XSF Discussion - 2017-09-20


  1. edhelas

    mathieui thanks!

  2. tux

    Did I get this right: Psi(+) does not support OMEMO because this kind of encryption is forbitten in Russia?

  3. tux

    https://github.com/psi-im/plugins/issues/10

  4. tux

    *forbidden

  5. zinid

    no

  6. mimi89999

    What?

  7. zinid

    rion is full of shit there

  8. tux

    So the real reason is more the lack of willing developers ...

  9. zinid

    yes

  10. tux

    ack

  11. ralphm

    hi

  12. Guus

    Board meeting?

  13. Ge0rG

    ETA -5 min?

  14. Guus

    I got Ralphs "hi" after my last message, but according to Conversations, it was sent more minutes ago?

  15. moparisthebest

    Guus, according to gajim his "hi' was 5 seconds before your "Board meeting?" message

  16. Guus

    My client said 5 minutes

  17. ralphm

    Weird

  18. ralphm

    I sent it at 18:05:06

  19. Zash

    This week on the XSF Board; time travel.

  20. ralphm

    (CEST)

  21. Ge0rG

    Guus: your message was delayed, so probably you were not properly synced to the MUC at that time.

  22. moparisthebest

    my conversations and gajim both agree with ralphm's time, I think your client is messed up Guus :)

  23. Martin

    I'm here, not sure who else is…? Also, yeah my client's doing something odd

  24. Ge0rG

    Still, board meeting?

  25. ralphm

    I haven't detected quorum yet

  26. MattJ

    I'm here

  27. ralphm

    17 minutes in

  28. ralphm

    Are there any pressing matters this week?

  29. MattJ

    I don't know how pressing it is - Guus requested approval of his logo fix

  30. Ge0rG

    My issues don't have a deadline, so feel free to skip board meetings until the next re-election.

  31. ralphm

    Ge0rG: thanks for that

  32. Ge0rG

    ralphm: I'm sorry. Venting at the present board members about the absence of the non-present ones is highly inappropriate.

  33. ralphm

    Ge0rG: Well, I've been absent quite a few times, too. Doing volunteer work is hard some times, and so is attending (weekly) meetings. That said, I don't feel that we are doing a bad job in general. Most of the work in this organisation is around protocols and that's why we have Editors and Council.

  34. MattJ

    FWIW, I feel like we're doing a bad job

  35. Ge0rG

    ralphm: I think I'm repeating another person's point, but it's up to the board to decide how often to meet, and at which time.

  36. Guus

    I've written at length about this, without response. Cannot elaborate again now, driving.

  37. ralphm

    MattJ: ok

  38. SamWhited

    There have been several times where people have needed things from the board and the board did not show up for several weeks in a row. That feels like a problem to me.

  39. SamWhited

    (or rather, where a small subset of the board didn't show up; the people in this room tend to be the ones that are on top of things I think)

  40. Ge0rG

    The last board meeting was very intense and very productive, though. It didn't cover all the points, but still.

  41. Guus

    Agreed

  42. ralphm

    SamWhited: sure, attendance can be a bit spotty, and from experience especially around summer leading into the autumn.

  43. ralphm

    Last week was indeed nicely productive

  44. Guus

    Theta now is quorum, please meet?

  45. ralphm bangs gavel

  46. ralphm

    0. Welcome + Agenda

  47. ralphm

    Hi all

  48. MattJ

    Hi ralphm

  49. Martin

    Ahoy

  50. ralphm

    I understand one of the topics is Guus' request to change the XMPP logo.

  51. ralphm

    anything else pressing?

  52. Guus

    See trello

  53. ralphm

    Guus: thank you, but that's not what I asked

  54. Martin

    There is a trademark question on Trello we didn't get to last week

  55. ralphm

    Ok

  56. Ge0rG

    and the SPAM WG question

  57. ralphm

    Let's see how far we get.

  58. ralphm

    1. XMPP Logo

  59. MattJ

    +1 to Guus's changes

  60. ralphm

    I know there's been some differing opinions on this and if Board can decide on this.

  61. Guus

    Kev is -1, most others that expressef opinion +1

  62. Martin

    I'm OK with Guus' changes

  63. ralphm

    Wasn't the logo initially voted upon by the membership?

  64. Guus

    I'm suggesting a small improvement, not a new logo.

  65. ralphm

    Guus: I don't see the difference, to be honest, procedurally, I mean

  66. ralphm

    I don't see a need to change the logo myself, but I'd like to make sure that we do it right.

