XSF Discussion - 2017-12-07

  1. ralphm has joined

  2. moparisthebest has joined

  3. moparisthebest has joined

  4. efrit has left

  5. marc has left

  6. zinid has left

  7. lskdjf has joined

  8. Ge0rG has left

  9. Ge0rG has left

  10. Ge0rG has left

  11. jjrh has left

  12. jjrh has left

  13. 0000 has joined

  14. Ge0rG has left

  15. Ge0rG has left

  16. Ge0rG has left

  17. Guus has left

  18. Guus has joined

  19. tux has left

  20. tux has joined

  21. uc has joined

  22. jjrh has left

  23. jjrh has left

  24. Tobias has joined

  25. Lance has joined

  26. Lance has left

  27. Tobias has joined

  28. Ge0rG has left

  29. arc has left

  30. arc has joined

  31. arc has left

  32. arc has joined

  33. arc has left

  34. arc has joined

  35. zinid has joined

  36. zinid has left

  37. ralphm has left

  38. arc has left

  39. ralphm has joined

  40. arc has joined

  41. zinid has joined

  42. zinid has left

  43. uc has joined

  44. @Alacer has left

  45. @Alacer has joined

  46. efrit has joined

  47. Syndace has left

  48. Syndace has joined

  49. @Alacer has left

  50. @Alacer has joined

  51. zinid has joined

  52. zinid has left

  53. efrit has left

  54. zinid has joined

  55. zinid has left

  56. la|r|ma has joined

  57. la|r|ma has joined

  58. Ge0rG has left

  59. uc has joined

  60. mimi89999 has joined

  61. mimi89999 has left

  62. mimi89999 has joined

  63. uc has joined

  64. arc has left

  65. arc has joined

  66. arc has left

  67. arc has joined

  68. zinid has joined

  69. @Alacer has left

  70. @Alacer has joined

  71. lskdjf has joined

  72. @Alacer has left

  73. @Alacer has joined

  74. arc has left

  75. arc has joined

  76. ralphm has left

  77. jjrh has left

  78. ralphm has joined

  79. ralphm has joined

  80. 0000 has left

  81. zinid has left

  82. moparisthebest has joined

  83. jjrh has left

  84. valo has left

  85. valo has joined

  86. @Alacer has left

  87. @Alacer has joined

  88. daniel has left

  89. daniel has joined

  90. ralphm has joined

  91. sonny has left

  92. sonny has joined

  93. sonny has joined

  94. sonny has joined

  95. @Alacer has left

  96. @Alacer has joined

  97. marc has joined

  98. 0000 has joined

  99. ralphm has joined

  100. Kev

    jonasw: 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 :)

  101. jonasw

    Kev, as I said (at least in one of my drafts), I think that is fine.

  102. jonasw

    I’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.

  103. Kev

    The 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)

  104. Kev

    I think my current arguments are stronger than the one xep1 makes, but I would.

  105. jonasw

    oh, I didn’t realise that the argument is literally from XEP1

  106. jonasw

    I was sure that I read something along the lines of (from you) "I think the original reasoning back then was ..."

  107. Kev

    "The motivation in xep1 is ..."

  108. jonasw


  109. jonasw


  110. jonasw

    I didn’t have my coffee yet

  111. daniel has left

  112. jonasw

    (I can always make that excuse, I never drink coffee)

  113. jonasw

    but I also didn’t have my water yet, which is probably worse

  114. Kev

    But I would be amazed if anyone not on Council does the level of review that Council should do.

  115. SouL

    jonasw, same here haha

  116. Kev

    (Indeed, the questions that the Editors ask them to during LC don't come close)

  117. ralphm has joined

  118. jonasw

    I found your review of the compliance suite very thorough by the way, that’s way beyond what I as a developer would be doing.

  119. Kev

    That'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.

  120. Ge0rG

    Kev: can't we solve the bookmarks issue by requiring servers to transparently synchronize both storage formats?

  121. jonasw

    Ge0rG, that’s an interesting idea

  122. Kev

    Ge0rG: 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.

  123. daniel has left

  124. edhelas

    Bookmark need to be changed, first have atomic bookmarks

  125. jonasw

    if it’s announced by a feature, I don’t see any reason not to, draft or not, previously server side or not

  126. Ge0rG

    edhelas: no need to go nuclear!

