marcGe0rG, wow, XEP-0045 specificies an "invite" URI action. Did you know that?
Ge0rGmarc: you can use it to make your client invite somebody else, yeah. What's your point?
marcGe0rG, just didn't know that there is already a query action with the name "invite" ;)
Ge0rGmarc: if you want to pass on invitations, ?join is the right action
marcGe0rG, it just thwarted my plans to use "invite" as action for user invitation :P
Ge0rGmarc: Great! Then you can finally follow my suggestion of omitting the action altogether.
Ge0rGmarc: because you can't force a specific action on the receiver of the URI anyway.
Ge0rGmarc: depending on internal state, it can be any of roster, subscribe, chat
marcGe0rG, nah, I just define "invite23" as action for user invitation
marcGe0rG, I don't get your last statement. What's your point about "internal state"?
Ge0rGmarc: it depends on how far the invitee is enrolled into XMPP
marcGe0rG, yeah, but that's not related to URI query actions. It's a general problem if I got your point...
Ge0rGmarc: it is a problem of the URI action, because you try to tell the invitee client what to do with that action.
Ge0rGmarc: as the invitee's client, I would do the following on an action-less URI:
- no account --> register first
- have account without this contact --> add contact
- have account with the inviter contact --> open chat
Ge0rGmarc: there is no proper action to add a contact, and the invitee can't know the right action anyway.
marcGe0rG, you can still do this with actions :D the action is just a pointer what this URI is about
Ge0rGmarc: yes, but a properly implemented invitee client will ignore the action anyway, so it's only adding complexity
marcGe0rG, what about "?register"? how would your client determine what to do without this action? :D
Ge0rGmarc: did you just switch use cases?
marcGe0rG, no, your point is that actions are useless in URIs, right?
Ge0rGmarc: the ?register action does make sense for the xmpp://account@server URI
Ge0rGmarc: my point is that actions are useless in "share my JID" URIs
Ge0rGmarc: so for user-invitation and for PARS, there is no benefit in an action
marcGe0rG, okay, not in general?
Ge0rGmarc: sorry that I didn't make that more explicit before.
marcGe0rG, okay, maybe I can follow you now...
Ge0rGmarc: MUCs are shared with the `join` action, proto-accounts are shared with the `register` action, contact invitations are shared with no action - can we agree on that? :)
marcGe0rG, what are proto-accounts?
Ge0rGmarc: the second use case of your proto-XEP, inviting users to your server.
GuusIn the interest of getting something done: we do have quorum.
MartinWe do indeed
Guustag, you're it?
ralphmI've seen one volunteer in response to the e-mail I sent out.
ralphmIf anyone else wants to volunteer in this meeting, please step up. Otherwise I motion we appoint Ralph Meijer as the Chair of the Board of Directors for the 2017/2018 term.
Martin+1 to that motion
ralphmI guess that's sufficient to carry the motion.
ralphmMoving on then.
ralphm2. List discussion on meeting failures.
ralphmFirst of all, thanks Dave Cridland for pitching in.
ralphmI personally think that most of the discussion on alternative meeting "venues" is moot if we fail to attend to start with.
ralphmI do agree we need to all send apologies to the list in case we can't make it
ralphmand we might need to reconsider meeting times
ralphmI understand that with the holidays this is a somewhat more difficult, so let's continue that part of the discussion on list
GuusAlthough I'm open to changing meeting times, I wonder if that helps. We agreed on this one just weeks ago.
ralphmMy suggestion is to at least skip next week
Guusralphm: shall we skip the week after too?
GuusI at least will be spending my holidays away from home.
MartinIf we don't skip the 4th, I'll be sending my apologies. I'm busy at work with meetings all day
ralphmI'm bit hesitant on that, because of FOSDEM nearing
ralphmOk that's good to know
MartinSkipping next week makes sense to me
ralphmI guess we'll have to do things on-list if pressing for FOSDEM
Guuswell, that's two of us being unvailable. I agree that FOSDEM is important, but we can do that on-list (and should perhaps do that more as SCAM instead of Boad anyways)?
ralphmGuus are you still available for FOSDEM stuff?
