Kevjonasw: I said previous that the motivation xep1 gave for reissuing LCs is for outgoing Council. I came up with some motivations of my own in response to your mail. I don't think that was inconsistent :)
jonaswKev, as I said (at least in one of my drafts), I think that is fine.
jonaswI’m still not entirely sure how your original argument actually applies, but it doesn’t matter now, since I find your current argument fully convincing.
KevThe point I'm making is that it wasn't my original argument, it's the one in xep1 and at that time I didn't bother coming up with any of my own (until you mail asked to)
KevI think my current arguments are stronger than the one xep1 makes, but I would.
jonaswoh, I didn’t realise that the argument is literally from XEP1
jonaswI was sure that I read something along the lines of (from you) "I think the original reasoning back then was ..."
Kev"The motivation in xep1 is ..."
jonaswdamn
jonaswsorry
jonaswI didn’t have my coffee yet
danielhas left
jonasw(I can always make that excuse, I never drink coffee)
jonaswbut I also didn’t have my water yet, which is probably worse
KevBut I would be amazed if anyone not on Council does the level of review that Council should do.
SouLjonasw, same here haha
Kev(Indeed, the questions that the Editors ask them to during LC don't come close)
ralphmhas joined
jonaswI found your review of the compliance suite very thorough by the way, that’s way beyond what I as a developer would be doing.
KevThat's roughly the point I'm making - I would expect, for a compliance suite review buy Council, them to have gone through everything in the suite and checked if it's sensible, checked if anything not in the list needs to be, and checked that the list is consistent. For non-compliance suites I'd expect Council to do much more review than that - for non trivial XEPs I expect Council are probably spending an hour+ per advancing XEP to review properly. I really wouldn't expect non-Council to be putting that sort of work in.
Ge0rGKev: can't we solve the bookmarks issue by requiring servers to transparently synchronize both storage formats?
jonaswGe0rG, that’s an interesting idea
KevGe0rG: I think 'requiring' might be hard here, but we could add a server feature to 48 that does that, I think, yes. And I think we could do so without bumping namespaces or worrying about it being Draft, due to it being a new server-only feature for a XEP that previously wasn't server.
danielhas left
edhelasBookmark need to be changed, first have atomic bookmarks
jonaswif it’s announced by a feature, I don’t see any reason not to, draft or not, previously server side or not
Ge0rGedhelas: no need to go nuclear!
edhelaseheh
edhelasno but we have PEP, and multi-items tags now
jonaswedhelas, in spec, yes
edhelasI'd like, in 2017, to be able to solve a bookmark in a PEP-Pubsub item
jonaswin deployment mmmm
jonaswedhelas, I have bad news for you.
KevBookmarks are atomic at the moment, no?
edhelasno they aren't
jonaswKev, but not very fine grained
KevPretty sure they are. It's a single payload.
edhelasyou just save the whole list in an item, so you have race condition issues
KevRace condition issues doesn't make it non-atomic :)
jonaswKev, you know about the issues though, don’t you?
edhelasI'd love to have a bookmark XEP that works like this one https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0330.html#usecases
jonaswaioxmpp has a weird read-modify-write loop up to three times or until convergence, whicever happens first
Kevedhelas: In the sense of one bookmark per item?
edhelasKev Yes!
jonaswwe’re not entirly sure it ever converges even if everybody does that algorithm, but it should.
KevI think that would be fairly sensible, in a world where bookmarks weren't based on iq:private primarily, yes.
danielhas left
danielhas joined
jonaswyah, a server would have to implement that read-modify-write loop then :)
edhelasZash what is the status of multi-items in Pubsub/PEP nodes in Prosody
Ge0rGSee, XMPP is all about database update synchronization.
jonaswedhelas, you should first ask what the status of private and persistent pep is ....
KevI think that the publish-only-if-the-parent-state-is-right XEP would do the job too (for something not frequently changing).
edhelasjonasw persistence is there in ejabberd and Prosody now afaik
jonaswatomic compare-and-publish for pubsub, Kev? :)
intosijonasw: M-Link's is excellent as well ;)
jonaswedhelas, is it though? I thought only with a community module.