  127. edhelas


  128. edhelas

    no but we have PEP, and multi-items tags now

  129. jonasw

    edhelas, in spec, yes

  130. edhelas

    I'd like, in 2017, to be able to solve a bookmark in a PEP-Pubsub item

  131. jonasw

    in deployment mmmm

  132. jonasw

    edhelas, I have bad news for you.

  133. Kev

    Bookmarks are atomic at the moment, no?

  134. edhelas

    no they aren't

  135. jonasw

    Kev, but not very fine grained

  136. Kev

    Pretty sure they are. It's a single payload.

  137. edhelas

    you just save the whole list in an item, so you have race condition issues

  138. Kev

    Race condition issues doesn't make it non-atomic :)

  139. jonasw

    Kev, you know about the issues though, don’t you?

  140. edhelas

    I'd love to have a bookmark XEP that works like this one https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0330.html#usecases

  141. jonasw

    aioxmpp has a weird read-modify-write loop up to three times or until convergence, whicever happens first

  142. Kev

    edhelas: In the sense of one bookmark per item?

  143. edhelas

    Kev Yes!

  144. jonasw

    we’re not entirly sure it ever converges even if everybody does that algorithm, but it should.

  145. Kev

    I think that would be fairly sensible, in a world where bookmarks weren't based on iq:private primarily, yes.

  146. daniel has left

  147. daniel has joined

  148. jonasw

    yah, a server would have to implement that read-modify-write loop then :)

  149. edhelas

    Zash what is the status of multi-items in Pubsub/PEP nodes in Prosody

  150. Ge0rG

    See, XMPP is all about database update synchronization.

  151. jonasw

    edhelas, you should first ask what the status of private and persistent pep is ....

  152. Kev

    I think that the publish-only-if-the-parent-state-is-right XEP would do the job too (for something not frequently changing).

  153. edhelas

    jonasw persistence is there in ejabberd and Prosody now afaik

  154. jonasw

    atomic compare-and-publish for pubsub, Kev? :)

  155. intosi

    jonasw: M-Link's is excellent as well ;)

  156. jonasw

    edhelas, is it though? I thought only with a community module.

  157. jonasw

    anyways, I wanted to go for errands like an hour ago. the XSF is eating my time!!k

  158. 0000 has left

  159. daniel has left

  160. Steve Kille has left

  161. Steve Kille has left

  162. Steve Kille has joined

  163. daniel has left

  164. daniel has left

  165. Martin has joined

  166. Steve Kille has left

  167. jere has left

  168. jere has joined

  169. daniel has left

  170. Martin has left

  171. daniel has left

  172. daniel has left

  173. sonny has left

  174. lskdjf has left

  175. mimi89999 has left

  176. jubalh has joined

  177. ralphm has joined

  178. daniel has left

  179. daniel has left

  180. daniel has joined

  181. goffi has joined

  182. Ge0rG has left

  183. Ge0rG has left

  184. jonasw

    SamWhited, what’s the status about the XEP-393 update? I’m still missing the opt-out and a formal grammar…

  185. jonasw

    (or opt-in, even better)

  186. lumi has joined

  187. matlag has joined

  188. Zash has left

  189. Zash has left

  190. Zash has joined

  191. ralphm has left

  192. Ge0rG has left

  193. zinid has left

  194. ralphm has joined

  195. daniel has left

  196. daniel has left

  197. zinid has left

  198. daniel has left

  199. daniel has left

  200. daniel has joined

  201. Tobias has left

  202. la|r|ma has joined

  203. arc has left

  204. arc has joined

  205. la|r|ma has left

  206. la|r|ma has joined

  207. ralphm has joined

  208. valo has left

  209. valo has joined

  210. ralphm has joined

  211. goffi has left

  212. georg has joined

  213. goffi has left

  214. Guus has left

  215. goffi has joined

  216. jere has joined

  217. stefandxm has left

  218. Ge0rG has left

  219. Guus has left

  220. la|r|ma has joined

  221. georg has left

  222. Tobias has joined

  223. goffi has left

  224. zinid has left

  225. ralphm has joined

  226. stefandxm has joined

  227. lskdjf has joined

  228. zinid has left

  229. daniel has left

  230. daniel has joined

  231. Ge0rG has left

  232. nyco has left

  233. nyco has joined

  234. sonny has joined

  235. Guus

    I'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?

  236. Guus

    I've set it to 11 minutes, just to make it slightly different from the default.