MartinBut I agree with Guus. If asking "when can you reliably turn up for 30mins" burns out after a week or two, then that's a real problem, beyond arranging a time. The time's pointless if people can't commit.
nycosorry, late (obvious)
ralphmsure, but if board would need to decide on things, it would be good to be able to without a meeting
Guusralphm: mail will not be an issue. An exact time/date will be (kids, holiday, swimming pool)
Guusnyco, as you've been missing most, I'm interested in our ideas on getting better attendance in these meetings.
ralphmnyco: the venue is not relevant at all
ralphmyou have missed all meetings up till now, video wouldn't change that
Guusdoorbell, afk for a bit
ralphmI'm not having that discussion until we can reliably show up, on time
Guuswhat Ralph wrote
Guusalthought voice/video might add something to the meetings, it won't make people appear if they didn't do so before.
nycothat can motivate: listen and be heard
nycohigher bandwidth interactions
ralphmnyco: please stop ignoring the elephant in the room
nycobut isn't our priority to setup the Board priorities for 2018?
ralphmOur #1 priority is *showing up on time at meeting time*
nycoit is also about committing, making it more attractive, what do you think?.
ralphmAfter that, we can consider alternative media choices
ralphmYou committed to be on the board, there's 0 reason to make it more attractive just for showing up
nyconot forcefully, the priority maybe to assume our role as a board, which is not attending meetings, but producing the valubale things for the foundation to go on
ralphm(and with you I mean all of us)
nycothat is the other way around
Guusnyco, as a group, we agreed to be here
GuusI am personally very annoyed to show up here, making my time available, only to find out that others are not.
ralphmNo it is not. We made a commitment (being on the board), then an agreement (meeting on Thursdays at 14:30 UTC).
nycowe're still doing meta-dscussion, betting on the outcome, why not test instead? we'll then get feedback from real experimentation in our context
ralphmnyco: I strongly disagree with you on this.
nycomaybe that meeting shape and goals neeed to be "refactored"
MartinThis is not to do with experimentation, this is to do with obligations as a board member, and obligation #1 is to show up.
nycoralphm you haven't listened yet to what I have to say
ralphmWe've been having fruitful meetings since forever, and especially the last few weeks, with just text-based meetings.
nycoI disagree that attending is the commitment, as long as the XSF goes on shrinking...
ralphmnyco: I did, you are ignoring current practise over a wish to do things differently
nycoI disagree it has been fruitful, taking a decision over the course of three meeting is not
nycoralphm I confirm
nycowhat frustrates me here, is that a short sentenced is considered enough to get a full understanding of what goes behind
ralphmYou have voiced your concerns with the way we do meetings, the role of the board, etc. before. I get that
ralphmand might actually agree on several points
nycothe first deliverable for this board is the set of priorities, not the commitment to be present on a text chat that goes nowhere
nycosure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
ralphmbut the thing is, that *first* we need to do things properly like we agreed (meeting on certain times, using whatever venue) so we *then* can discuss these things
nycoI strongly oppose and disagree on this process of mind
nycoour focus must be deliver on our duty
ralphmLook, priorities are nice, but that's definitely not the first deliverable. Like any Board of Directors, we simply need to run the company.
nycoa text chat meeting is only a mean
nycoa Trello/JIRA board is another mean
nycosure, how does a text chat meeting runs the foundation?
ralphmLike it has for over 10 years.
nycoso we don't change
nycohow performant do you believe it is?
nycowhat'st the outcome?
Guusnyco, you're the only one doing meta-discussions at the moment. We simply ask if everyone can be here in time, as we agreed on before.
ralphmThe goal of this Foundation is do be a standards body. We are doing well at this, IMO. You might want to /also/ do other things. That's ok, but not a decided goal.
nycowe need a great improvement
nyco> sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
nyco> sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
I elaborate: what is the problem that we agree on?
