XSF Discussion - 2018-01-23

  1. SouL

    Oh, reading that email from Jitsi is sad

  2. intosi

    Assuming I'm not the only one that didn't get that, do you have a link?

  3. Kev

    About 12 lines up.

  4. Ge0rG

    23:11:10 edhelas> http://lists.jitsi.org/pipermail/dev/2018-January/036563.html nice <3 is it that one?

  5. intosi

    Ah yes, that's sad. Thank you.

  6. intosi

    It was swamped out by a rather unhelpful flurry of leave/join messages.

  7. Ge0rG

    "12 lines" is very relative in a MUC with partially shared history and client-defined display of status changes.

  8. Dave Cridland

    Link 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.

  9. SouL

    Would be super cool to have it, a feature that is frequently asked for on clients

  10. Link Mauve

    Dave Cridland, indeed, but I mostly didn’t start the RE part on their protocols yet, so I don’t have much to talk about.

  11. Link Mauve

    My main usecase would be to bring jitsi-videobridge support to the Gstreamer-based clients, to allow interoperability with WebRTC-based ones.

  12. Guus

    I'm just popping in as my name is mentioned. OFMeet _is_ Jitsi Meet embedded in Openfire (combined with the JVB).

  13. Link Mauve

    We did talk about that last year. ^^

  14. Ge0rG

    That outreachy mail sounds interesting

  15. 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

  16. pep.

    (I know a few, I was just surprised by the "*lots*")

  17. Dave Cridland

    jonasw, Am I right in thinking there's nothing new for the Council this week?

  18. Dave Cridland

    jonasw, I feel I'm almost certainly missing something.

  19. jonasw

    Dave Cridland, you didn’t process the thing I sent you last week

  20. jonasw

    my MUC PR

  21. jonasw

    otherwise, I don’t thnik there is. the week has been dominated by the compliance suites discussion

  22. jonasw

    re 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.

  23. Ge0rG

    Dave 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.

  24. Dave Cridland

    jonasw, 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.

  25. Dave Cridland

    Ge0rG, I'm definitely having a voting update. But Client Key and TOTP expire tomorrow, so that's something.

  26. Kev

    I don't believe, offhand, that there is a process for getting a Rejected XEP back.

  27. Ge0rG

    Dave Cridland: yes, you are right. I'll have to wait another week. Or we need to ping daniel.

  28. Ge0rG

    Kev: does it need to have a process? Can't we as council just move it forward?

  29. Ge0rG

    Insistence on process was exactly why we got into the messy position we are in now.

  30. Kev

    No, really not.

  31. Kev

    If we insisted on process, Council wouldn't have voted.

  32. Ge0rG

    So if jonasw takes up 387, merges the PR before tomorrow's meeting and we all vote on advancing it.

  33. Ge0rG

    ...won't the world become a better place then?

  34. jonasw

    Ge0rG, I’m not sure if council needs to allow me to do that

  35. jonasw

    but if it does, we can have the merge happen before the meeting is over ;-)

  36. jonasw

    maybe; I’ll be at work tomorrow

  37. Ge0rG

    Kev: I'm not quite sure what your point is, or even whether it contradicts my point.

  38. Dave Cridland

    Kev, I would note that it couldn't be rejected in the first place without a vote. XEP-0001 is fairly clear on that IIRC.

  39. Dave Cridland

    Kev, I was thinking the change of author.

  40. Kev

    Oh, 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.

  41. jonasw

    well, if that’s all we need, I can fix that

  42. Ge0rG

    > [Council members] don't take a dump, son, without a plan.

  43. jonasw


  44. jonasw

    Dave Cridland, Kev, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/576

  45. Ge0rG


  46. 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 😀

  47. Ge0rG

    zinid: feel free to write some, then

  48. zinid

    I don't even understand what this xep is about

  49. zinid

    Also, I usually don't touch xmpp part in ejabberd, lol

  50. Ge0rG

    zinid: it's about making account onboarding easier

  51. zinid

    Not interested, I think it's useless, our audience is nerds, never gonna be changed

  52. Ge0rG

    Nerds on low-latency links, yes.

  53. zinid


  54. zinid

    But 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

  55. Dave Cridland

    zinid, Encrypt all the things?

  56. zinid

    Dave Cridland, sure

  57. zinid

    Dave Cridland, because why not? :)