XSF Discussion - 2017-12-21


  1. marc

    Ge0rG, wow, XEP-0045 specificies an "invite" URI action. Did you know that?

  2. Ge0rG

    marc: you can use it to make your client invite somebody else, yeah. What's your point?

  3. marc

    Ge0rG, just didn't know that there is already a query action with the name "invite" ;)

  4. Ge0rG

    marc: if you want to pass on invitations, ?join is the right action

  5. marc

    Ge0rG, it just thwarted my plans to use "invite" as action for user invitation :P

  6. Ge0rG

    marc: Great! Then you can finally follow my suggestion of omitting the action altogether.

  7. Ge0rG

    marc: because you can't force a specific action on the receiver of the URI anyway.

  8. Ge0rG

    marc: depending on internal state, it can be any of roster, subscribe, chat

  9. marc

    Ge0rG, nah, I just define "invite23" as action for user invitation

  10. Ge0rG

    marc: https://memeexplorer.com/cache/550.jpg

  11. marc

    Ge0rG, I don't get your last statement. What's your point about "internal state"?

  12. Ge0rG

    marc: it depends on how far the invitee is enrolled into XMPP

  13. marc

    Ge0rG, yeah, but that's not related to URI query actions. It's a general problem if I got your point...

  14. Ge0rG

    marc: it is a problem of the URI action, because you try to tell the invitee client what to do with that action.

  15. Ge0rG

    marc: 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

  16. Ge0rG

    marc: there is no proper action to add a contact, and the invitee can't know the right action anyway.

  17. marc

    Ge0rG, you can still do this with actions :D the action is just a pointer what this URI is about

  18. Ge0rG

    marc: yes, but a properly implemented invitee client will ignore the action anyway, so it's only adding complexity

  19. marc

    Ge0rG, what about "?register"? how would your client determine what to do without this action? :D

  20. Ge0rG

    marc: did you just switch use cases?

  21. marc

    Ge0rG, no, your point is that actions are useless in URIs, right?

  22. Ge0rG

    marc: the ?register action does make sense for the xmpp://account@server URI

  23. Ge0rG

    marc: my point is that actions are useless in "share my JID" URIs

  24. Ge0rG

    marc: so for user-invitation and for PARS, there is no benefit in an action

  25. marc

    Ge0rG, okay, not in general?

  26. Ge0rG

    marc: no

  27. Ge0rG

    marc: sorry that I didn't make that more explicit before.

  28. marc

    Ge0rG, okay, maybe I can follow you now...

  29. Ge0rG

    marc: 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? :)

  30. marc

    Ge0rG, what are proto-accounts?

  31. Ge0rG

    marc: the second use case of your proto-XEP, inviting users to your server.

  32. Ge0rG

    How did we call that? create-account?

  33. marc

    Ge0rG, okay, I think we can agree on that :)

  34. Ge0rG

    Phew! 😅

  35. marc

    :>

  36. ralphm set the topic to

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

  37. ralphm bangs gavel

  38. Guus

    o/

  39. ralphm

    0. Welcome + Agenda

  40. ralphm

    Who do we have?

  41. Martin

    *wave*

  42. ralphm

    MattJ, nyco?

  43. ralphm

    Well, that's disappointing

  44. Guus

    my thoughts

  45. Guus

    In the interest of getting something done: we do have quorum.

  46. Martin

    We do indeed

  47. ralphm

    Indeed.

  48. ralphm

    Let's continue.

  49. ralphm

    1. Char

  50. ralphm

    1. Chair

  51. Guus

    tag, you're it?

  52. ralphm

    I've seen one volunteer in response to the e-mail I sent out.

  53. ralphm

    If 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.

  54. Guus

    +1

  55. Martin

    +1 to that motion

  56. ralphm

    I guess that's sufficient to carry the motion.

  57. ralphm

    Moving on then.

  58. ralphm

    2. List discussion on meeting failures.

  59. ralphm

    First of all, thanks Dave Cridland for pitching in.

  60. ralphm

    I personally think that most of the discussion on alternative meeting "venues" is moot if we fail to attend to start with.

  61. Martin

    Agreed

  62. Guus

    agreed.

  63. ralphm

    I do agree we need to all send apologies to the list in case we can't make it

  64. ralphm

    and we might need to reconsider meeting times

  65. ralphm

    I understand that with the holidays this is a somewhat more difficult, so let's continue that part of the discussion on list

  66. Guus

    Although I'm open to changing meeting times, I wonder if that helps. We agreed on this one just weeks ago.

