That is really meh. Who was talking about trying to reach email people again
SaltyBoneshas joined
SaltyBoneshas left
pep.
See how they cope with that.
winfried
no, safe harbour is part of the EU-US adequacy decision: "if you keep to privacy shield, it s adequate"
Dave Cridlandhas left
jubalhhas joined
pep.
"Hey users, you can't reach half of the planet from now on"
SaltyBoneshas joined
pep.
winfried, how is this privacy shield defined?
Timhas joined
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
pep.
hmm, what about 49.1a?
Ge0rG
AFAIU third countries are also covered by user consent
pep.
yes just what I pointed out I think
winfried
privacy shield is a (before GDPR) construct to legalise EU-US transfer, saying: when keeping to privacy shield, then the protection in the US is adequate and permitted
alexishas left
jonasw
I’m trying to find a clue about it in the google privacy policy atm
winfried
(And Schrems finely argued it was not adequate becease the NSA was left out it)
alexishas joined
winfried
So now al companies leave adequacy as ground and use standard clauses
pep.
I'd say article 49 applies quite a lot
jonasw
so, there’s nothing in that
jonasw
(that = google privacy policy)
jonasw
with respect to federation
jonasw
I begin to suspect that the following applies:
sezuanhas left
winfried
jonasw: you just found an interesting legal gap at google ;-)
Ge0rG
jonasw: sue them!
ThibGhas joined
jonasw
1. the user has a clear intent to share a message with a recipient when they send a message.
2. it is up to the recipient how they handle the data. this includes whether they consent to it being stored on their server and for how long
pep.
winfried, they have more laywers than you will ever have
jonasw
now how that works in the light of germany’s whatsapp decision, I don’t know.
Timhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
Ge0rG
jonasw: I tend to agree with you here, however... by sending a message you only show implicit consent in that the message is to be delivered to the recepient, not that it shall be analyzed to create a profile of your sex life.
winfried
pep.: yes, but for example when analysing Microsofts new terms, I found over a douzen issues that were violating EU law
jonasw
Ge0rG, that’s true, but if the receiving party consented to that?
jonasw
that’s a matter between you and the receiving party then, isn’t it?
jonasw
I mean the receiving party could also simply upload all your messages manually to some service which does that to gain some moneyz.
Ge0rG
jonasw: yes.
jonasw
so nothing which concerns server operators?
pep.
interesting
moparisthebesthas joined
Ge0rG
jonasw: the receiving party must gain your consent to process your data.
jonasw
but that’s #notourdepartment?
Ge0rG
yes
pep.
Ge0rG, by subscribing?
jonasw
so we can simply not give a fuck?
pep.
Or joining a MUC, or ..
jonasw
I don’t think that subscription is consent for any level of advanced processing.
winfried
49.1b may be very applicable here
jonasw
not for art 9.1 type processing at least
Ge0rG
jonasw: maybe. Maybe we need to explicitly tell the user that their messages might leave the EU
pep.
winfried, if 49.1b is not enough, there's still 49.1a
pep.
Ge0rG, 49.1a then
pep.
explicit consent
jonasw
Ge0rG, mmm, I feel that this might be a reasonable assumption.
jonasw
like, if you send a message overseas, it’ll be overseas, period.
alexishas left
jonasw
however, it’s unclear that you might send a message overseas when I send a message to somebody who is in e.g. sweden but has an account at $USProvider
pep.
I fear users do not know if it will be overseas, but we can just state the possibility in anycase
Ge0rG
I'm pretty sure we can argue that 49.1b applies here: you have a service contract with the XMPP server, and if you want your messages to be sent overseas, the server will happily do so
alexishas joined
Ge0rG
jonasw: $USProvider is subject to GDPR then.
winfried
pep.: my reading is you need one of 49.1a-49.1g
pep.
winfried, yes
jonasw
I think c applies
pep.
if 45 and 46 don't apply
Ge0rG
jonasw: I don't thing 49.1c applies here
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
pep.
jonasw, as in, contract between server operators ?
danielhas joined
winfried
49.1c needs a contract between server operators and it needs to be in the interest of the user. Mainly the first one is problematic, the second one may be
Ge0rG
I think that 1b is better applicable here.
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
pep.
Well we don't have to settle on one, unless it's 1a
pep.
If both apply, great
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
winfried
49.1b says (more or less) and analouge to 6.1b: when it is needed to perform the request of the user
Ge0rG
Yup.
pep.
yes
winfried
and that one is quite clear: we federate and transfer on request of the user
sezuanhas left
jonasw
Ge0rG, oh indeed I misread
pep.