  237. SamWhited

    jonasw: 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

  238. jonasw


  239. jonasw

    I see absolutely no reason not to add an opt-out, to be honest.

  240. SamWhited

    *formal, even

  241. Kev

    I liked the idea of you writing a football grammar. Let me have that, please.

  242. jonasw

    I thought that football grammer is a nickname for some type of grammar representation :)

  243. Ge0rG

    Kev: do you mean a soccer grammar?

  244. SamWhited

    This will be a Liverpool F.C. grammar (if kev can live with that), so definitely "football"

  245. Ge0rG

    But they are playing soccer?

  246. SamWhited

    No, Atlanta United plays soccer, Liverpool plays football.

  247. Ge0rG

    Ah, but they are playing the same game, right?

  248. vanitasvitae has left

  249. vanitasvitae has joined

  250. SamWhited

    Yes, sorry, I'm fine stretching this joke out now

  251. SamWhited

    Done, even. I hate phones.

  252. jonasw

    we all do

  253. Martin has joined

  254. marc has left

  255. MattJ waves

  256. Martin


  257. Guus performs an acrobatic manouvre.

  258. ralphm bangs gavel

  259. ralphm

    0. Welcome & Agenda

  260. ralphm

    Hi! Who do we have?

  261. Martin

    I’m here

  262. MattJ

    I'm here

  263. Guus

    I'm here

  264. ralphm


  265. ralphm set the topic to

    XSF Board Meeting | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

  266. Guus

    He might be attending POSS

  267. Guus

    (an event in Paris that he previously expressed interest in)

  268. ralphm

    Ah, yes.

  269. mathieui

    he is (or was yesterday, where I saw him)

  270. ralphm

    Anyone have something for the agenda?

  271. Guus

    I've added things to Trello last week

  272. Guus

    apart from those, none.

  273. MattJ

    I don't think I have anything to add right now

  274. ralphm


  275. Martin

    Nothing from me

  276. ralphm

    Who can take minutes?

  277. Martin

    I’m mobile, so not really in a position to, sorry :(

  278. Guus

    if no-one outside board members is available, I'll do it.

  279. ralphm

    1. D&O insurance

  280. Guus

    I've talked to Peter. His full response is in Trello.

  281. Guus

    basically: if board still wants to move forward with this, he will. But he estimates it'll be not cheap.

  282. ralphm

    Given his response, and no current (potential) officers asking for it right now, let's close this for now

  283. Guus

    Aren't we asking for this?

  284. Martin

    Do we know/remember why we started down this path in the first place?

  285. Martin

    (I’m happy to close it, fwiw, just curious as to why this has hung around for some long)

  286. Martin

    *so long

  287. Guus

    if 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.

  288. ralphm

    Guus: I'm not asking for insurance, no.

  289. Kev has left

  290. Guus

    Martin: it was put up by Laura, April 4, 2016.

  291. ralphm

    I'm also not entirely sure who this will work out with people in Europe.

  292. MattJ

    From 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

  293. ralphm

    Martin: well, somebody brought it up, stpeter would investigate, that was delayed a bit, everybody lost interest.

  294. Guus

    given that we've not been financially pressured in the past ... 18 years? ... might be a non-issue.

  295. ralphm

    The Foundation is not that old yet, but sure

  296. Guus

    I know it's dead-cheap in the Netherlands, but liability laws are vastly different here.

  297. ralphm

    Right. I'm not even sure if a Dutch insurance would work with a Delaware company.

  298. Guus

    but if I'm the only one interested, i'm happy to let this go.

  299. ralphm

    If you want to investigate that, that's fine of course.

  300. Guus

    Matt, Martin?

  301. Martin

    I’m happy to let it go

  302. ralphm

    Ok, archiving.

  303. ralphm

    2. Commitments

  304. Guus

    I'll let Peter know.

  305. ralphm

    I saw that we asked and can reconfirm our Treasurer and Secretary for another year.

  306. MattJ

    Sorry, 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")

  307. Guus

    indeed, both Alex and Peter are happy to take on their roles another year. Do we need nyco to make it official?

  308. ralphm

    So I motion we appoint Alexander Gnauck as Secretary for another term.

  309. Guus


  310. Martin


  311. Martin


  312. Martin has left

  313. Martin has joined

  314. ralphm


  315. Martin


  316. MattJ


  317. ralphm

    I motion we appoint Peter Saint-André as Treasurer for another term.