  67. Guus

    ralphm: original vote if any was between different styles

  68. moparisthebest

    the email went out to the membership, presumably everyone who cared already commented?

  69. ralphm

    moparisthebest: that's not the way things work in foundations in general. Either Board can decide, or the membership in a general meeting.

  70. ralphm

    In the mean time, I've been trying to find background in how this logo came to be, but haven't yet found the details.

  71. Guus

    ralphm: it is in my pr

  72. Guus

    Including feedback of original designer

  73. moparisthebest

    if you don't know the right way to do it, just do it, and if anyone complains worry about it then?

  74. ralphm

    Guus: yes, I saw that

  75. ralphm

    I meant that some of the links in the e-mail threads there are dead and I couldn't get all the context.

  76. ralphm

    I'm +0 on this change and I would like to request the two other directors to vote on this, too.

  77. ralphm

    2. Trademark Policy Fees

  78. ralphm

    I read the card on Trello. My question is: for which application is this a problem that we need to fix?

  79. ralphm

    Is this about the fee for last week's approved application?

  80. Ge0rG

    ralphm: no, it's about potential applications that are scared away by the Trademark

  81. ralphm

    So there are no concrete cases about people not applying because of this fee?

  82. Ge0rG

    ralphm: not as far as I know.

  83. Ge0rG

    ralphm: obviously, there is no way to know about all the people who haven't applied because they got scared away.

  84. ralphm

    MattJ, Martin do you see this as a problem we need to fix?

  85. ralphm

    Ge0rG: to be honest, if I saw a fee that was inhibiting, I'd try to ask what's up with that

  86. Ge0rG

    ralphm: I've heard from many people, mainly from the OSS movement, that Trademarks Are Evil and that Jabber Is Evil etc. and I want to streamline the process as far as possible.

  87. ralphm

    It is not that we *need* the fee itself, but one of its (initial) functions was deterring frivolous applications, i think.

  88. MattJ

    To be honest this still seems reasonable to me

  89. Ge0rG

    We have effectively deterred most applications.

  90. ralphm

    I'm not sure if people that think that Trademarks are evil and by extension the Jabber mark, will start using the name if the fee is $0

  91. Ge0rG

    ralphm: I'm not sure about that either. I only have a slight hope.

  92. ralphm

    It is still a trade mark

  93. Ge0rG

    Yes :(

  94. ralphm

    I have seen two out of three present directors not seeing a need to change this, so I have to decline the request for change at this time.

  95. ralphm

    Martin?

  96. Ge0rG

    ralphm: is your position that there is nothing we can do to revive the Jabber term?

  97. ralphm

    not at all

  98. Martin

    I agree with you ralphm: it's still a trademark, and we can always approach/waive it on a per-case basis

  99. Ge0rG

    Martin: the board has to decide about applications on a per-case basis anyway.

  100. ralphm

    Ge0rG: I fact, I strongly believe it is possible to start using the Jabber mark for a marketing effort to attract people using XMPP-based chat. I do think, though, it would be good for such an effort to include the people managing the jabber.org service, and it also doesn't necessarily need to happen through the XSF.

  101. Ge0rG

    ralphm: I believe that as a prerequisite, we need to simplify the trademark usage guidelines as far as possible, and that removing the fee is a useful step in that direction

  102. ralphm

    I disagree

  103. Ge0rG

    ralphm: with which parts of my statement?

  104. ralphm

    all of it

  105. ralphm

    in the interest of time, moving on

  106. ralphm

    3. SPAM working group

  107. ralphm

    Was this meant as a request to form a SIG?

  108. ralphm

    Martin: I see you added this, so I assume you know. But I think what should happen is that somebody writes a XEP for this.

  109. Ge0rG

    I'm not sure what the formal type of group is. I'm looking for a closed-membership group that can coordinate and devise a strategy before going public.

  110. Martin

    Dangerous assumption. Given most don't have access to add cards in Trello, I added it on request.

