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 :)
jonasw
Kev, as I said (at least in one of my drafts), I think that is fine.
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.
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)
Kev
I think my current arguments are stronger than the one xep1 makes, but I would.
jonasw
oh, I didn’t realise that the argument is literally from XEP1
jonasw
I 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 ..."
jonasw
damn
jonasw
sorry
jonasw
I didn’t have my coffee yet
danielhas left
jonasw
(I can always make that excuse, I never drink coffee)
jonasw
but I also didn’t have my water yet, which is probably worse
Kev
But I would be amazed if anyone not on Council does the level of review that Council should do.
SouL
jonasw, same here haha
Kev
(Indeed, the questions that the Editors ask them to during LC don't come close)
ralphmhas joined
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.
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.
Ge0rG
Kev: can't we solve the bookmarks issue by requiring servers to transparently synchronize both storage formats?
jonasw
Ge0rG, that’s an interesting idea
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.
danielhas left
edhelas
Bookmark need to be changed, first have atomic bookmarks
jonasw
if it’s announced by a feature, I don’t see any reason not to, draft or not, previously server side or not
Ge0rG
edhelas: no need to go nuclear!
edhelas
eheh
edhelas
no but we have PEP, and multi-items tags now
jonasw
edhelas, in spec, yes
edhelas
I'd like, in 2017, to be able to solve a bookmark in a PEP-Pubsub item
jonasw
in deployment mmmm
jonasw
edhelas, I have bad news for you.
Kev
Bookmarks are atomic at the moment, no?
edhelas
no they aren't
jonasw
Kev, but not very fine grained
Kev
Pretty sure they are. It's a single payload.
edhelas
you just save the whole list in an item, so you have race condition issues
Kev
Race condition issues doesn't make it non-atomic :)
jonasw
Kev, you know about the issues though, don’t you?
edhelas
I'd love to have a bookmark XEP that works like this one https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0330.html#usecases
jonasw
aioxmpp has a weird read-modify-write loop up to three times or until convergence, whicever happens first
Kev
edhelas: In the sense of one bookmark per item?
edhelas
Kev Yes!
jonasw
we’re not entirly sure it ever converges even if everybody does that algorithm, but it should.
Kev
I think that would be fairly sensible, in a world where bookmarks weren't based on iq:private primarily, yes.
danielhas left
danielhas joined
jonasw
yah, a server would have to implement that read-modify-write loop then :)
edhelas
Zash what is the status of multi-items in Pubsub/PEP nodes in Prosody
Ge0rG
See, XMPP is all about database update synchronization.
jonasw
edhelas, you should first ask what the status of private and persistent pep is ....
Kev
I think that the publish-only-if-the-parent-state-is-right XEP would do the job too (for something not frequently changing).
edhelas
jonasw persistence is there in ejabberd and Prosody now afaik
jonasw
atomic compare-and-publish for pubsub, Kev? :)
intosi
jonasw: M-Link's is excellent as well ;)
jonasw
edhelas, is it though? I thought only with a community module.
jonasw
anyways, 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
jonasw
SamWhited, 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
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?
Guus
I've set it to 11 minutes, just to make it slightly different from the default.
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
jonasw
menh
jonasw
I see absolutely no reason not to add an opt-out, to be honest.
SamWhited
*formal, even
Kev
I liked the idea of you writing a football grammar. Let me have that, please.
jonasw
I thought that football grammer is a nickname for some type of grammar representation :)
Ge0rG
Kev: do you mean a soccer grammar?
SamWhited
This will be a Liverpool F.C. grammar (if kev can live with that), so definitely "football"
Ge0rG
But they are playing soccer?
SamWhited
No, Atlanta United plays soccer, Liverpool plays football.
(an event in Paris that he previously expressed interest in)
ralphm
Ah, yes.
mathieui
he is (or was yesterday, where I saw him)
ralphm
Anyone have something for the agenda?
Guus
I've added things to Trello last week
Guus
apart from those, none.
MattJ
I don't think I have anything to add right now
ralphm
Ok
Martin
Nothing from me
ralphm
Who can take minutes?
Martin
I’m mobile, so not really in a position to, sorry :(
Guus
if no-one outside board members is available, I'll do it.
ralphm
1. D&O insurance
Guus
I've talked to Peter. His full response is in Trello.
Guus
basically: if board still wants to move forward with this, he will. But he estimates it'll be not cheap.
ralphm
Given his response, and no current (potential) officers asking for it right now, let's close this for now
Guus
Aren't we asking for this?
Martin
Do 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
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.
ralphm
Guus: I'm not asking for insurance, no.