Indeed, I only have that s2s connection if a user requests it
winfried
49.1a feels a bit like a minefield to me
Ge0rG
So I'd argue that transfer of content is covered by 49.1b because the user wanted the content to be sent to wherever, and meta-data is covered because the user wanted to subscribe or somesuch.
winfried
Ge0rG: +1
pep.
Seems good to me
Ge0rG
It might be a good tech TODO to have that written in the data policy.
pep.fires vim
lnjhas joined
Ge0rG
people that you approve as contacts will be able to see your online status.
jonasw
Ge0rG, mmm, with subcsription I’d argue that some things aren’t obvious.
winfriedis listening
jonasw
ah, that’s what you meant
jonasw
makes sense
pep.
jonasw, I think we ought to make them obvious in the policies
Ge0rG
jonasw: let's make a list
jonasw
Ge0rG, ack
jonasw
1. vcard avatar is always publicly visible
jonasw
2. pep avatar and other pep things are most likely visible to your contacts. what things are there, besides avatars?
Ge0rG
jonasw: vcard avatar is public data. maybe good to have a separate category for that
jonasw
3. last online timestamp, status message, online status, list of online devices
Alexhas joined
jonasw
list of online devices also means things like software version btw
jonasw
because if you know the resource, you can IQ
Ge0rG
jonasw: I think that #2 is actually well covered implicitly. If you "play a tune", you want that to be shared with your friends
jonasw
possibly
danielhas left
jonasw
it’s the clients job to make that explicit at least
Ge0rG
I don't want to open _that_ can of worms
jonasw
yupp
jonasw
that’s fine
jonasw
let’s focus on what must be done on the protocol/federation/server level.
Ge0rG
so we need two lists: things shared with everyone; things shared with contacts
alexishas left
winfried
Ge0rG: yes
Ge0rG
the latter might contain surprises to the user.
Ge0rG
with everyone = with everyone who knows your JID
pep.
And things not shared, as in credentials etc., even if obvious
alexishas joined
Martinhas left
winfried
Ge0rG: you can assume a JID to be publicaly known
jubalhhas left
pep.
Ge0rG, maybe define "everyone who knows you JID" a bit more? contacts, non-anon MUC owners
Ge0rG
winfried: can I?
pep.
other server operators
Tobiashas joined
pep.
winfried, I don't think so
Ge0rG
"contacts, chatrooms and their server operators"
winfried
don't know if that discussion is *very* relevant here/now but in practice most people publish their JID, so they can be contacted...
Ge0rG
winfried: if you publish your JID, your JID is obviously public
Ge0rG
winfried: but what if not
lnjhas left
pep.
I'm going to go soon-ish, starting to get hungry
pep.
This list falls under things to be transparent about in the privacy policy then
I will try if I can get some opinions on sensitive data in some lawyer groups I participate in
jonasw
I’m sure it’s sensitive data. I’d just like to have clarification on if simple store-and-forward (and no analysis) brings us into 9.1 realm
winfried
jonasw: exactly
jonasw
neat
jonasw
so, date of next?
jonasw
my constraints shifted and I’m unavailable thursday this week
pep.
not tomorrow if possible
pep.
Fri noon?
jonasw
friday would wfm, something like 10:30 CEST -- 11:30 CEST e.g.
Ge0rG
so friday?
pep.
I'm not available in the morning
jonasw
is 10:30 still morning at yours?
pep.
yes
jonasw
I see
Ge0rG
I'm blocked after 1300CEST
danielhas joined
pep.
before 12 is morning :P
pep.
hmm
jonasw
mmm, I can’t promise 12:00CEST
Ge0rG
pep.: set up an alarm :P
alexishas joined
pep.
Ge0rG, I have paid job to do
pep.
In between :p
Ge0rG
yeah, right :P
winfried
Friday I am available between 12:00 and 13:30 CEST
pep.
I can do 9:30 here, 8:30UTC
alexishas left
alexishas joined
pep.
if it doesn't go more than an hour
Ge0rG
jonasw: take your laptop to the lunch break? ;)
Ge0rG
it never went more than an hour!
jonasw
Ge0rG, lunch break people won’t approach
jonasw
*approve
jonasw
wtf is wrong with me
pep.
ok so 10:30CEST
pep.