  111. MattJ

    I'll note that there was some concern (I don't remember who from) about the group being closed

  112. ralphm

    yeah, that bugs me too

  113. jonasw

    I think discussing anti-spam techniques publicly is not necessarily a good idea

  114. ralphm

    sure

  115. MattJ

    The problem is that if they aren't open, they can't be implemented by operators

  116. ralphm

    Right

  117. MattJ

    Unless we form a small "special" federation of operators

  118. moparisthebest

    it's just an arms race, discussing in private will at best delay them a bit, at least in public you can come up with things that can't be evaded

  119. MattJ

    If that's going to happen, operators are free to do that, but I don't know if that's something that should/needs to involve the XSF resources

  120. ralphm

    which doesn't require any XSF involvement (same as the operators list doesn't)

  121. Ge0rG

    I'd like to have a small closed group for testing and strategy, that communicates and provides hints to other operators in a semi-public way

  122. moparisthebest

    doesn't sound very federated

  123. ralphm

    Ge0rG: right, so I don't think you need the XSF for doing that

  124. Ge0rG

    ralphm: I hoped to get XSF blessing at least ;)

  125. ralphm

    Ge0rG: like XMPP, the community is federated, we don't need the XSF to be at the nexus of it all

  126. SamWhited

    If this group is using XSF infrastructure (servers, mailing lists, etc.) I would personally like it to be public. I would want to follow along.

  127. ralphm

    Ge0rG: you seem to assume this in all of the things you talk about, but I think a better approach is to find like-minded people and just start doing things

  128. ralphm

    The operators list is a great place to start this

  129. MattJ

    I agree with Ralph. And count me in as a like-minded person (who has some non-public anti-spam projects)

  130. ralphm

    yay

  131. MattJ

    I just don't think the XSF being involved in such a group is necessary or a good thing

  132. ralphm

    So looking at the clock, I'm going to close this

  133. MattJ

    But if that group ever needed something from the XSF, we can discuss that

  134. ralphm

    4. Next Meeting

  135. ralphm

    +1W?

  136. Martin

    +1W is ok with me

  137. ralphm

    MattJ: indeed

  138. ralphm

    5. Close

  139. ralphm

    Thanks all, sorry about starting late.

  140. Ge0rG

    Thanks very much for the feedback.

  141. ralphm bangs gavel

  142. MattJ

    Thanks ralphm :)

  143. ralphm

    I also forgot to ask someone to write minutes :-(

  144. MattJ

    I can go over the log and send some out

  145. ralphm

    MattJ: ☺

  146. Guus

    Tx for extended meeting

  147. jonasw

    +1

  148. Zash

    MattJ: Can you explain what the deal is with https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0313.html#example-23 ?

  149. Zash

    iq-set returning stuff is pretty uncommon

  150. jonasw

    Zash, I find it logica

  151. jonasw

    Zash, I find it logical

  152. jonasw

    It returns the actually applied preferences, which may be different. that’s less racy and less RTT than requiring the client to query it again after setting

  153. Zash

    There's still the race of another resource changing stuff between your iq-get and -set

  154. MattJ

    Zash, we have that race all over XMPP

  155. Zash

    MattJ: Rosters and blocking would like to have a word with you

  156. MattJ

    You think there's no race there? What?

  157. Zash

    It'll tell you if something changes

  158. MattJ

    I agree that a push method for preferences may be (have been?) nice

  159. Zash

    And those also deal in deltas, not the complete things.

  160. MattJ

    But that doesn't solve the race in any way

  161. Zash

    What exact race?

  162. MattJ

    You'll never know if another resource has a conflicting change in flight, or a push is already in-flight to you

  163. Zash

    MattJ: The mam-prefs fixes that?

  164. MattJ

    No, I'm saying that it's no worse

  165. Zash

    And you'll notice eventually if there was a roster or blocking thing in flight.

  166. Zash

    You *could* fix that by having a reference to the current version (as you see it)

  167. Zash

    And then you can build a blockchain on that!

  168. MattJ

    That's why I said push would potentially be nice

  169. MattJ

    But it doesn't solve a real problem in any way

  170. Zash

    It's already an established pattern

  171. MattJ

    There's little difference between push vs. pull

  172. MattJ

    I agree, in hindsight maybe adopting the same model would have been better

  173. MattJ

    It's a little more complex, but clients are used to it (well, they should be)

  174. Zash

    MattJ: Was that in the very earliest drafts? Or, how could I have missed it all this time?

  175. Zash

    I remember asking why it wasn't using the common push pattern at some point, but not having seen that it reflected the data back in iq-set.

  176. MattJ

    afaik it's always been this way

  177. moparisthebest

    It's almost as if the various xeps were written by different people :)

  178. Zash

    jonasw: found the thing that originally produced xeps.xml: https://q.zash.se/ef274a7e18fc.txt (grep for botsFile)

  179. Zash

    From the old all-in-one repo