Kevhas left
Guus
Martin: it was put up by Laura, April 4, 2016.
ralphm
I'm also not entirely sure who this will work out with people in Europe.
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
ralphm
Martin: well, somebody brought it up, stpeter would investigate, that was delayed a bit, everybody lost interest.
Guus
given that we've not been financially pressured in the past ... 18 years? ... might be a non-issue.
ralphm
The Foundation is not that old yet, but sure
Guus
I know it's dead-cheap in the Netherlands, but liability laws are vastly different here.
ralphm
Right. I'm not even sure if a Dutch insurance would work with a Delaware company.
Guus
but if I'm the only one interested, i'm happy to let this go.
ralphm
If you want to investigate that, that's fine of course.
Guus
Matt, Martin?
Martin
I’m happy to let it go
ralphm
Ok, archiving.
ralphm
2. Commitments
Guus
I'll let Peter know.
ralphm
I saw that we asked and can reconfirm our Treasurer and Secretary for another year.
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")
Guus
indeed, both Alex and Peter are happy to take on their roles another year. Do we need nyco to make it official?
ralphm
So I motion we appoint Alexander Gnauck as Secretary for another term.
Guus
+1
Martin
+1
Martin
+1
Martinhas left
Martinhas joined
ralphm
Done.
Martin
+1
MattJ
+1
ralphm
I motion we appoint Peter Saint-André as Treasurer for another term.
MattJ
+1
Guus
+1
Martin
+!
Martin
*+1
ralphm
Done
Guus
Can we have some kind of thank-you for the work they've been doing so far?
ralphm
I think we have to postpone appointing the Chair again.
ralphm
Guus: please note this in the minutes, indeed
ralphm
FWIW, I'm happy to continue.
ralphm
I just hope that nyco can attend next meeting so we can finish this.
Guus
At some point, it'd like to address unscheduled non-attendence.
ralphm
I haven't yet acted on finding a new ED, so let's keep that one.
ralphm
Guus: right, I did send that message to the Board list for a reason.
Guus
Yes, thanks for that.
Guus
but it did not help, sadly.
ralphm
Moving on
ralphm
3. Items for discussion
ralphm
We only have a few minutes left.
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.
MattJ
wfm
Guus
that works for me.
Martin
Fine by me
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.
Guus
(as a commitment for the week ahead).
ralphm
Guus: +1
MattJ
+1
Martin
Sounds like a plan
ralphm
Added a card
Guus
potential survey is based on that discussion, I think.
ralphm
Agreed
ralphm
That leaves us with the new card on FOSDEM sponsorship.
ralphm
I 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
MattJ
We're really bad at both, and I think it's something we need to improve on
lovetox: don't be lazy. Not everyone is reading this MUC
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
jonasw
lovetox, not even ejabberd? I thought ejabberd can do that
lovetox
only one server to my knowledge
lovetox
that conversations server, because holger added it
lovetox
i dont know if this has landed in the community version of ejabbered
lovetox
but i doubt it
moparisthebest
haha jonasw never saw that, thanks :)
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
Ge0rG
lovetox: that was discussed on standards@ I think. Or at least in the last council minutes
lovetox
no, the argument revolved around what clients actually use
lovetox
and yes of course all clients use private storage
edhelas
nope
lovetox
but even if not, we cannot recommend something that is not supported by servers
edhelas
Movim relies on private PEP node for Bookmarks, only that
lovetox
compliance is here so we have good interop between clients and servers
Ge0rG
edhelas: Movim also doesn't work on my server :(
lovetox
not to promote next level features
edhelas
Ge0rG Prosody ?
jonasw
lovetox, remember that people wanted to have MIX in there
Ge0rG
lovetox: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/554
Ge0rG
edhelas: yeah
edhelas
Ge0rG soon :)
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
jonasw
I think SamWhited wants them to be a description of what we want to have.
lovetox
in my opinion it should reflect something that is good right now
SamWhited
I don't actually understand that discussion; both of them support bookmarks in PEP just fine. Do you mean the persistence thing?
lovetox
not what we hope will happen sometimes in the future
edhelas
ping Zash
lovetox
SamWhited, they dont, they are not supporting 223
lovetox
this means all bookmarks are open world readable
lovetox
which is not something that we want
lovetox
maybe the xep doesnt require it strictly but it should
Zash
ENOCTX
lovetox
i dont know the wording anymore
lovetox
and also this is the reason why nobody really wants to implement this
Ge0rG
Zash: bookmarks in PEP
lovetox
if gajim gets bookmarks over pep, we test if the server supports 223 fully, if not, we purge the pep node
lovetox
and transfer bookmarks to private storage
Zash
Not yet
jonasw
lovetox, <3
jonasw
good job :)
jonasw
SamWhited, if you count "bookmarks in PEP work until the next server reboot" as "working", I think we might have a problem.✎
Zash
We've got persistence but access control isn't configurable yet
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.✎✏
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. ✏
SamWhited
fair enough
edhelas
Zash access_control is the last missing thing to move Bookmarks to PEP in Prosody ?
lovetox
persistence is one thing, support of access_model = whiteliste, the real important one
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
edhelas
SamWhited +1
SamWhited
I was pretty sure they already supported private nodes though, but I guess not?