  67. ralphm

    My suggestion is to at least skip next week

  68. ralphm

    Indeed

  69. Guus

    ralphm: shall we skip the week after too?

  70. Guus

    I at least will be spending my holidays away from home.

  71. Martin

    If we don't skip the 4th, I'll be sending my apologies. I'm busy at work with meetings all day

  72. ralphm

    I'm bit hesitant on that, because of FOSDEM nearing

  73. ralphm

    Ok that's good to know

  74. Martin

    Skipping next week makes sense to me

  75. ralphm

    I guess we'll have to do things on-list if pressing for FOSDEM

  76. Guus

    well, 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)?

  77. ralphm

    Guus are you still available for FOSDEM stuff?

  78. Martin

    But 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.

  79. nyco

    sorry, late (obvious)

  80. ralphm

    sure, but if board would need to decide on things, it would be good to be able to without a meeting

  81. Guus

    ralphm: mail will not be an issue. An exact time/date will be (kids, holiday, swimming pool)

  82. ralphm

    ok, good

  83. ralphm

    nyco: welcome

  84. Guus

    nyco, as you've been missing most, I'm interested in our ideas on getting better attendance in these meetings.

  85. nyco

    voice+video

  86. nyco

    more fluid

  87. ralphm

    nyco: the venue is not relevant at all

  88. nyco

    also visualising

  89. ralphm

    you have missed all meetings up till now, video wouldn't change that

  90. Guus

    doorbell, afk for a bit

  91. ralphm

    I'm not having that discussion until we can reliably show up, on time

  92. Guus

    bak

  93. Guus

    back*

  94. Guus

    what Ralph wrote

  95. Guus

    althought voice/video might add something to the meetings, it won't make people appear if they didn't do so before.

  96. nyco

    that can motivate: listen and be heard

  97. nyco

    higher bandwidth interactions

  98. ralphm

    nyco: please stop ignoring the elephant in the room

  99. nyco

    but isn't our priority to setup the Board priorities for 2018?

  100. nyco

    please explain

  101. ralphm

    Our #1 priority is *showing up on time at meeting time*

  102. nyco

    it is also about committing, making it more attractive, what do you think?.

  103. ralphm

    After that, we can consider alternative media choices

  104. ralphm

    You committed to be on the board, there's 0 reason to make it more attractive just for showing up

  105. nyco

    not 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

  106. ralphm

    (and with you I mean all of us)

  107. nyco

    that is the other way around

  108. Guus

    nyco, as a group, we agreed to be here

  109. Guus

    I am personally very annoyed to show up here, making my time available, only to find out that others are not.

  110. ralphm

    No it is not. We made a commitment (being on the board), then an agreement (meeting on Thursdays at 14:30 UTC).

  111. nyco

    we're still doing meta-dscussion, betting on the outcome, why not test instead? we'll then get feedback from real experimentation in our context

  112. ralphm

    nyco: I strongly disagree with you on this.

  113. nyco

    maybe that meeting shape and goals neeed to be "refactored"

  114. Martin

    This is not to do with experimentation, this is to do with obligations as a board member, and obligation #1 is to show up.

  115. nyco

    ralphm you haven't listened yet to what I have to say

  116. ralphm

    We've been having fruitful meetings since forever, and especially the last few weeks, with just text-based meetings.

  117. nyco

    I disagree that attending is the commitment, as long as the XSF goes on shrinking...

  118. ralphm

    nyco: I did, you are ignoring current practise over a wish to do things differently

  119. nyco

    I disagree it has been fruitful, taking a decision over the course of three meeting is not

  120. nyco

    ralphm I confirm

  121. nyco

    what frustrates me here, is that a short sentenced is considered enough to get a full understanding of what goes behind

  122. ralphm

    You have voiced your concerns with the way we do meetings, the role of the board, etc. before. I get that

  123. ralphm

    and might actually agree on several points

  124. nyco

    the first deliverable for this board is the set of priorities, not the commitment to be present on a text chat that goes nowhere

  125. nyco

    sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all

  126. ralphm

    but 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

  127. nyco

    I strongly oppose and disagree on this process of mind

  128. nyco

    our focus must be deliver on our duty

  129. ralphm

    Look, priorities are nice, but that's definitely not the first deliverable. Like any Board of Directors, we simply need to run the company.

  130. nyco

    a text chat meeting is only a mean

  131. nyco

    a Trello/JIRA board is another mean

  132. nyco

    sure, how does a text chat meeting runs the foundation?