In the end
jonasw
10:30 CEST on friday, ACK
Ge0rG
winfried> Friday I am available between 12:00 and 13:30 CEST
Dave Cridlandhas left
jonasw
oh
jonasw
welp
pep.
hmm
jonasw
otherwise, next week same time as today would work for me too
winfried
OK, when doing some magic with my schedule, I can be reading from 10:30 but only be (really) active from appr. 11:00
pep.
Sure, Mon, Tue workforme
Ge0rG
we need to get this settled soon.
pep.
Fri I'm not here from 11:45 CEST to ~12:45 CEST
jonasw
I blocked friday 10:30 CEST, and I blocked Tue 12:30 CEST, I don’t care which you chose :)
pep.
Tue 12:13 CEST is fine by me
winfried
Tue wfm (more or less)
pep.
What works better?
winfried
Tue
pep.
Tue when?
winfried
after 9:30 CEST
pep.
I can do 10:30 CEST again on Tue, or anytime after that
jonasw
Ge0rG, 12:30 CEST on Tue?
Ge0rG
can do
jonasw
then it’s settled
winfried
Tuesday 12:30 CEST
winfriedbangs the gavel
pep.
:)
mimi89999has joined
pep.
what do you call morning btw? if it's not before noon
alexishas left
jonasw
hmmm, in german there’s "vormittag", which awkwardly translates to pre-noon.
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
pep.
Ok, I know in quebec they also have this weird notion of early morning and before noon, but in france I've never heard that
pep.
(french quebec)
jonasw
it’s not particularly weird, considering we have the same for after noon
pep.
Sure. Though in usual my mornings are pretty short anyway, so just having one word is fine by me :P
winfried
pep.: lol
Ge0rG
morning is the time between your first coffee and being awake.
winfried
what's in a word!
pep.
Ge0rG, can that also include noon?
Holger
Ge0rG: So morning == afternoon?
jonasw
even more weird are the swedes, where "middag" is both dinner and noon. eftermiddag is only afternoon, but not after dinner.
pep.
:D
winfried
Ge0rG: that is never in my case, I don't drink coffee and I am never awake :-P
tahas left
Zash
"förmiddag"
Ge0rG
winfried: then you have an eternal morning?
pep.
I'll try to send the minutes today. And update the wiki after that
Zash
the morning that never ends?
pep.out for lunch
jonasw
Zash, do you have a highlight on "swede"?
winfried
Ge0rG: welcome in my life ;-)
jubalhhas joined
alexishas left
MattJ
jonasw, he has a highlight on "coffee"
jonasw
MattJ, that makes sense
alexishas joined
alexishas left
Ge0rG
A highlight on "highlight"
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
valohas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
ibikkhas left
ibikkhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Timhas joined
tim@boese-ban.dehas joined
jonasw
is dwd saying "do a PR, because a vote without PR isn’t really useful at all"?
jonasw
if so, I find that hard to get from that email :)
MattJ
Well, he's not instructing, but... yes
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJ
Voting on "X is a nice idea" and "PR X is good to merge" are different things. But I imagine Ge0rG would rather not work on a PR unless the council indicates it would be in favour of the idea of removing GC1
Ge0rG
What MattJ said.
Ge0rG
I can only imagine that Dave assumes I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Council process.
jonasw
or maybe is confused by your attempts to vote to abolish pidgin ;-)
Kev
I don't *think* Dave's mail says that.
Kev
I *think* he's just observing that the vote has no practical effect, rather that that it's a bad idea to have the vote.
Ge0rG
The practical effect will be that I'll get green lights on preparing a PR, and maybe even some Feedback From The Elders.
Kev
Ge0rG: That's not an effect of the vote, though, that's an effect of us discussing it.
ThibGhas joined
Ge0rG
Obviously, a Council member could decide to lure me by +1ing the general principle vote and then blocking any follow-up PR, but I don't hope this is going to happen.
Kev
I think the vote's a sensible thing to do, as a forcing function for discussion, but it doesn't achive anything that the discussion without out a vote wouldn't.
Ge0rG
Kev: there is actually one outcome I'm looking for: Council consensus on removal of GC1.
Ge0rG
Kev: if we don't manage to achieve that consensus, I'm not going to prepare a PR.
Kev
I think that's very sensible.
Zashhas left
Ge0rG
Which probably wasn't crystal clear from my e-mail.
Kev
And I think a vote as a forcing function on the discussion is sensible, too.
efrithas joined
Kev
Just that it's not really *necessary*.
Ge0rG
Right.
marmistrzhas left
Ge0rG
I'm painfully aware that if the vote is accepted, we'll have a second vote on the subject matter of the PR.
