Ge0rG, wow, XEP-0045 specificies an "invite" URI action. Did you know that?
uchas left
Ge0rG
marc: you can use it to make your client invite somebody else, yeah. What's your point?
marc
Ge0rG, just didn't know that there is already a query action with the name "invite" ;)
uchas joined
uchas left
Ge0rG
marc: if you want to pass on invitations, ?join is the right action
uchas joined
lskdjfhas left
la|r|mahas joined
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
marc
Ge0rG, it just thwarted my plans to use "invite" as action for user invitation :P
Ge0rG
marc: Great! Then you can finally follow my suggestion of omitting the action altogether.
Ge0rG
marc: because you can't force a specific action on the receiver of the URI anyway.
Ge0rG
marc: depending on internal state, it can be any of roster, subscribe, chat
marc
Ge0rG, nah, I just define "invite23" as action for user invitation
Ge0rG
marc: https://memeexplorer.com/cache/550.jpg
marc
Ge0rG, I don't get your last statement. What's your point about "internal state"?
Ge0rG
marc: it depends on how far the invitee is enrolled into XMPP
marc
Ge0rG, yeah, but that's not related to URI query actions. It's a general problem if I got your point...
Ge0rG
marc: it is a problem of the URI action, because you try to tell the invitee client what to do with that action.
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
Ge0rG
marc: there is no proper action to add a contact, and the invitee can't know the right action anyway.
marc
Ge0rG, you can still do this with actions :D the action is just a pointer what this URI is about
Ge0rG
marc: yes, but a properly implemented invitee client will ignore the action anyway, so it's only adding complexity
marc
Ge0rG, what about "?register"? how would your client determine what to do without this action? :D
Ge0rG
marc: did you just switch use cases?
marc
Ge0rG, no, your point is that actions are useless in URIs, right?
Ge0rG
marc: the ?register action does make sense for the xmpp://account@server URI
Ge0rG
marc: my point is that actions are useless in "share my JID" URIs
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rG
marc: so for user-invitation and for PARS, there is no benefit in an action
marc
Ge0rG, okay, not in general?
Ge0rG
marc: no
Ge0rG
marc: sorry that I didn't make that more explicit before.
marc
Ge0rG, okay, maybe I can follow you now...
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? :)
marc
Ge0rG, what are proto-accounts?
Ge0rG
marc: the second use case of your proto-XEP, inviting users to your server.
In the interest of getting something done: we do have quorum.
Martin
We do indeed
ralphm
Indeed.
ralphm
Let's continue.
ralphm
1. Char
ralphm
1. Chair
Guus
tag, you're it?
ralphm
I've seen one volunteer in response to the e-mail I sent out.
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.
Guus
+1
Martin
+1 to that motion
ralphm
I guess that's sufficient to carry the motion.
ralphm
Moving on then.
ralphm
2. List discussion on meeting failures.
ralphm
First of all, thanks Dave Cridland for pitching in.
ralphm
I personally think that most of the discussion on alternative meeting "venues" is moot if we fail to attend to start with.
Martin
Agreed
Guus
agreed.
ralphm
I do agree we need to all send apologies to the list in case we can't make it
ralphm
and we might need to reconsider meeting times
ralphm
I understand that with the holidays this is a somewhat more difficult, so let's continue that part of the discussion on list
Guus
Although I'm open to changing meeting times, I wonder if that helps. We agreed on this one just weeks ago.
ralphm
My suggestion is to at least skip next week
ralphm
Indeed
Guus
ralphm: shall we skip the week after too?
Guushas left
Guus
I at least will be spending my holidays away from home.
Martin
If we don't skip the 4th, I'll be sending my apologies. I'm busy at work with meetings all day
ralphm
I'm bit hesitant on that, because of FOSDEM nearing
ralphm
Ok that's good to know
Martin
Skipping next week makes sense to me
ralphm
I guess we'll have to do things on-list if pressing for FOSDEM
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)?
ralphm
Guus are you still available for FOSDEM stuff?