  318. MattJ


  319. Guus


  320. Martin


  321. Martin


  322. ralphm


  323. Guus

    Can we have some kind of thank-you for the work they've been doing so far?

  324. ralphm

    I think we have to postpone appointing the Chair again.

  325. ralphm

    Guus: please note this in the minutes, indeed

  326. ralphm

    FWIW, I'm happy to continue.

  327. ralphm

    I just hope that nyco can attend next meeting so we can finish this.

  328. Guus

    At some point, it'd like to address unscheduled non-attendence.

  329. ralphm

    I haven't yet acted on finding a new ED, so let's keep that one.

  330. ralphm

    Guus: right, I did send that message to the Board list for a reason.

  331. Guus

    Yes, thanks for that.

  332. Guus

    but it did not help, sadly.

  333. ralphm

    Moving on

  334. ralphm

    3. Items for discussion

  335. ralphm

    We only have a few minutes left.

  336. ralphm

    Given 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.

  337. MattJ


  338. Guus

    that works for me.

  339. Martin

    Fine by me

  340. Guus

    I'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.

  341. Guus

    (as a commitment for the week ahead).

  342. ralphm

    Guus: +1

  343. MattJ


  344. Martin

    Sounds like a plan

  345. ralphm

    Added a card

  346. Guus

    potential survey is based on that discussion, I think.

  347. ralphm


  348. ralphm

    That leaves us with the new card on FOSDEM sponsorship.

  349. ralphm

    I think this is an interesting topic, that deserves a bit more than 3 minutes

  350. Guus

    (I'm good for another 10 minutes or so)

  351. MattJ

    +1. I'm in favour of it generally, but I think we need a broader discussion on financing and fundraising

  352. MattJ

    We're really bad at both, and I think it's something we need to improve on

  353. ralphm

    MattJ: can you create a card to that effect?

  354. MattJ


  355. ralphm

    I propose we then pick that up next week

  356. ralphm

    also given the short time until FOSDEM

  357. ralphm

    4. AOB

  358. ralphm

    I didn't see anything for this raised today

  359. Martin

    None from me

  360. ralphm

    5. Time of Next

  361. Guus

    SCAM should get into gear for FOSDEM/SUMMIT

  362. ralphm


  363. ralphm

    Guus: agreed

  364. ralphm

    The confirmation for stands has been extended

  365. Guus

    +1W works for me.

  366. MattJ

    +1W wfm

  367. Martin

    +1W works for me too

  368. ralphm

    I.e. I didn't get it yet because they are slow

  369. ralphm

    6. Close

  370. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  371. ralphm bangs gavel

  372. Martin


  373. MattJ


  374. ralphm set the topic to

    XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

  375. Ge0rG

    So what can we do to improve the SPIM situation?

  376. Guus

    Ge0rG: stop searching for silver bullets.

  377. Guus

    I feel that to many proposals get shot down because "that won't fix the problem"

  378. Guus

    (in general, not by you specifically)

  379. Guus

    many partial solutions will at least help. Currently, we're not making any progress.

  380. lovetox has joined

  381. Martin has left

  382. moparisthebest

    well mainly because there are no silver bullets

  383. moparisthebest

    if there was a perfect solution for spam, email people would have found it years ago, probably before xmpp became a thing

  384. Guus


  385. lovetox

    Just to add to the Last Call XEP-0387 discussion, because im to lazy now to post to the list

  386. moparisthebest

    solutions should fall neatly in 2 categories: 1. That won't help at all. 2. That might help for a little bit

  387. Ge0rG deleted around 1000 spammer accounts in the last 24h.

  388. jonasw

    obligatory link: https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

  389. Ge0rG

    lovetox: don't be lazy. Not everyone is reading this MUC

  390. lovetox

    SamWhited, 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

  391. jonasw

    lovetox, not even ejabberd? I thought ejabberd can do that

  392. lovetox

    only one server to my knowledge

  393. lovetox

    that conversations server, because holger added it

  394. lovetox

    i dont know if this has landed in the community version of ejabbered

  395. lovetox

    but i doubt it

  396. moparisthebest

    haha jonasw never saw that, thanks :)

  397. lovetox

    and 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

  398. Ge0rG

    lovetox: that was discussed on standards@ I think. Or at least in the last council minutes

  399. lovetox

    no, the argument revolved around what clients actually use

  400. lovetox

    and yes of course all clients use private storage

  401. edhelas


  402. lovetox

    but even if not, we cannot recommend something that is not supported by servers

  403. edhelas

    Movim relies on private PEP node for Bookmarks, only that

  404. lovetox

    compliance is here so we have good interop between clients and servers

  405. Ge0rG

    edhelas: Movim also doesn't work on my server :(

  406. lovetox

    not to promote next level features

  407. edhelas

    Ge0rG Prosody ?