Ge0rG
Even my mail to standards@ can be used to discuss the motion in the wider community.
danielhas left
alexishas left
Kev
I'm against it on the basis of having been reworking M-Link's MUC implementation recently and I implemented and tested GC1 joins :p
Kev
(No, I'm not really)
Ge0rG
Kev: you have nobody but yourself to blame. I've clearly stated my goal of burning GC1 half a year ago
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Kev
I'm not opposed in principle, but I do think we should have a story for how to address the 'just fix out of sync' that GC1 currently works for.
Ge0rG
Kev: "works"
Zash
Kev: It does the opposite of fixing anything.
Kev
It's not good, but it *does* work around some things at the moment.
Kev
e.g. if you've desynched then at least a presence broadcast means you start getting messages again.
blablahas left
Zash
Kev: You'll still be desynced
Kev
We should describe how to detect and resolve those cases at the same time as getting rid of GC1.
Zash
As in, your view of the participant list may be outdated.
Kev
Zash: You will. You'll also be receiving messages.
Ge0rG
I think I made multiple proposals back in October.
Martinhas joined
Ge0rG
I could make an even more revolutionary one: let the MUC respond to self-pings by a participant.
Zash
Kev: True. Sending a full join bundle would help in that case.
Ge0rG
Zash: not quite
Zash
Ge0rG: Assuming clients understand "ok, forget everything, here's the current state", which might need adding
Ge0rG
Zash: because you'll end up with zombie users in your participant list
Ge0rG
Zash: yes. Assuming there is some kind of marker in the stream telling the client when to forget everything from before
Ge0rG
which there isn't in the normal join bundle
moparisthebesthas left
Zash
Correct. So Kev says we should address that.
jerehas joined
Zash
Returning an error and making the client rejoin does have the same end result tho, at the cost of a roundtrip
Ge0rG
Zash: except that most clients suck at rejoining.
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Ge0rG
Zash: somebody could implement a server-side MUC bouncer that hides all of this from the client.
Zash
Ge0rG: *ahem* mod_minimix?
Ge0rG
Zash: I don't appreciate that name very much, but yes.
Zash
Naming things is hard
Ge0rG
Zash: also I had a brief look at the source code and decided not to load it on yax.im
Zash
Ge0rG: Sane choice.
Dave Cridlandhas left
jonasw
mod_minix -- run a minix inside lua and own all your traffic
jonasw
mod_mimimix -- complain about all attempts to join MIXes in the logs
Ge0rG
mod_mixtape - play low-quality music whenever somebody joins a mix
Anuhas joined
Zash
Hold on, how do you trick a MUC into subscribing to your presence?
Ge0rG
Oh. Hm.
Ge0rG
Right, adding a MUC to your roster doesn't imply much.
Ge0rG
I wonder what happens if you send a subscription request to a MUC
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Guushas left
andyhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Valerianhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
la|r|mahas joined
la|r|mahas joined
alexishas left
Valerianhas joined
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Kev
My concern is that things are bad with desyncs, and we'll make them worse by just stopping doing gc1.
Kev
And on a Draft XEP that's not on.
Ge0rG
Kev: we'll just make clear how bad it actually is.
danielhas left
alexishas left
jonasw
Kev, silently losing messages (what we currently have) is worse than explicitly dropping out of a MUC.
Ge0rG
Kev: but I'm open to suggestions how to transition into the new world of awesome MUC without causing regressions
Kev
jonasw: And that's not what's on the table.
Marandare-read the gdpr thing
jonasw
Kev, it’s not?
Kev
jonasw: What's on the table is silently losing some messages vs silently losing more messages.
jonasw
Kev, no, you don’t *silently* lose more mesasges
jonasw
the user and client are aware that they’re losing messages, which isn’t the case with a silent pseudo-resync which happens on accidental GC1.0
lnjhas joined
Ge0rG
are aware that they *were* losing messages,
jonasw
Ge0rG, true.
Kev
jonasw: But how many existing clients are dealing with whatever behaviour we're moving towards?
alexishas joined
Maranda
So in the end "user must explicitly give consent to treatment of his/her data by 3rd parties (receiving) when using s2s" is legally covering glad we got to that at least.
jonasw
Kev, if the MUC replies with a "kicked" status code, every single one I think.
Kev
jonasw: I'm not opposed to fixings, but we do have to be sure we're actually fixing them.
Ge0rG
jonasw: I really dislike "kicked" as opposed to a presence-error
Kev
jonasw: Great, so the user isn't getting messages and eventually they might wonder why that tab has gone quiet and look why and see they left 3 days ago.