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.
nyco
sorry, late (obvious)
ralphm
sure, but if board would need to decide on things, it would be good to be able to without a meeting
Guus
ralphm: mail will not be an issue. An exact time/date will be (kids, holiday, swimming pool)
ralphm
ok, good
ralphm
nyco: welcome
Guus
nyco, as you've been missing most, I'm interested in our ideas on getting better attendance in these meetings.
nyco
voice+video
nyco
more fluid
ralphm
nyco: the venue is not relevant at all
nyco
also visualising
ralphm
you have missed all meetings up till now, video wouldn't change that
Guus
doorbell, afk for a bit
ralphm
I'm not having that discussion until we can reliably show up, on time
Guus
bak
Guus
back*
Guus
what Ralph wrote
Guus
althought voice/video might add something to the meetings, it won't make people appear if they didn't do so before.
nyco
that can motivate: listen and be heard
nyco
higher bandwidth interactions
ralphm
nyco: please stop ignoring the elephant in the room
nyco
but isn't our priority to setup the Board priorities for 2018?
nyco
please explain
ralphm
Our #1 priority is *showing up on time at meeting time*
nyco
it is also about committing, making it more attractive, what do you think?.
ralphm
After that, we can consider alternative media choices
ralphm
You committed to be on the board, there's 0 reason to make it more attractive just for showing up
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
ralphm
(and with you I mean all of us)
nyco
that is the other way around
Guus
nyco, as a group, we agreed to be here
Guus
I am personally very annoyed to show up here, making my time available, only to find out that others are not.
ralphm
No it is not. We made a commitment (being on the board), then an agreement (meeting on Thursdays at 14:30 UTC).
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
ralphm
nyco: I strongly disagree with you on this.
nyco
maybe that meeting shape and goals neeed to be "refactored"
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.
nyco
ralphm you haven't listened yet to what I have to say
ralphm
We've been having fruitful meetings since forever, and especially the last few weeks, with just text-based meetings.
nyco
I disagree that attending is the commitment, as long as the XSF goes on shrinking...
ralphm
nyco: I did, you are ignoring current practise over a wish to do things differently
nyco
I disagree it has been fruitful, taking a decision over the course of three meeting is not
nyco
ralphm I confirm
nyco
what frustrates me here, is that a short sentenced is considered enough to get a full understanding of what goes behind
lumihas joined
ralphm
You have voiced your concerns with the way we do meetings, the role of the board, etc. before. I get that
ralphm
and might actually agree on several points
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
nyco
sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
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
nyco
I strongly oppose and disagree on this process of mind
nyco
our focus must be deliver on our duty
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.
nyco
a text chat meeting is only a mean
nyco
a Trello/JIRA board is another mean
nyco
sure, how does a text chat meeting runs the foundation?
Guushas left
ralphm
Like it has for over 10 years.
nyco
again, meta-discussions
nyco
so we don't change
nyco
how performant do you believe it is?
nyco
what'st the outcome?
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.
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.
nyco
we need a great improvement
nyco
> sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
winfriedhas joined
nyco
> sure, then what are your solutions? let's discuss/evaluate them all
I elaborate: what is the problem that we agree on?
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.
ralphm
The 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)
ralphm
not alternative venues, alternative goals of the foundation, or how to be more effective
ralphm
So, 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
Guus
Ralphm, as I said on list, I am amazed that we need explicit commitment for that (but you have mine).
nyco
so again, and again, and again: what are the problems we agree on and the proposed solutionsSSS
Martin
And the sending of apologies ahead of time if you are unable to make the meeting
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.
lovetoxhas left
ralphm
nyco: the number one problem for me is directors showing up at meeting time
ralphm
If 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
ralphm
nyco: I'm not sure how involved you were back then, but JSF was a misnomer
ralphm
We'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
ralphm
And as I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to having other goals, but that's not the topic of this discussion
@Alacerhas left
waqashas left
nyco
ralphm please, again, and please again, what are your solutions?
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.
ralphm
nyco: Showing up at agreed upon times
nyco
how?
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.
nyco
how?
ralphm
nyco: I set an alarm in my phone to make sure I'm on time
nyco
ok, what else?
ralphm
nothing else. seems to work
Martin
Are we actually having a discussion about how to remember a particular time of day, every week?
nyco
we all have information overload and notification fatigue, no one showed up 100%
nyco
Martin it seems
ralphm
FWIW I did since the elections. I think Guus did too
ralphm
But that's not the point
nyco
if that is the root cause, not sure how valuable my contributions can be
Guus
I was absent once, excused beforehand.
ralphm
We all should
ralphm
nyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings?
nyco
so, I hear the problem is people missing, the solution is alarms, good, note that down in the minutes
nyco
now, can we focus on higher outcome?
nyco
> nyco: are you saying you don't want to commit to being on time at meetings?
seriously ;-)
ralphm
Yes, seriously
nyco
that was a great debate, my dear colleagues
nyco
;-)
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
Guus
I'm still not getting why we're debating this in the first place.
jonasw
Am I really reading this?