GuusI don't see a reason to _not_ have these short, weekly meetings. They can be very effective, especially if everyone prepares by reading up on the mailinglist and trello.
ralphmThe problem and the current agenda item is meeting failures
Guus(I would not object to discuss a change of venue, but as it stands, some kind of repeated get-together is something that I'd prefer)
ralphmnot alternative venues, alternative goals of the foundation, or how to be more effective
ralphmSo, I would like the commitment from all Directors to meet at an agreed-upon time and actually following through with that.
nyco> I don't see a reason to _not_ have these short, weekly meetings. They can be very effective, especially if everyone prepares by reading up on the mailinglist and trello.
that is the point: they are not effective nor efficient at all, as there is very few engagement (I am guilty here as well), nor there is any commitment at all
text chat meetings are orthogonal to this
switching the tool is a good practice for change of mindset
nyco> The problem and the current agenda item is meeting failures
I can agree on that
GuusRalphm, as I said on list, I am amazed that we need explicit commitment for that (but you have mine).
nycoso again, and again, and again: what are the problems we agree on and the proposed solutionsSSS
MartinAnd the sending of apologies ahead of time if you are unable to make the meeting
ralphmI understand having a meeting next week or the week after might be difficult for getting everyone together, so let's focus on all being there on January 11 14:30 UTC.
ralphmnyco: the number one problem for me is directors showing up at meeting time
ralphmIf we can't do that simple thing, all the other stuff is moot
nyco> not alternative venues, alternative goals of the foundation, or how to be more effective
you said we are a standards body, which is pretty much solidly no change
we used to be JSF for example, we can definitely nurture development, and certainly image
ralphmnyco: I'm not sure how involved you were back then, but JSF was a misnomer
ralphmWe've always been little more than a standards body
nyco> nyco: the number one problem for me is directors showing up at meeting time
that is not the problem for me, a more hurtful issue is the lack of engagement and commitment
ralphmAnd as I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to having other goals, but that's not the topic of this discussion
nycoralphm please, again, and please again, what are your solutions?
GuusNyco, when you signed up for board, surely you knew that board typically commits to meeting once a week in chat? Although I'm open for changes, let's discuss that properly, instead of right now, out of the blue.
ralphmnyco: Showing up at agreed upon times
Guusnyco, the first problem that we have now, is that not everyone is showing up for meetings that we agreed on. The solution is simple: be sure that you're here.
ralphmnyco: I set an alarm in my phone to make sure I'm on time
nycook, what else?
ralphmnothing else. seems to work
MartinAre we actually having a discussion about how to remember a particular time of day, every week?
nycowe all have information overload and notification fatigue, no one showed up 100%
nycoMartin it seems
ralphmFWIW I did since the elections. I think Guus did too
ralphmBut that's not the point
nycoif that is the root cause, not sure how valuable my contributions can be
GuusI was absent once, excused beforehand.
ralphmWe all should
ralphmnyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings?
nycoso, I hear the problem is people missing, the solution is alarms, good, note that down in the minutes
nyconow, can we focus on higher outcome?
nyco> nyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings?
nycothat was a great debate, my dear colleagues
MartinI really don't want the official minutes for this organisation to include "how to remember time, and to set an alarm" that's utterly ridiculous
GuusI'm still not getting why we're debating this in the first place.
jonaswAm I really reading this?
Guusnyco, you appear to be on your own on this.
MartinTurn. Up. It's really, really simple.
ralphmI don't understand why we are having that discussion. Several people have expressed annoyance with people missing meetings unannounced. Why is it so bad to discuss that?
nyco> nyco, you appear to be on your own on this.
what are you talking about?
Guusnyco: not committing to be in this chat every week.