Ge0rG
jonasw: because a sane client won't auto-rejoin after being kicked
MarandaoO(and "who would have told" ™️)
jonasw
Ge0rG, kicked + 333 maybe?
Ge0rG
jonasw: that's not backward compatible to clients not parsing 333.
jonasw
Ge0rG, I’m not sure if clients handle type="error"
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm speaking of "sane" clients.
jonasw
Kev, dunno, I’d *expect* clients to tell me that I got kicked out of a MUC.
j.rhas left
jonasw
Ge0rG, me too
j.rhas joined
Anu
so are we discussing MUC or what the new lighter MUC will be
jonasw
Ge0rG, have you made a survey how many handle type="error"?
jonasw
Anu, MUC
Maranda
Anu, uncertain.
Ge0rG
Kev: yes. It's better to see after three days that you got kicked than to lose three days worth of discussion and then silently rejoin
Anu
ah
Alexhas left
Kev
Ge0rG: except probably you don't lose 3 days of messages under gc1, because you will have silently kinda rejoined.
Ge0rG
Anu: I've stirred some controversy on the standards@ ML
Kev
I'm not saying gc1 is a good thing.
Kev
Or arguing that it should stay.
Ge0rG
Kev: maybe you only rejoined after two days.
Kev
I'm just saying that it's not clear that we yet have a story for what happens next.
Maranda
And why auto-rejoining is insane?
Maranda
🤔
Ge0rG
Maranda: it isn't, unless you were just kicked
Anu
Group chat (as people expect it) is such a solved problem. In my honest opinion, we should probably spit up the IRC clone from the kind of group chat people use today (which is more of a distribution list)
Ge0rG
Anu: yes, but then everybody wanted their favorite feature in and we ended up with MIX
Ge0rG: I think that's right, actually. We do need to get the MAM resync in there.
Maranda
:O
jonasw
yeah, MIX is in the state of "silent message loss", but with better recovery times than MUC
Ge0rG
jonasw: recovery times? I don't see no recovery times in MIX
jonasw
Ge0rG, in theory, each message stanza would trigger an s2sout attempt at the MIX side of things.
Ge0rG
Kev: so I assume your statement should read "MIX is MUC with additional issues." :P
jonasw
which is *probably* better than what happens with MUC-GC1.0-pseudo-resync which only happens when a client happens to update its presence.
jonasw
MIX fixes the resource part abuse.
Kev
And the long-term join.
Marandathinks currently MIX is in the "it'll cause a core meltdown", but he's vaguely biased.
Kev
And the multi-client.
Anuhas left
ludohas left
Martinhas left
ludohas joined
jonasw
everybody loves core dumps
Maranda
Stick a state somewhere in that last sentence
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm not sure this is a real problem. And if it is, I'm not sure that abusing the localpart of the MIX JID to contain two fields is a good solution.
Ge0rG
Kev: we can solve multi-client long-term join in MUC without touching a single line of XEP.
Maranda
Agreed
Kev
I'm quite sure that's not true.
Ge0rG
All we need is a bouncer on the user's account that syncs with 0048.
jonasw
Ge0rG, it doesn’t shake the concept of "same bare JID == same identity", which is good enough for me I think
Ge0rG
Or 0402, or whatever.
Kev
As long as we have full-JID sharing, iq is going to be broken.
jonasw
yeah
Ge0rG
jonasw: except in MIX you have a 1:N relationship between identities and JIDs over different MIXes
Martinhas joined
Maranda
Although I'm somehow also sure somehow "bncs" will also be a cause of nuclear meltdowns
jonasw
Ge0rG, I’m not sure that matters much.
SamWhitedhas left
Guushas left
Ge0rG
Kev: what are the IQ use cases in MUC?
Kev
Any time you want to do anything that involves an iq.
jonasw
Ge0rG, initiating a call with an occupant (not the whole MUC)
Kev
So the same as non-MUC.
danielhas left
Ge0rG
Kev: and self-references are self-references.
Anuhas joined
Ge0rG
The only IQs I'm actively using are (self)ping and version, and I just made a proposal to fix #1 and I can live with the ambiguity of #2
Marandaeyes that "Thesis Survey" in jdev@
Anu
desync = netsplit ?
Ge0rG
Anu: kind of.
