: that's what I would like to do, yes.
KevI think the idea of just requiring a maintainer to 'ping' to keep their project listed each year is pragmatic and non-contentious.
Ge0rGArc: that's completely orthogonal to compliance suite 2017 / 2018
KevAnd, crucially, solves the problem at hand without boiling the ocean.
Ge0rGI volunteer to send the mail
Arcmaybe create a branch on the website github for the projects, remove all software from that branch, and ask that the post a PR against that branch, merging it in next month.
TobiasGe0rG, i suggest doing that as soon as we know that the implementation works and is deployed on the website
jonaswTobias: from what I can tell, it is already merged to master.
jonaswhttps://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/tree/master/data this at least looks like a lot like what I put in my PR.
Tobiasjonasw, right...but last i heard it wasn't deployed on the live website :)
Tobiaswill figure that out today
ralphmSo does Kev's suggestion require that we contact all projects individually, or is a notice on jdev and standards sufficient?
Arcis this a motion we want to vote on?
nycowe can keep all mentionend software as a hall of History... or good services in the past centuries... so another page?
Kevralphm: I'd say that a post on jdev/standards/members, plus a note on the page about how it's generated would be more than sufficient.
jonaswnyco: I would not make it easily discoverable. Users have a talent to find the information they’re not supposed to find for their own good.
Ge0rGralphm: jdev and the blog, I'd suggest
ralphmI like Kev's idea. Who else?
nycojonasw, well yeah ok ;-)
jonasw(I do, but I don’t have a vote in this meeting :-))
ArcI think thats a fine idea.
KevI wouldn't mind an AOB on website ownership, at the end (it's quick, I just want to raise a point for future discussion)
ralphmOk, I see Ge0rG has suggested to draft a message
ralphmCan you send that draft to board@?
SamWhitedralphm: Can you create me an "Editor Team" trello under the XSF team?
ralphmSamWhited: I'll see what I can do
SamWhited(sort of board AOB, sort of personal; we can chat after)
Kevralphm: And I'd like to have (iteam hat on) some admin over the org please.
KevRight, website ownership.
KevI'd like to note that the website currently has no clear owner - once upon a time there was a working, although not perfect, website.
KevThen there was a Board-led initiative to replace it, which happened, and Board ultimately instructed iteam to deploy it before iteam were comfortable with this.
ralphmI'd be happy to say that iteam "owns" the website
Tobiasi thought content wise the XSF owns the site
ralphmTobias: of course
dwd"owns" in what sense? Software, content?
dwdOr "has final say"?
ralphmI think the board is about content, iteam about the mechanics
KevNow, iteam clearly don't own (responsibility for) the content on the website, as that's unrelated to infrastructure, so I think this means it defaults to Board. But at the same time, when there's stuff submitted to the site that actually runs on the server, iteam should have some say, but ... there's a mess here at the moment, brought to light by Tobi saying iteam were being lazy for not fixing stuff that wasn't theirs in the first place.
dwdAs an aside, it's a bit of a mystery why the website generation needs to run on the webserver. But still, this might be my ignorance at play.
KevSo 1) I'd like a bit more explicit statement of who is responsible for reviewing and merging content changes to the website. 2) I'd like this to include iteam review where it means running stuff on the server.
ralphmI think it is fine for iteam to assume control over how the website works, is generated, etc.
Kevdwd: It shouldn't. This is just an artefact of what's been somewhat thrust upon us :)
jonaswFWIW, this can be enforced with github I think
Tobiasdwd, it doesn't have to, it can also run in your dockerized blockchain or your blockerized docker
dwdTobias, So some PRs etc to do this would alleviate Kev's problems entirely?
jonaswit’s not that simple.
Tobiasthe website consists of many parts, the pelican web content, XEPs, registries, etc.
Tobiasand soon also the auto generated client software lists
KevI wasn't looking for answers now, I just wanted to bring it to people's attention for future discussion.
ralphmOk. I thought this was an easy topic. But I see we need some more thinking on this.
dwdKev, I think there seem to be two issues:
Arcwe are T-11 minutes. shall we table and put this on the agenda for next week?
Kevdwd: At least.
dwdKev, 1) iteam need to have ownership of code running on the servers.
ralphmArc: yeah, that was my feeling, too
dwdKev, 2) The website should minimize the amount of code running on the servers.
ralphmLet's continue this discussion after formal close
KevArc: I have no need for further discussion right now.
ArcKev: this is important tho, thanks for bringing it to the table
ralphm4 Date of Next
jonaswKev: FWIW, I built a setup for another organisation where content and pelican-stuff for generation was separate.
jonaswthat would allow to place strict requirements on merges to the generation code and less-strict requirements to merges on the content
jonaswtaking some load off iteam with reviewing stuff
Tobiasjonasw, i'll get back to you later today to ask some questions about that then
bearrunning the website generation code on the server was a default thing - the default was that it was already doing it
Kevjonasw: Yes, that would be the perfect situation.
bearhaving it run as part of the build process is easy to implement
KevAnd a wild bear appears.
Tobiasbear, btw: some people in the XSF asked if they could get access to the twitter credentials
Tobiasi think Kev asked that once
dwdjonasw, bear - I think moving the generation off the webserver would alleviate muhc of Kev's concerns, and just seems the Right Thing to do anyway.
Kevbear: Yes, I'd like (iteam hat) to have the credentials, please.
bearI can add folks to the twitter group user thingy if they get me a list of IDs and the board nods at me
jonaswdwd: where would you put the generation then?
Kev(As opposed to tweetdeck access to actually tweet stuff)
jonaswKev, Tobias, it’s those two + a non-published build.py web-hook thing which I can also pastebin you somewhere.
dwdjonasw, A docker image? Travis?
jonaswdwd: I wouldn’t like to have travis build my website, but that’s a matter of taste.
bearthe build would be done on circleci as part of the deploy step
dwdjonasw, I'm demanding solutions, not offering them. ;-)
Kevbear: Thanks muchly. RO in my homedir on perseus or similar seems sensible. Although XMPP between private servers works just as well.
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
Tobiasalso, did the recent months of increased twittering helped with our number of followers?
jonaswKev, Tobias: re the repositories, one should note that the Makefile is not the default pelican makefile, we made some adjustments to make it work with a non-default "content" directory (so that we could build multiple branches without having to mess with the content submodule)
Tobiasjonasw, one step at a time :) on feel free to create a list of issues :)
jonaswI can drop an issue with random notes on the subject, sure
dwdralphm, Why what?
Steve Killehas joined
dwdralphm, I didn't notice you'd changed it beforehand. Is this purely to disprove my assertion that nobody remembers to change the subject?