  133. ralphm

    Like it has for over 10 years.

  134. nyco

    again, meta-discussions

  135. nyco

    so we don't change

  136. nyco

    how performant do you believe it is?

  137. nyco

    what'st the outcome?

  138. Guus

    nyco, 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.

  139. ralphm

    The 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.

  140. nyco

    we need a great improvement

  141. nyco

    > sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all

  142. nyco

    > sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all I elaborate: what is the problem that we agree on?

  143. nyco

    (side observation: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=xmpp )

  144. Guus

    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.

  145. ralphm

    The problem and the current agenda item is meeting failures

  146. 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)

  147. ralphm

    not alternative venues, alternative goals of the foundation, or how to be more effective

  148. ralphm

    So, I would like the commitment from all Directors to meet at an agreed-upon time and actually following through with that.

  149. 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

  150. nyco

    > The problem and the current agenda item is meeting failures I can agree on that

  151. Guus

    Ralphm, as I said on list, I am amazed that we need explicit commitment for that (but you have mine).

  152. nyco

    so again, and again, and again: what are the problems we agree on and the proposed solutionsSSS

  153. Martin

    And the sending of apologies ahead of time if you are unable to make the meeting

  154. ralphm

    I 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.

  155. ralphm

    nyco: the number one problem for me is directors showing up at meeting time

  156. ralphm

    If we can't do that simple thing, all the other stuff is moot

  157. 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

  158. ralphm

    nyco: I'm not sure how involved you were back then, but JSF was a misnomer

  159. ralphm

    We've always been little more than a standards body

  160. 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

  161. ralphm

    And as I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to having other goals, but that's not the topic of this discussion

  162. nyco

    ralphm please, again, and please again, what are your solutions?

  163. Guus

    Nyco, 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.

  164. ralphm

    nyco: Showing up at agreed upon times

  165. nyco

    how?

  166. Guus

    nyco, 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.

  167. nyco

    how?

  168. ralphm

    nyco: I set an alarm in my phone to make sure I'm on time

  169. nyco

    ok, what else?

  170. ralphm

    nothing else. seems to work

  171. Martin

    Are we actually having a discussion about how to remember a particular time of day, every week?

  172. nyco

    we all have information overload and notification fatigue, no one showed up 100%

  173. nyco

    Martin it seems

  174. ralphm

    FWIW I did since the elections. I think Guus did too

  175. ralphm

    But that's not the point

  176. nyco

    if that is the root cause, not sure how valuable my contributions can be

  177. Guus

    I was absent once, excused beforehand.

  178. ralphm

    We all should

  179. ralphm

    nyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings?

  180. nyco

    so, I hear the problem is people missing, the solution is alarms, good, note that down in the minutes

  181. nyco

    now, can we focus on higher outcome?

  182. nyco

    > nyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings? seriously ;-)

  183. ralphm

    Yes, seriously

  184. nyco

    that was a great debate, my dear colleagues

  185. nyco

    ;-)

  186. Martin

    I 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

  187. Guus

    I'm still not getting why we're debating this in the first place.

  188. jonasw

    Am I really reading this?

  189. Martin

    Me neither

  190. Guus

    nyco, you appear to be on your own on this.

  191. Martin

    Turn. Up. It's really, really simple.

  192. ralphm

    I 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?

  193. nyco

    > nyco, you appear to be on your own on this. what are you talking about?

  194. Guus

    nyco: not committing to be in this chat every week.

  195. Martin

    I 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

  196. nyco

    sure, we debated this, we have a decision, goes to the minutes, no discussion, we must inform and share

  197. nyco

    > nyco: not committing to be in this chat every week. serisouly? but, seriously?

  198. Guus

    I seriously expect all of us to be here, or at least warn others in advance if you can't make it.

  199. jonasw

    I wonder whether there’s a massive misunderstanding going on here.

  200. nyco

    agree

  201. Guus

    that's ... common sense?

  202. nyco

    jonasw of course there is

  203. jonasw

    nyco, wanna clear that up maybe?

  204. nyco

    Guus yes

  205. ralphm

    nyco: 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?

  206. nyco

    jonasw did this, refocussed

  207. nyco

    what the next item on the agenda?

  208. ralphm

    nyco: given the clock, the next item is

  209. ralphm

    3. Date of Next

  210. nyco

    January

  211. nyco

    ?

  212. ralphm

    I suggest the next meeting is on Thursday 11 January at 14:30.

  213. ralphm

    I expect all directors to be in attendance.