Ge0rG
Anu: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-October/033501.html has an in-depth explanation
Maranda
Ge0rG vcard:temp also
jonasw
Maranda, vcard:temp is on the account, not on the occupant✎
jonasw
Maranda, vcard:temp is on the account, not on the resource ✏
Maranda
And time
Dave Cridlandhas left
jonasw
so that’s about the one case where it doesn’t matter in MUC :)
Anu
We should all just use EF net and be happy
Maranda
What? Hmm is there a difference jonasw?
Ge0rG
Maranda: yes, in MUC you query the full JID for the vcard, and it gets routed by the MUC to the account of the participant
Kev
jonasw: No, actually, vcard:temp is another example of iq being broken.
Kev
Because it should go to the full JID of the occupant, not to their bare JID.
jonasw
Kev, wha?
jonasw
ITYM the other way round?
Kev
So all* MUC implementations have some special casing to detect a vcard and send it to the wrong place (bare JID) instead of the normal routing rules [*probably].
Ge0rG
Kev: so there is a viable workaround for that.
jonasw
ah, "should" in the sense of "the normal routing rules"
jonasw
Ge0rG, so we wanna staple further workarounds onto MUC for every IQ which might ever need to go to the bare JID?
Marandais confused with occupant != account muc wise
Maranda
Waiting for cell to return ™️
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm sure the incremental overhead is minuscule.
jonasw
Ge0rG, but the adoption delay?
jonasw
and the difficulties for new implementers.
jonasw
and of course, the client code which needs to special-case requesting stuff from MUC occupants.
SamWhitedhas left
Ge0rG
jonasw: write it down in 0045.
danielhas left
jonasw
you mean like the vcard:temp hack is written down?
Ge0rG
jonasw: the special-casing in my client is just in two places :>
Ge0rG
jonasw: dunno. I'm not a server author. I'm busy enough keeping 0045 usable for client devs.
Maranda
Well iq routing has always been hassle in muc, e.g. who do you send to on ping, version, time etc
Ge0rG
a.k.a. not my department.
Maranda
In case of shared nick
Maranda
😎
Ge0rG
Maranda: I suggest "highest priority"
Kev
Maranda: Yes, that's one of the things that's fundamentally broken with MUC addressing.
Ge0rG
no, "most available"
lnjhas joined
jonasw
I suggest least mobile
Alexhas joined
Maranda
Least mobile 🤔😆
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Guushas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
marmistrzhas joined
Maranda
And no hacks aren't written down e.g. Multi resource nicks
j.rhas left
Ge0rG
Maranda: PR the XEP!
andyhas left
ThibGhas joined
Zashhas left
SamWhitedhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Anuhas left
rtq3has left
SamWhitedhas left
rtq3has joined
Maranda
Ge0rG I would use someone more literate than myself english wise
Maranda
😜
Ge0rG
Maranda: just don't plaster it with Emoji :P
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jerehas joined
jerehas joined
Holger
#18.1.2 Ghost Users 👻
Holger
#5 Roles, Affiliations, and Privileges 😱
marmistrzhas joined
waqashas joined
Guushas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
marmistrzhas joined
Maranda
Mobile Chrome even hangs browsing xeps
Maranda
🤔
Ge0rG
I was going to suggest status code 666 for the Ghost Rider.
alexishas left
Ge0rG
Or maybe the GOST Rider. zinid and Andrew would appreciate that.
Maranda
666 which in reality is 999
alexishas joined
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
Guushas left
Valerianhas left
SamWhitedhas left
edhelaspropose to ping Ge0rG to check the state of all the MUCs
UsLhas joined
alexishas left
Ge0rG
edhelas: great idea. And then I quit XMPP and everybody's clients go offline
alexishas joined
danielhas left
edhelas
then I'm adding "Ge0rG MUST stay online" to the XEP
jjrhhas left
Ge0rG
edhelas: I'm not sure you need to write that into the XEP, it might suffice to get a Council vote.
Ge0rG
I'll request XSF funding for a multi-homed redundant-hardware HA cluster to run my poezio.
Ge0rG
Oh, wait. poezio needs restarts as well. I will request funding to develop a new client written in Erlang.
jonasw
Maranda, regarding english literacy, that’s the editors job when in doubt
Maranda
😲
Ge0rG
jonasw: I didn't want to say that, knowing that the editors are pretty busy
jonasw
Ge0rG, that’s no reason not to say the truth :)
jubalhhas joined
UsLhas joined
Ge0rG
jonasw: while you are there... I have some pending PRs :D
jonasw
Ge0rG, I know that
jonasw
I have a pending PR mysefl
jonasw
but unfortunately, what you were saying is also true ("the editors are pretty busy")