  408. jonasw

    lovetox, remember that people wanted to have MIX in there

  409. Ge0rG

    lovetox: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/554

  410. Ge0rG

    edhelas: yeah

  411. edhelas

    Ge0rG soon :)

  412. jonasw

    lovetox, 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

  413. jonasw

    I think SamWhited wants them to be a description of what we want to have.

  414. lovetox

    in my opinion it should reflect something that is good right now

  415. SamWhited

    I don't actually understand that discussion; both of them support bookmarks in PEP just fine. Do you mean the persistence thing?

  416. lovetox

    not what we hope will happen sometimes in the future

  417. edhelas

    ping Zash

  418. lovetox

    SamWhited, they dont, they are not supporting 223

  419. lovetox

    this means all bookmarks are open world readable

  420. lovetox

    which is not something that we want

  421. lovetox

    maybe the xep doesnt require it strictly but it should

  422. Zash


  423. lovetox

    i dont know the wording anymore

  424. lovetox

    and also this is the reason why nobody really wants to implement this

  425. Ge0rG

    Zash: bookmarks in PEP

  426. lovetox

    if gajim gets bookmarks over pep, we test if the server supports 223 fully, if not, we purge the pep node

  427. lovetox

    and transfer bookmarks to private storage

  428. Zash

    Not yet

  429. jonasw

    lovetox, <3

  430. jonasw

    good job :)

  431. jonasw

    SamWhited, if you count "bookmarks in PEP work until the next server reboot" as "working", I think we might have a problem.

  432. Zash

    We've got persistence but access control isn't configurable yet

  433. jonasw

    SamWhited, 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.

  434. jonasw

    SamWhited, 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.

  435. SamWhited

    fair enough

  436. edhelas

    Zash access_control is the last missing thing to move Bookmarks to PEP in Prosody ?

  437. lovetox

    persistence is one thing, support of access_model = whiteliste, the real important one

  438. SamWhited

    Either 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

  439. edhelas

    SamWhited +1

  440. SamWhited

    I was pretty sure they already supported private nodes though, but I guess not?

  441. Zash

    edhelas: No idea

  442. jonasw

    SamWhited, fair enough

  443. jonasw

    I 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.

  444. lovetox

    SamWhited, private nodes are supported sometimes

  445. lovetox

    but often whats missing is the <publish-options> feature

  446. jonasw

    SamWhited, 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)

  447. lovetox

    that lets the client discover this whithout pulling the whole node config

  448. lovetox

    pulling node config in turn is also not supported by all server

  449. zinid

    lovetox, it's missing because there are problems with xdata definition

  450. Kev has left

  451. Ge0rG

    dwd: 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.

  452. jonasw

    TIL how to force kmail to show a multipart/alternative message as html even though it contains a text/plain part.

  453. jonasw

    I find it ironic that the HTML message contains *foo* by the way.

  454. stefandxm has left

  455. stefandxm has joined

  456. ralphm has left

  457. ralphm has joined

  458. ralphm has left

  459. lskdjf has left

  460. tux has joined

  461. stefandxm has left

  462. jonasw

    SamWhited, XEP-0001 has a minimum of 14 days. I hate that.

  463. SamWhited

    It has had 14 days of LC already, after that it's up to the editor

  464. SamWhited

    Or 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

  465. jonasw

    hm, sure, but a re-issuance after council switch?

  466. jonasw

    I’m seeing this in light of Kevins argument

  467. jonasw

    which I found much more convincing than the argument in XEP-0001 by the way

  468. jubalh has left

  469. SamWhited

    I still don't see what the council switch has to do with anything; they'll still have plenty of time to review it.

  470. ralphm has joined

  471. zinid has left

  472. efrit has joined

  473. ralphm has left

  474. ralphm has joined

  475. Holger has left

  476. moparisthebest

    I 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...