Zash
edhelas: No idea
jonasw
SamWhited, fair enough
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.
lovetox
SamWhited, private nodes are supported sometimes
lovetox
but often whats missing is the <publish-options> feature
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)
lovetox
that lets the client discover this whithout pulling the whole node config
lovetox
pulling node config in turn is also not supported by all server
zinid
lovetox, it's missing because there are problems with xdata definition
Kevhas left
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.
jonasw
TIL how to force kmail to show a multipart/alternative message as html even though it contains a text/plain part.
jonasw
I 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
jonasw
SamWhited, XEP-0001 has a minimum of 14 days. I hate that.
SamWhited
It has had 14 days of LC already, after that it's up to the editor
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
jonasw
hm, sure, but a re-issuance after council switch?
jonasw
I’m seeing this in light of Kevins argument
jonasw
which I found much more convincing than the argument in XEP-0001 by the way
jubalhhas left
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.
ralphmhas joined
zinidhas left
efrithas joined
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Holgerhas left
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...
moparisthebest
I'm not sure I care about their input in that case
ralphmhas joined
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.
lskdjfhas joined
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.
Kev
MIX is a direction, but not stable, so I think putting that in would be wrong.
Kev
But '49 is widely needed for interop, so I think we list that.
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.
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.
Zash
Kev: It would be tho, it'd be "what we think the future should look like, as of $today"
Kev
Yes, but we can keep that updated, there's no particular value in stamping it and calling it done.
Zash
Maybe numbered semi-immutable documents aren't optimal for that purpose
archas left
archas joined
Zash
But it'd be cool to have something of a history of what we thought the future would look like
archas left
Zash
Useful for comparing later, to see which, if any, goals we got anywhere with
Kev
I think we'd probably have that just through the attic and the changelog.
Zash
I suppose
Zash
Could be a blog entry, the exact form is probably not that important
Zash
Having a vision is good tho.
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.
Zash
As is knowing the current state of things
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.
Zash
Which is sorta inbetween.
Zash
The IETF used to have implementation reports of some kind IIRC
archas joined
zinidhas left
efrithas left
fippo
zash: 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?
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.
Holger
... isn't registered.
ralphmhas left
uchas left
daniel
Holger: i have it on my todo list to register that publish option
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.
jjrhhas left
jubalhhas joined
daniel
i agree
daniel
it's probably impossible to get that through council
daniel
my last change to xep60 took me a 6 month to push through
Holger
Though 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
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
daniel
and 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
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
daniel
at some point the xsf will need an archaeologist to dig up why certain decisions to certain xeps where made in the past
jonasw
I wish those things would be documented properly.
jubalhhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rG
Every XEP should contain a strong rationale for surprising decisions.
nycohas left
daniel
Holger, jonasw: if you word it that way you are essentially kissing 'per item overwrite' goodby
daniel
which i'm not necessarly opposed to
jonasw
daniel, how?
nycohas joined
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
Zash
Would have been easier if it the three kinds of things weren't in the same form
daniel
i guess you can still register that with a different name
jonasw
what is a per-item override?
daniel
Zash yes
daniel
jonasw, read the XEP we are talking about
jonasw
I have, but it’s been a while :/
daniel
jonasw, i don't really know myself :-)
Zash
jonasw: What it sounds like.
Zash
jonasw: Node configuration overrides per item.
daniel
7.1.5 Publishing Options <- just read that
jonasw
Zash, at first I thought "per item override" is something abou treplacing existing items, but that didn’t make sense
jonasw
is it setting options per item?
jonasw
ahh
jonasw
okay
jonasw
that sounds ill-defined as heck
Zash
And unused afaik
daniel
no shit
jonasw
I personally don’t have a problem with burning that :)
daniel
per item override or the entire xep?
jonasw
not that I would matter :)
Zash
Per-item access control is a desirable feature tho
jonasw
Zash, is it?
jonasw
hm, maybe for the social network things
jonasw
meh
Ge0rGhas left
daniel
the 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
daniel
created both https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/556 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/555