jonaswanyways, I wanted to go for errands like an hour ago. the XSF is eating my time!!k
0000has left
danielhas left
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
Martinhas joined
Steve Killehas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
danielhas left
Martinhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
sonnyhas left
lskdjfhas left
mimi89999has left
jubalhhas joined
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
goffihas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
jonaswSamWhited, what’s the status about the XEP-393 update? I’m still missing the opt-out and a formal grammar…
jonasw(or opt-in, even better)
lumihas joined
matlaghas joined
Zashhas left
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
ralphmhas left
Ge0rGhas left
zinidhas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
zinidhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Tobiashas left
la|r|mahas joined
archas left
archas joined
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas joined
ralphmhas joined
valohas left
valohas joined
ralphmhas joined
goffihas left
georghas joined
goffihas left
Guushas left
goffihas joined
jerehas joined
stefandxmhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Guushas left
la|r|mahas joined
georghas left
Tobiashas joined
goffihas left
zinidhas left
ralphmhas joined
stefandxmhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
zinidhas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
nycohas left
nycohas joined
sonnyhas joined
GuusI've just added a notification to the XSF Board meeting calendar item, that's on the XSF shared agenda. Could someone please make sure that Google doesn't do something stupid like adding that notification to everyone's agenda?
GuusI've set it to 11 minutes, just to make it slightly different from the default.
SamWhitedjonasw: I'm not sure that we're adding an opt out yet. A football grammar seems fine, if unnecessary, but it's not something I'm going to spend time doing right away
jonaswmenh
jonaswI see absolutely no reason not to add an opt-out, to be honest.
SamWhited*formal, even
KevI liked the idea of you writing a football grammar. Let me have that, please.
jonaswI thought that football grammer is a nickname for some type of grammar representation :)
Ge0rGKev: do you mean a soccer grammar?
SamWhitedThis will be a Liverpool F.C. grammar (if kev can live with that), so definitely "football"
Ge0rGBut they are playing soccer?
SamWhitedNo, Atlanta United plays soccer, Liverpool plays football.
Ge0rGAh, but they are playing the same game, right?
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
SamWhitedYes, sorry, I'm fine stretching this joke out now
Guus(an event in Paris that he previously expressed interest in)
ralphmAh, yes.
mathieuihe is (or was yesterday, where I saw him)
ralphmAnyone have something for the agenda?
GuusI've added things to Trello last week
Guusapart from those, none.
MattJI don't think I have anything to add right now
ralphmOk
MartinNothing from me
ralphmWho can take minutes?
MartinI’m mobile, so not really in a position to, sorry :(
Guusif no-one outside board members is available, I'll do it.
ralphm1. D&O insurance
GuusI've talked to Peter. His full response is in Trello.
Guusbasically: if board still wants to move forward with this, he will. But he estimates it'll be not cheap.
ralphmGiven his response, and no current (potential) officers asking for it right now, let's close this for now
GuusAren't we asking for this?
MartinDo we know/remember why we started down this path in the first place?
Martin(I’m happy to close it, fwiw, just curious as to why this has hung around for some long)
Martin*so long
Guusif it's a cheap way to help us protect from being financially pressured into doing something, I'd be in favor of getting an insurance.
ralphmGuus: I'm not asking for insurance, no.
Kevhas left
GuusMartin: it was put up by Laura, April 4, 2016.
ralphmI'm also not entirely sure who this will work out with people in Europe.
MattJFrom what I can piece together, in 2015 there was a search for a new Treasurer, and the only applicant raised concerns about liability - I don't know if this is what triggered it
ralphmMartin: well, somebody brought it up, stpeter would investigate, that was delayed a bit, everybody lost interest.
Guusgiven that we've not been financially pressured in the past ... 18 years? ... might be a non-issue.
ralphmThe Foundation is not that old yet, but sure
GuusI know it's dead-cheap in the Netherlands, but liability laws are vastly different here.
ralphmRight. I'm not even sure if a Dutch insurance would work with a Delaware company.
Guusbut if I'm the only one interested, i'm happy to let this go.
ralphmIf you want to investigate that, that's fine of course.
GuusMatt, Martin?
MartinI’m happy to let it go
ralphmOk, archiving.
ralphm2. Commitments
GuusI'll let Peter know.
ralphmI saw that we asked and can reconfirm our Treasurer and Secretary for another year.
MattJSorry, laggy here. I'm happy to pass on the insurance. But I think we'd need actual quotes to make a concrete decision (more than "it's expensive")
Guusindeed, both Alex and Peter are happy to take on their roles another year. Do we need nyco to make it official?
ralphmSo I motion we appoint Alexander Gnauck as Secretary for another term.
Guus+1
Martin+1
Martin+1
Martinhas left
Martinhas joined
ralphmDone.
