intosiAssuming I'm not the only one that didn't get that, do you have a link?
KevAbout 12 lines up.
Ge0rG23:11:10 edhelas> http://lists.jitsi.org/pipermail/dev/2018-January/036563.html nice <3
is it that one?
intosiAh yes, that's sad. Thank you.
intosiIt was swamped out by a rather unhelpful flurry of leave/join messages.
Ge0rG"12 lines" is very relative in a MUC with partially shared history and client-defined display of status changes.
andrey.ghas left
intosihas left
andrey.ghas joined
intosihas joined
zinidhas left
Dave CridlandLink Mauve, You might want to talk with Guus, who's been doing a lot of work on ofMeet (which is - sort of - embedded JitsiMeet in Openfire). I'd love to see good interop here, and I'm also kicking about JitsiMeet at work.
Ge0rGhas joined
SouLWould be super cool to have it, a feature that is frequently asked for on clients
jubalhhas joined
mimi89999has left
Alexhas joined
tuxhas joined
ralphmhas left
Steve Killehas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
tuxhas joined
Steve Killehas joined
tuxhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
jubalhhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Steve Killehas left
pep.has joined
intosihas left
intosihas joined
tuxhas joined
hanneshas joined
lskdjfhas joined
efrithas joined
efrithas left
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
Link MauveDave Cridland, indeed, but I mostly didn’t start the RE part on their protocols yet, so I don’t have much to talk about.
Link MauveMy main usecase would be to bring jitsi-videobridge support to the Gstreamer-based clients, to allow interoperability with WebRTC-based ones.
GuusI'm just popping in as my name is mentioned. OFMeet _is_ Jitsi Meet embedded in Openfire (combined with the JVB).
Link MauveWe did talk about that last year. ^^
Ludovichas joined
Ludovichas left
blablahas left
blablahas joined
Ge0rGThat outreachy mail sounds interesting
jubalhhas joined
jubalhhas left
Tobiashas left
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
ralphmhas joined
pep.Dave Cridland, regarding that email, I'd be interested to know what web interfaces for MUC you're referring to, and if they're libre and still maintained
tuxhas left
pep.(I know a few, I was just surprised by the "*lots*")
moparisthebesthas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
lumihas joined
mimi89999has joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
mimi89999has left
hanneshas joined
mimi89999has left
ralphmhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
lskdjfhas joined
Zashhas left
hanneshas joined
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
Dave Cridlandjonasw, Am I right in thinking there's nothing new for the Council this week?
Dave Cridlandjonasw, I feel I'm almost certainly missing something.
nycohas left
nycohas joined
jonaswDave Cridland, you didn’t process the thing I sent you last week
jonaswmy MUC PR
jonaswotherwise, I don’t thnik there is. the week has been dominated by the compliance suites discussion
jonaswre suites by the way: I’m not sure what he process is, but if council has the power and wants to exert it, I’m happy to take ownership for XEP-0387; I’ll also state right here that I’m fine with having Kevs PR merged.
ralphmhas joined
Guushas left
Ge0rGDave Cridland: I'd like to make some progress on user-invite protoXEP, but that requires action from a different Council member, and you are already hunting us in a positive way.
jubalhhas joined
jubalhhas left
ralphmhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
la|r|mahas joined
Dave Cridlandjonasw, Cool. I'm not even sure I know what the process is. Kev might. I think there may even not be any process as such.
vanitasvitaehas left
Dave CridlandGe0rG, I'm definitely having a voting update. But Client Key and TOTP expire tomorrow, so that's something.
KevI don't believe, offhand, that there is a process for getting a Rejected XEP back.
Ge0rGDave Cridland: yes, you are right. I'll have to wait another week. Or we need to ping daniel.
Ge0rGKev: does it need to have a process? Can't we as council just move it forward?
Ge0rGInsistence on process was exactly why we got into the messy position we are in now.
KevNo, really not.
KevIf we insisted on process, Council wouldn't have voted.
zinidhas left
@Alacerhas left
Ge0rGSo if jonasw takes up 387, merges the PR before tomorrow's meeting and we all vote on advancing it.
blablahas left
Ge0rG...won't the world become a better place then?
jonaswGe0rG, I’m not sure if council needs to allow me to do that
jonaswbut if it does, we can have the merge happen before the meeting is over ;-)
jonaswmaybe; I’ll be at work tomorrow
Ge0rGKev: I'm not quite sure what your point is, or even whether it contradicts my point.
lumihas left
vanitasvitaehas left
@Alacerhas joined
ralphmhas joined
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
jubalhhas joined
jubalhhas left
ralphmhas joined
jerehas joined
jubalhhas joined
jubalhhas left
ralphmhas joined
Dave CridlandKev, I would note that it couldn't be rejected in the first place without a vote. XEP-0001 is fairly clear on that IIRC.
Dave CridlandKev, I was thinking the change of author.
nycohas left
jubalhhas joined
KevOh, I don't think we actually need a process for that. Sam wants to not be author, Jonas wants to be author, we just need a PR.
jonaswwell, if that’s all we need, I can fix that
Ge0rG> [Council members] don't take a dump, son, without a plan.
zinid> I'd like to make some progress on user-invite protoXEP
Is there any code yet? The author said he is working on prototype, but I didn't see the PR so far 😀
SamWhitedhas joined
efrithas joined
Ge0rGzinid: feel free to write some, then
zinidI don't even understand what this xep is about
zinidAlso, I usually don't touch xmpp part in ejabberd, lol
Ge0rGzinid: it's about making account onboarding easier
zinidNot interested, I think it's useless, our audience is nerds, never gonna be changed
Ge0rGNerds on low-latency links, yes.
zinidTrue
zinidBut there is a bright side if you accept this: no need to bother on onboarding, easy xmpp and stuff like that, just concentrate on really fun stuff - omemo, Tor, encrypted jingles and so on
XSF Discussion - 2018-01-23