XSF Discussion - 2017-12-21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

marc: did you just switch use cases?

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

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

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

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

Ge0rG, okay, not in general?

marc: no

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

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

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? :)

Ge0rG, what are proto-accounts?

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

How did we call that? create-account?

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

Phew! 😅

:>

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

o/

0. Welcome + Agenda

Who do we have?

*wave*

MattJ, nyco?

Well, that's disappointing

my thoughts

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

We do indeed

Indeed.

Let's continue.

1. Char

1. Chair

tag, you're it?

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

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.

+1

+1 to that motion

I guess that's sufficient to carry the motion.

Moving on then.

2. List discussion on meeting failures.

First of all, thanks Dave Cridland for pitching in.

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

Agreed

agreed.

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

and we might need to reconsider meeting times

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

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

My suggestion is to at least skip next week

Indeed

ralphm: shall we skip the week after too?

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

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

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

Ok that's good to know

Skipping next week makes sense to me

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

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)?

Guus are you still available for FOSDEM stuff?

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.

sorry, late (obvious)

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

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

ok, good

nyco: welcome

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

voice+video

more fluid

nyco: the venue is not relevant at all

also visualising

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

doorbell, afk for a bit

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

bak

back*

what Ralph wrote

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

that can motivate: listen and be heard

higher bandwidth interactions

nyco: please stop ignoring the elephant in the room

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

please explain

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

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

After that, we can consider alternative media choices

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

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

(and with you I mean all of us)

that is the other way around

nyco, as a group, we agreed to be here

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

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

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

nyco: I strongly disagree with you on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ralphm I confirm

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

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

and might actually agree on several points

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

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

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

I strongly oppose and disagree on this process of mind

our focus must be deliver on our duty

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

a text chat meeting is only a mean

a Trello/JIRA board is another mean

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

Like it has for over 10 years.

again, meta-discussions

so we don't change

how performant do you believe it is?

what'st the outcome?

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.

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.

we need a great improvement

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

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

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

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.

The problem and the current agenda item is meeting failures

(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)

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

> 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

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

We've always been little more than a standards body

> 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

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

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

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.

nyco: Showing up at agreed upon times

how?

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.

how?

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

ok, what else?

nothing else. seems to work

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

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

Martin it seems

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

But that's not the point

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

I was absent once, excused beforehand.

We all should

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

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

now, can we focus on higher outcome?

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

Yes, seriously

that was a great debate, my dear colleagues

;-)

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

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

Am I really reading this?

Me neither

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agree

that's ... common sense?

jonasw of course there is

nyco, wanna clear that up maybe?

Guus yes

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?

jonasw did this, refocussed

what the next item on the agenda?

nyco: given the clock, the next item is

3. Date of Next

January

?

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

I expect all directors to be in attendance.

4th

11th is too far away

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

and work

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

still

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

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

before we convene

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

4th with ralphm and MattJ (and nyco)

not convene, disperse...

sure, so 4th, with decisions

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

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?

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

who for 4th?who for 11th?

4th

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

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

> who for 4th?who for 11th?

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.

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

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

I understood

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

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

Guus: that's a bit little to go on

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.

just GSoC?

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

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

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

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

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

I had connection difficulties, messages lost

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

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

I'd be ok with that

Yeah, me too

It is official then?

(apologies for the rushed/messy procedure here)

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

nyco?

(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)

what is the question?

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

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.

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

Guus I thought you said only Summit

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

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

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

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

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

agreed.

Thanks ralphm2 & ralphm

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

I lose messages

Test

I lose messages, both on Conversations and Movim

Test2

testtest

aaaaa

wow

sorry

seems these were held somewhere

:-D

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

I didn't receive it (yet?)

the Board ML has no archive, is it ok?

.

:

…

ralphm wins