Martin+1
MattJ+1
ralphmI motion we appoint Peter Saint-André as Treasurer for another term.
MattJ+1
Guus+1
Martin+!
Martin*+1
ralphmDone
GuusCan we have some kind of thank-you for the work they've been doing so far?
ralphmI think we have to postpone appointing the Chair again.
ralphmGuus: please note this in the minutes, indeed
ralphmFWIW, I'm happy to continue.
ralphmI just hope that nyco can attend next meeting so we can finish this.
GuusAt some point, it'd like to address unscheduled non-attendence.
ralphmI haven't yet acted on finding a new ED, so let's keep that one.
ralphmGuus: right, I did send that message to the Board list for a reason.
GuusYes, thanks for that.
Guusbut it did not help, sadly.
ralphmMoving on
ralphm3. Items for discussion
ralphmWe only have a few minutes left.
ralphmGiven the post-meeting discussion, unless there's disagreement, I'd like to remove the SPIM item for discussion at Board level right now, until there's a more actionably proposal.
MattJwfm
Guusthat works for me.
MartinFine by me
GuusI'd like to discuss board prio's with all present, but it wouldn't hurt for all of us to prepare by adding their own thoughts.
Guus(as a commitment for the week ahead).
ralphmGuus: +1
MattJ+1
MartinSounds like a plan
ralphmAdded a card
Guuspotential survey is based on that discussion, I think.
ralphmAgreed
ralphmThat leaves us with the new card on FOSDEM sponsorship.
ralphmI think this is an interesting topic, that deserves a bit more than 3 minutes
Guus(I'm good for another 10 minutes or so)
MattJ+1. I'm in favour of it generally, but I think we need a broader discussion on financing and fundraising
MattJWe're really bad at both, and I think it's something we need to improve on
ralphmMattJ: can you create a card to that effect?
MattJSure
ralphmI propose we then pick that up next week
ralphmalso given the short time until FOSDEM
ralphm4. AOB
ralphmI didn't see anything for this raised today
MartinNone from me
ralphm5. Time of Next
GuusSCAM should get into gear for FOSDEM/SUMMIT
ralphm+1W
ralphmGuus: agreed
ralphmThe confirmation for stands has been extended
Guus+1W works for me.
MattJ+1W wfm
Martin+1W works for me too
ralphmI.e. I didn't get it yet because they are slow
Ge0rGlovetox: don't be lazy. Not everyone is reading this MUC
lovetoxSamWhited, it seems you are not aware that 0048 on pubsub is not supported by prosody or ejabbered as of right now, so recommending that is a bit over optimistic
jonaswlovetox, not even ejabberd? I thought ejabberd can do that
lovetoxonly one server to my knowledge
lovetoxthat conversations server, because holger added it
lovetoxi dont know if this has landed in the community version of ejabbered
lovetoxbut i doubt it
moparisthebesthaha jonasw never saw that, thanks :)
lovetoxand even if, this still is a feature then that only one server in its newest version supports, still not something that should recommended, we strife for good interop with the compliance suite
Ge0rGlovetox: that was discussed on standards@ I think. Or at least in the last council minutes
lovetoxno, the argument revolved around what clients actually use
lovetoxand yes of course all clients use private storage
edhelasnope
lovetoxbut even if not, we cannot recommend something that is not supported by servers
edhelasMovim relies on private PEP node for Bookmarks, only that
lovetoxcompliance is here so we have good interop between clients and servers
Ge0rGedhelas: Movim also doesn't work on my server :(
lovetoxnot to promote next level features
edhelasGe0rG Prosody ?
jonaswlovetox, remember that people wanted to have MIX in there
jonaswlovetox, I think the actual debate is whether we want the compliance suites to be something which describes what we want to have soon or what is now
jonaswI think SamWhited wants them to be a description of what we want to have.
lovetoxin my opinion it should reflect something that is good right now
SamWhitedI don't actually understand that discussion; both of them support bookmarks in PEP just fine. Do you mean the persistence thing?
lovetoxnot what we hope will happen sometimes in the future
edhelasping Zash
lovetoxSamWhited, they dont, they are not supporting 223
lovetoxthis means all bookmarks are open world readable
lovetoxwhich is not something that we want
lovetoxmaybe the xep doesnt require it strictly but it should
ZashENOCTX
lovetoxi dont know the wording anymore
lovetoxand also this is the reason why nobody really wants to implement this
Ge0rGZash: bookmarks in PEP
lovetoxif gajim gets bookmarks over pep, we test if the server supports 223 fully, if not, we purge the pep node
lovetoxand transfer bookmarks to private storage
ZashNot yet
jonaswlovetox, <3
jonaswgood job :)
jonaswSamWhited, if you count "bookmarks in PEP work until the next server reboot" as "working", I think we might have a problem.