  214. nyco

    4th

  215. nyco

    11th is too far away

  216. ralphm

    nyco: 2 board members have expressed difficulty with 4 because of holidays.

  217. ralphm

    and work

  218. Guus

    Jan 11 works for me (I won't be able to make it 4th).

  219. Guus

    still

  220. Martin

    11th works for me, I'm not available on the 4th, as mentioned at the start of the meeting.

  221. nyco

    still the rest of us can meet and discuss, not take decision because lack of rough consensus

  222. Guus

    before we convene

  223. ralphm

    nyco: we have been doing that for the last three weeks, and did make decisions

  224. nyco

    4th with ralphm and MattJ (and nyco)

  225. Guus

    not convene, disperse...

  226. nyco

    sure, so 4th, with decisions

  227. Guus

    can we see if we can have a quick agreement on the young potentials thing? that might affect attendence plans for some people.

  228. ralphm

    Guus: 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?

  229. Guus

    I'd be fine with simply making a motion, and vote here, with little discussion, if that's ok with ou.

  230. nyco

    who for 4th?who for 11th?

  231. nyco

    4th

  232. Guus

    Ralphm: the sponsoring can affect people's descision to go to FOSDEM. Jan 11th is when most will have made their plans already.

  233. Guus

    So i'd like to see if we can decide on this now.

  234. nyco

    > who for 4th?who for 11th?

  235. Guus

    As 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.

  236. Guus

    I'll in any case be here the 11th, not the 4th.

  237. ralphm

    Guus: I can see that, but I think we need more (financial) details before deciding on this

  238. ralphm

    I understood

  239. Guus

    ralphm: I propose to make the financial details small enough for them to not matter to the XSF (but potentially, to the recipients).

  240. ralphm

    wow I was unable to connect to any room at muc.xmpp.org

  241. ralphm

    Guus: that's a bit little to go on

  242. Guus

    I 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.

  243. ralphm

    just GSoC?

  244. Guus

    that's a well defined group of people, a well defined requirement, and a low total amount for the XSF.

  245. Guus

    ralphm: let's start small this year, see if people want to take it. We can always expand that group later.

  246. daniel

    (and some of the money from google is more or less explicitly for that purpose)

  247. nyco

    > > who for 4th?who for 11th?

  248. nyco

    note: we did not bang the gavel, please we are still on the meeting

  249. nyco

    I had connection difficulties, messages lost

  250. Guus

    Daniel: that's debatable, but it makes for a natural selection of 'young potential', I think.

  251. Guus

    for the record: in that definition, we would have 3 eligable recipients.

  252. ralphm

    I'd be ok with that

  253. Martin

    Yeah, me too

  254. Guus

    It is official then?

  255. Guus

    (apologies for the rushed/messy procedure here)

  256. daniel

    (outsiders comment; i would tie that to the summit; not fosdem)

  257. ralphm

    nyco?

  258. 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)

  259. nyco

    what is the question?

  260. ralphm

    Guus proposed to provide limited sponsorship for people to attend the XMPP Summit

  261. Guus

    nyco: 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.

  262. ralphm

    http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2017-12-21/#15:15:30

  263. ralphm

    Guus I thought you said only Summit

  264. Guus

    No I didn't, but I could live with that additional restriction (don't think it's needed though)

  265. ralphm2

    I'd like them to be at the Summit at least

  266. ralphm2

    It seems, though that we are having issues with connecting to muc.xmpp.org from some servers

  267. ralphm2

    I think we have to adjourn and then get consensus on your proposal on list

  268. Guus

    I had just one hiccup, but others appear more affected.

  269. Guus

    agreed.

  270. ralphm2 bangs gavel

  271. Martin

    Thanks ralphm2 & ralphm

  272. nyco

    I agree, when did we get on the agenda item? did I mess messages? have we resolved the next board meeting date?

  273. nyco

    I lose messages

  274. nyco

    Test

  275. nyco

    I lose messages, both on Conversations and Movim

  276. nyco

    Test2

  277. nyco

    testtest

  278. nyco

    aaaaa

  279. nyco

    wow

  280. nyco

    sorry

  281. nyco

    seems these were held somewhere

  282. ralphm

    :-D

  283. ralphm

    I just sent a follow-up mail to the Board list

  284. nyco

    I didn't receive it (yet?)

  285. nyco

    the Board ML has no archive, is it ok?

  286. intosi

    .

  287. nyco

    :

  288. ralphm

  289. nyco

    ralphm wins