MartinI don't have a problem with discussing it, I have a problem with the idea that somehow turning up to a half-hour meeting is onerous, and blaming a lack of an alarm(!) for not remembering to turn up
nycosure, we debated this, we have a decision, goes to the minutes, no discussion, we must inform and share
nyco> nyco: not committing to be in this chat every week.
serisouly? but, seriously?
GuusI seriously expect all of us to be here, or at least warn others in advance if you can't make it.
jonaswI wonder whether there’s a massive misunderstanding going on here.
Guusthat's ... common sense?
nycojonasw of course there is
jonaswnyco, wanna clear that up maybe?
ralphmnyco: why is that so weird? Is it so strange to just have a baseline of showing up at meetings as a prerequisite to having useful meetings?
nycojonasw did this, refocussed
nycowhat the next item on the agenda?
ralphmnyco: given the clock, the next item is
ralphm3. Date of Next
ralphmI suggest the next meeting is on Thursday 11 January at 14:30.
ralphmI expect all directors to be in attendance.
nyco11th is too far away
ralphmnyco: 2 board members have expressed difficulty with 4 because of holidays.
GuusJan 11 works for me (I won't be able to make it 4th).
Martin11th works for me, I'm not available on the 4th, as mentioned at the start of the meeting.
nycostill the rest of us can meet and discuss, not take decision because lack of rough consensus
Guusbefore we convene
ralphmnyco: we have been doing that for the last three weeks, and did make decisions
nyco4th with ralphm and MattJ (and nyco)
Guusnot convene, disperse...
nycosure, so 4th, with decisions
Guuscan we see if we can have a quick agreement on the young potentials thing? that might affect attendence plans for some people.
ralphmGuus: can you expand on what you mean there? You want to discuss this now, or do you want to know at which meeting we will in January?
GuusI'd be fine with simply making a motion, and vote here, with little discussion, if that's ok with ou.
nycowho for 4th?who for 11th?
GuusRalphm: the sponsoring can affect people's descision to go to FOSDEM. Jan 11th is when most will have made their plans already.
GuusSo i'd like to see if we can decide on this now.
nyco> who for 4th?who for 11th?
GuusAs for the meeting on Jan 4th: I don't see a reason for not having it, other than that at least two of us won't be there. If one of the others is not going to make it, you'll have reserved time for pretty much nothign.
GuusI'll in any case be here the 11th, not the 4th.
ralphmGuus: I can see that, but I think we need more (financial) details before deciding on this
Guusralphm: I propose to make the financial details small enough for them to not matter to the XSF (but potentially, to the recipients).
ralphmwow I was unable to connect to any room at muc.xmpp.org
ralphmGuus: that's a bit little to go on
GuusI was going to suggest to offer last editions GSoC students a refund of hotel/travell expenses up to 150 euro, provided that they attend either the summit or FOSDEM.
Guusthat's a well defined group of people, a well defined requirement, and a low total amount for the XSF.
Guusralphm: let's start small this year, see if people want to take it. We can always expand that group later.
daniel(and some of the money from google is more or less explicitly for that purpose)
nyco> > who for 4th?who for 11th?
nyconote: we did not bang the gavel, please we are still on the meeting
nycoI had connection difficulties, messages lost
GuusDaniel: that's debatable, but it makes for a natural selection of 'young potential', I think.
Guusfor the record: in that definition, we would have 3 eligable recipients.
ralphmI'd be ok with that
MartinYeah, me too
GuusIt is official then?
Guus(apologies for the rushed/messy procedure here)
daniel(outsiders comment; i would tie that to the summit; not fosdem)
Guus(daniel: I had considered that, but I don't thnk it's needed - I can elaborate outside of this meeting, unless others want to discuss that now)
nycowhat is the question?
ralphmGuus proposed to provide limited sponsorship for people to attend the XMPP Summit
Guusnyco: I motion that the XSF offers XSF students of last edition of GSoC be reimbursed 150 euro each, when attending next summit and/or fosdem.