ZashWe've got persistence but access control isn't configurable yet
jonaswSamWhited, if you count "bookmarks in PEP work until the next server reboot, then they’re gone" as "working", I think we might have a problem.
jonaswSamWhited, if you count "bookmarks in PEP work until the next server reboot and are also world-readable, then they’re gone" as "working", I think we might have a problem.
SamWhitedfair enough
edhelasZash access_control is the last missing thing to move Bookmarks to PEP in Prosody ?
lovetoxpersistence is one thing, support of access_model = whiteliste, the real important one
SamWhitedEither way, servers more or less support them and I think we want to encourage that support to be better and document what servers need to give a good experience, not just document what everything is already doing
edhelasSamWhited +1
SamWhitedI was pretty sure they already supported private nodes though, but I guess not?
Zashedhelas: No idea
jonaswSamWhited, fair enough
jonaswI think the main mis-understanding is then whether the suites should document the current real deployment or the future. there seems to be disagreement on that.
lovetoxSamWhited, private nodes are supported sometimes
lovetoxbut often whats missing is the <publish-options> feature
jonaswSamWhited, maybe add a paragraph to this in the introduction, making this absolutely clear (even though I think that the introduction -- which I haven’t read until now, admittedly -- makes it quite clear already that the suites are meant to advance, not do describe)
lovetoxthat lets the client discover this whithout pulling the whole node config
lovetoxpulling node config in turn is also not supported by all server
zinidlovetox, it's missing because there are problems with xdata definition
Kevhas left
Ge0rGdwd: which MUA are you using? The plaintext quoting it generates doesn't make it possible to distinguish what you wrote from what you are responding to.
jonaswTIL how to force kmail to show a multipart/alternative message as html even though it contains a text/plain part.
jonaswI find it ironic that the HTML message contains *foo* by the way.
stefandxmhas left
stefandxmhas joined
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
ralphmhas left
lskdjfhas left
tuxhas joined
stefandxmhas left
jonaswSamWhited, XEP-0001 has a minimum of 14 days. I hate that.
SamWhitedIt has had 14 days of LC already, after that it's up to the editor
SamWhitedOr at least, that's how I've been treating it. First one is 2 weeks, after that I've done 1 week LCs for lots of things
jonaswhm, sure, but a re-issuance after council switch?
jonaswI’m seeing this in light of Kevins argument
jonaswwhich I found much more convincing than the argument in XEP-0001 by the way
jubalhhas left
SamWhitedI still don't see what the council switch has to do with anything; they'll still have plenty of time to review it.
ralphmhas joined
zinidhas left
efrithas joined
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Holgerhas left
moparisthebestI just want to know what kind of crappy council member would not comment on a last call on the list and only in the meeting...
moparisthebestI'm not sure I care about their input in that case
ralphmhas joined
KevI think the compliance suites documenting what you need to be a sensible server/client in the current climate, with an eye to the future, is sensible.
lskdjfhas joined
KevSo if you currently need to implement X in order to interop with large amounts of the network, we can probably put it in on that basis. Similarly if something isn't well deployed but is stable and the clear direction, we can put it in for that reason.
KevMIX is a direction, but not stable, so I think putting that in would be wrong.
KevBut '49 is widely needed for interop, so I think we list that.
ZashMaybe the compliance suites should be split into two documents. One that's an implementation report, documenting what most implementations do now. Other is more like a vision statement, describing what we want XMPP to be like in the near(?) future.
KevI think a vision statement might be a sensible thing, but I don't think it needs to be dated like the compliance suites, which are snapshots of what we expect people to implement at that time.
ZashKev: It would be tho, it'd be "what we think the future should look like, as of $today"
KevYes, but we can keep that updated, there's no particular value in stamping it and calling it done.
ZashMaybe numbered semi-immutable documents aren't optimal for that purpose
archas left
archas joined
ZashBut it'd be cool to have something of a history of what we thought the future would look like
archas left
ZashUseful for comparing later, to see which, if any, goals we got anywhere with
KevI think we'd probably have that just through the attic and the changelog.