  477. moparisthebest

    I'm not sure I care about their input in that case

  478. ralphm has joined

  479. Kev

    I 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.

  480. lskdjf has joined

  481. Kev

    So 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.

  482. Kev

    MIX is a direction, but not stable, so I think putting that in would be wrong.

  483. Kev

    But '49 is widely needed for interop, so I think we list that.

  484. Zash

    Maybe 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.

  485. Kev

    I 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.

  486. Zash

    Kev: It would be tho, it'd be "what we think the future should look like, as of $today"

  487. Kev

    Yes, but we can keep that updated, there's no particular value in stamping it and calling it done.

  488. Zash

    Maybe numbered semi-immutable documents aren't optimal for that purpose

  489. arc has left

  490. arc has joined

  491. Zash

    But it'd be cool to have something of a history of what we thought the future would look like

  492. arc has left

  493. Zash

    Useful for comparing later, to see which, if any, goals we got anywhere with

  494. Kev

    I think we'd probably have that just through the attic and the changelog.

  495. Zash

    I suppose

  496. Zash

    Could be a blog entry, the exact form is probably not that important

  497. Zash

    Having a vision is good tho.

  498. Kev

    Anyway, that is very much not a hill for me to die on - but I think a single living direction document would do just fine.

  499. Zash

    As is knowing the current state of things

  500. Kev

    I 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.

  501. Zash

    Which is sorta inbetween.

  502. Zash

    The IETF used to have implementation reports of some kind IIRC

  503. arc has joined

  504. zinid has left

  505. efrit has left

  506. fippo

    zash: that didn't work

  507. jubalh has joined

  508. Syndace has joined

  509. Syndace has joined

  510. sonny has left

  511. sonny has joined

  512. nyco has left

  513. zinid has left

  514. jubalh has left

  515. nyco has joined

  516. ralphm has joined

  517. jjrh has left

  518. zinid has left

  519. Ge0rG has left

  520. stefandxm has joined

  521. zinid has left

  522. waqas has joined

  523. 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?

  524. Holger

    I 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.

  525. Holger

    ... isn't registered.

  526. ralphm has left

  527. uc has left

  528. daniel

    Holger: i have it on my todo list to register that publish option

  529. Holger

    daniel: 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.

  530. jjrh has left

  531. jubalh has joined

  532. daniel

    i agree

  533. daniel

    it's probably impossible to get that through council

  534. daniel

    my last change to xep60 took me a 6 month to push through

  535. Holger

    Though the result would be equivalent to registering each and every node config option as a publish option to be handled as precondition.

  536. uc has joined

  537. Ge0rG has joined

  538. jjrh has left

  539. stefandxm has left

  540. Ge0rG has left

  541. daniel

    if 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

  542. daniel

    and should probably be deleted in order to not confuse people with an already very confusing XEP

  543. arc has left

  544. arc has joined

  545. ralphm has joined

  546. arc has left

  547. arc has joined

  548. jonasw

    daniel, 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

  549. daniel

    at some point the xsf will need an archaeologist to dig up why certain decisions to certain xeps where made in the past

  550. jonasw

    I wish those things would be documented properly.

  551. jubalh has left

  552. daniel has left

  553. Ge0rG

    Every XEP should contain a strong rationale for surprising decisions.

  554. nyco has left

  555. daniel

    Holger, jonasw: if you word it that way you are essentially kissing 'per item overwrite' goodby

  556. daniel

    which i'm not necessarly opposed to

  557. jonasw

    daniel, how?

  558. nyco has joined

  559. daniel

    well 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

  560. Zash

    Would have been easier if it the three kinds of things weren't in the same form

  561. daniel

    i guess you can still register that with a different name

  562. jonasw

    what is a per-item override?

  563. daniel

    Zash yes

  564. daniel

    jonasw, read the XEP we are talking about

  565. jonasw

    I have, but it’s been a while :/

  566. daniel

    jonasw, i don't really know myself :-)

  567. Zash

    jonasw: What it sounds like.

  568. Zash

    jonasw: Node configuration overrides per item.

  569. daniel

    7.1.5 Publishing Options <- just read that

  570. jonasw

    Zash, at first I thought "per item override" is something abou treplacing existing items, but that didn’t make sense

  571. jonasw

    is it setting options per item?