Martin
Me neither
Guus
nyco, you appear to be on your own on this.
Martin
Turn. Up. It's really, really simple.
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?
nyco
> nyco, you appear to be on your own on this.
what are you talking about?
Guus
nyco: not committing to be in this chat every week.
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
nyco
sure, 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?
Guus
I seriously expect all of us to be here, or at least warn others in advance if you can't make it.
jonasw
I wonder whether there’s a massive misunderstanding going on here.
nyco
agree
Guus
that's ... common sense?
nyco
jonasw of course there is
jonasw
nyco, wanna clear that up maybe?
nyco
Guus yes
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?
nyco
jonasw did this, refocussed
nyco
what the next item on the agenda?
ralphm
nyco: given the clock, the next item is
ralphm
3. Date of Next
nyco
January
nyco
?
ralphm
I suggest the next meeting is on Thursday 11 January at 14:30.
ralphm
I expect all directors to be in attendance.
nyco
4th
nyco
11th is too far away
ralphm
nyco: 2 board members have expressed difficulty with 4 because of holidays.
ralphm
and work
Guus
Jan 11 works for me (I won't be able to make it 4th).
Guus
still
Martin
11th works for me, I'm not available on the 4th, as mentioned at the start of the meeting.
nyco
still the rest of us can meet and discuss, not take decision because lack of rough consensus
Guus
before we convene
ralphm
nyco: we have been doing that for the last three weeks, and did make decisions
nyco
4th with ralphm and MattJ (and nyco)
Guus
not convene, disperse...
nyco
sure, so 4th, with decisions
Guus
can we see if we can have a quick agreement on the young potentials thing? that might affect attendence plans for some people.
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?
Guus
I'd be fine with simply making a motion, and vote here, with little discussion, if that's ok with ou.
nyco
who for 4th?who for 11th?
nyco
4th
Guus
Ralphm: the sponsoring can affect people's descision to go to FOSDEM. Jan 11th is when most will have made their plans already.
Guus
So i'd like to see if we can decide on this now.
marchas left
nyco
> who for 4th?who for 11th?
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.
Guus
I'll in any case be here the 11th, not the 4th.
Guushas left
ralphm
Guus: I can see that, but I think we need more (financial) details before deciding on this
ralphm
I understood
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Guus
ralphm: I propose to make the financial details small enough for them to not matter to the XSF (but potentially, to the recipients).
@Alacerhas joined
ralphm
wow I was unable to connect to any room at muc.xmpp.org
ralphm
Guus: that's a bit little to go on
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.
ralphm
just GSoC?
Guus
that's a well defined group of people, a well defined requirement, and a low total amount for the XSF.
Guus
ralphm: 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?
nyco
note: we did not bang the gavel, please we are still on the meeting
nyco
I had connection difficulties, messages lost
Guus
Daniel: that's debatable, but it makes for a natural selection of 'young potential', I think.
Guus
for the record: in that definition, we would have 3 eligable recipients.
ralphm
I'd be ok with that
Martin
Yeah, me too
Guus
It is official then?
Guus
(apologies for the rushed/messy procedure here)
daniel
(outsiders comment; i would tie that to the summit; not fosdem)
ralphm
nyco?
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)
nyco
what is the question?
marchas left
ralphm
Guus proposed to provide limited sponsorship for people to attend the XMPP Summit
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.
ralphm
http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2017-12-21/#15:15:30
ralphm
Guus I thought you said only Summit
Guus
No I didn't, but I could live with that additional restriction (don't think it's needed though)
ralphm2has joined
ralphm2
I'd like them to be at the Summit at least
ralphm2
It seems, though that we are having issues with connecting to muc.xmpp.org from some servers
ralphm2
I think we have to adjourn and then get consensus on your proposal on list
Guus
I had just one hiccup, but others appear more affected.
Guus
agreed.
Guushas left
ralphm2bangs gavel
Martin
Thanks ralphm2 & ralphm
winfriedhas left
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
nyco
I agree, when did we get on the agenda item? did I mess messages? have we resolved the next board meeting date?