ZashI suppose
ZashCould be a blog entry, the exact form is probably not that important
ZashHaving a vision is good tho.
KevAnyway, that is very much not a hill for me to die on - but I think a single living direction document would do just fine.
ZashAs is knowing the current state of things
KevI do think it's worth stamping a date on the compliance suites, which are meant to be "What do I need to implement right now" sort of things.
ZashWhich is sorta inbetween.
ZashThe IETF used to have implementation reports of some kind IIRC
archas joined
zinidhas left
efrithas left
fippozash: that didn't work
jubalhhas joined
Syndacehas joined
Syndacehas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
nycohas left
zinidhas left
jubalhhas left
nycohas joined
ralphmhas joined
jjrhhas left
zinidhas left
Ge0rGhas left
stefandxmhas joined
zinidhas left
waqashas joined
Holger> it seems you are not aware that 0048 on pubsub is not supported by prosody or ejabbered
lovetox: You mean because of the use of publish-options?
HolgerI think strictly speaking the use of pubsub#persist_items in the 0048 example isn't 0060-compatible, because 0060 says that publish options MUST be registered or rejected by the server, and this one isn't.
Holger... isn't registered.
ralphmhas left
uchas left
danielHolger: i have it on my todo list to register that publish option
Holgerdaniel: Ok. FWIW I think it would make sense to just specify that arbitrary node config options can be specified as publish options and that they will always be handled as preconditions.
jjrhhas left
jubalhhas joined
danieli agree
danielit's probably impossible to get that through council
danielmy last change to xep60 took me a 6 month to push through
HolgerThough the result would be equivalent to registering each and every node config option as a publish option to be handled as precondition.
uchas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
jjrhhas left
stefandxmhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielif I change the wording to something like 'any unregistered publish-option must be treated as a precondtion to the node configuartion option of the same name or reject if neither a registered publish option nor a registered node configuartion exists" the already existing entry in the publish-options registry is obsolete
danieland should probably be deleted in order to not confuse people with an already very confusing XEP
archas left
archas joined
ralphmhas joined
archas left
archas joined
jonaswdaniel, FWIW, I think your idea is sensible, and in case of doubt this could always be made a feature (#publish-options-config-precondition) or something
danielat some point the xsf will need an archaeologist to dig up why certain decisions to certain xeps where made in the past
jonaswI wish those things would be documented properly.
jubalhhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGEvery XEP should contain a strong rationale for surprising decisions.
nycohas left
danielHolger, jonasw: if you word it that way you are essentially kissing 'per item overwrite' goodby
danielwhich i'm not necessarly opposed to
jonaswdaniel, how?
nycohas joined
danielwell if you say that any publish options that shares the same name with a node config is a precondtion; how would you create a per item override that shares the same name
ZashWould have been easier if it the three kinds of things weren't in the same form
danieli guess you can still register that with a different name
jonaswwhat is a per-item override?
danielZash yes
danieljonasw, read the XEP we are talking about
jonaswI have, but it’s been a while :/
danieljonasw, i don't really know myself :-)
Zashjonasw: What it sounds like.
Zashjonasw: Node configuration overrides per item.
daniel7.1.5 Publishing Options <- just read that
jonaswZash, at first I thought "per item override" is something abou treplacing existing items, but that didn’t make sense
jonaswis it setting options per item?
jonaswahh
jonaswokay
jonaswthat sounds ill-defined as heck
ZashAnd unused afaik
danielno shit
jonaswI personally don’t have a problem with burning that :)
danielper item override or the entire xep?
jonaswnot that I would matter :)
ZashPer-item access control is a desirable feature tho
jonaswZash, is it?
jonaswhm, maybe for the social network things
jonaswmeh
Ge0rGhas left
danielthe path of least resistance is to register persist-items as a precondition and move on with our lives
zinidhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Guushas left
Holger> Holger, jonasw: if you word it that way you are essentially kissing 'per item overwrite' goodby
Sounds good to me :-)
Steve Killehas left
Holger> the path of least resistance is to register persist-items as a precondition and move on with our lives
Yup, works for me as well.
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
Guushas left
Steve Killehas joined
nycohas left
danielhas left
stefandxmhas joined
nycohas joined
ralphmhas joined
jubalhhas left
Ge0rGhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas joined
danielhas left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Guushas left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
@Alacerhas left
waqashas left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
@Alacerhas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
sonnyhas joined
Guushas left
danielcreated both https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/556 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/555
XSF Discussion - 2017-12-07