  572. jonasw


  573. jonasw


  574. jonasw

    that sounds ill-defined as heck

  575. Zash

    And unused afaik

  576. daniel

    no shit

  577. jonasw

    I personally don’t have a problem with burning that :)

  578. daniel

    per item override or the entire xep?

  579. jonasw

    not that I would matter :)

  580. Zash

    Per-item access control is a desirable feature tho

  581. jonasw

    Zash, is it?

  582. jonasw

    hm, maybe for the social network things

  583. jonasw


  584. Ge0rG has left

  585. daniel

    the path of least resistance is to register persist-items as a precondition and move on with our lives

  586. zinid has left

  587. daniel has left

  588. Ge0rG has left

  589. Guus has left

  590. Holger

    > Holger, jonasw: if you word it that way you are essentially kissing 'per item overwrite' goodby Sounds good to me :-)

  591. Steve Kille has left

  592. 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.

  593. jubalh has joined

  594. Ge0rG has joined

  595. vanitasvitae has left

  596. vanitasvitae has joined

  597. Guus has left

  598. Steve Kille has joined

  599. nyco has left

  600. daniel has left

  601. stefandxm has joined

  602. nyco has joined

  603. ralphm has joined

  604. jubalh has left

  605. Ge0rG has joined

  606. sonny has left

  607. sonny has joined

  608. sonny has left

  609. sonny has joined

  610. Ge0rG has joined

  611. Ge0rG has left

  612. sonny has joined

  613. sonny has joined

  614. daniel has left

  615. sonny has left

  616. sonny has joined

  617. sonny has left

  618. sonny has joined

  619. Guus has left

  620. sonny has left

  621. sonny has joined

  622. @Alacer has left

  623. waqas has left

  624. sonny has left

  625. sonny has joined

  626. sonny has left

  627. @Alacer has joined

  628. Ge0rG has joined

  629. sonny has joined

  630. Guus has left

  631. daniel

    created both https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/556 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/555

  632. daniel

    feedback on the wording in 556 welcome

  633. daniel has left

  634. debacle has joined

  635. debacle has left

  636. debacle has joined

  637. Guus has left

  638. Holger has left

  639. arc has left

  640. arc has joined

  641. uc has joined

  642. uc has joined

  643. Ge0rG has joined

  644. valo has left

  645. valo has joined

  646. @Alacer has left

  647. @Alacer has joined

  648. ralphm has joined

  649. ralphm has joined

  650. moparisthebest has joined

  651. sonny has left

  652. sonny has joined

  653. daniel has left

  654. zinid has left

  655. Ge0rG has left

  656. daniel has left

  657. sonny has left

  658. arc has left

  659. arc has joined

  660. zinid has left

  661. sonny has joined

  662. zinid has left

  663. debacle has left

  664. arc has left

  665. arc has joined

  666. daniel has left

  667. daniel has joined

  668. ralphm has joined

  669. arc has left

  670. arc has joined

  671. stefandxm has left

  672. Tobias has left

  673. jubalh has joined

  674. lumi has left

  675. daniel has left

  676. sonny has left

  677. sonny has joined

  678. ralphm has joined

  679. jonasw has left

  680. jubalh has left

  681. nyco has left

  682. nyco has joined

  683. ralphm has left

  684. stefandxm has joined

  685. Tobias has joined

  686. ralphm has joined

  687. stefandxm has left

  688. lskdjf has left

  689. daniel has left

  690. pep. has left

  691. ralphm has joined

  692. daniel has left

  693. stefandxm has joined

  694. ralphm has joined

  695. ralphm has left

  696. daniel has left

  697. daniel has left

  698. jonasw has left

  699. daniel has left

  700. daniel has left

  701. jubalh has joined

  702. daniel has left

  703. lskdjf has left

  704. ralphm has joined

  705. moparisthebest has joined

  706. daniel has left

  707. zinid has joined

  708. goffi has joined

  709. Guus has left

  710. jubalh has joined

  711. marc has left

  712. marc has left

  713. jubalh has left

  714. zinid has left

  715. arc has left

  716. arc has joined

  717. Zash has left

  718. jubalh has joined

  719. jjrh has left

  720. jjrh has left

  721. SamWhited has left

  722. jjrh has left

  723. jubalh has left

  724. lskdjf has left

  725. tux has left

  726. arc has left

  727. arc has joined

  728. arc has left

  729. arc has joined