ralphmHmm, just noticed that Conversations doesn't (also) send XEP-0080 payload when sharing location.
dwdhas left
danielhas left
danielralphm: is there any client that will do something reasonable if I just stick a geoloc element in the message (w/o the pubsub overhead)?
danielAssuming that this is what you are talking about
Yagizahas left
Yagizahas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Valerianhas joined
dwdhas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
lnjhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
j.rhas joined
danielhas left
ludohas left
ludohas joined
j.rhas joined
dwdhas left
alexishas left
Steve Killehas left
alexishas joined
waqashas left
flohas joined
alexishas left
flohas left
rtq3has joined
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
alexishas joined
alexishas left
lnjhas left
alexishas joined
danielhas left
Guushas left
ralphmI'm not sure, to be honest, but it is something I'm suggesting being implemented in what we are doing.
Timhas joined
danielhas left
SaltyBoneshas left
Guushas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
danielhas left
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
lnjhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Guushas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
danielhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
dwdhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
danielhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
dwdhas left
danielhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Valerianhas left
flohas joined
alexishas left
flohas left
jubalhhas joined
rtq3has left
danielhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
jubalhhas left
mimi89999has joined
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jubalhhas joined
Valerianhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
tahas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
tahas left
tahas left
dwdhas left
dwdhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
ThibGhas joined
ThibGhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
tahas joined
lnjhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
lumihas joined
dwdhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
danielhas left
dwdhas left
rtq3has joined
Kevhas left
tahas joined
tahas joined
rtq3has left
tahas joined
marchas joined
vanillahas left
vanillahas joined
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
Wiktorhas left
marchas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Kevhas joined
Guushas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Valerianhas left
danielhas left
Guushas left
edhelashas left
edhelashas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
edhelashas left
edhelashas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
danielhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
danielhas left
Martinhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
danielhas left
jonaswhas left
Timhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
danielhas left
Guushas left
danielhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Martinhas left
danielhas left
winfriedhas left
vanillahas joined
tahas left
Timhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
rtq3has joined
Tobiashas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
@Alacerhas left
Timhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
danielhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Timhas joined
vanillahas left
vanillahas joined
Steve Killehas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Valerianhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Timhas joined
dwdhas left
rionhas left
rionhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
Steve Killehas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
marmistrzhas joined
andyhas left
andyhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
andyhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
dwdhas left
andyhas joined
Wiktorhas joined
winfriedhas joined
dwdhas left
rtq3has left
Yagizahas left
Timhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
rtq3has joined
lskdjfhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
danielhas left
efrithas joined
danielhas left
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
Timhas joined
lnjhas joined
efrithas left
efrithas joined
lovetoxhas joined
lnjhas left
lnjhas joined
andyhas left
rtq3has left
Timhas joined
rionhas left
rtq3has joined
mrdoctorwhohas left
jerehas joined
lovetoxare these not 2 different use cases
Valerianhas left
lovetoxi always thought xep 80 is more of a, contantly sharing your location all the time
lovetoxconversations just shares the location at one point in time with a geo uri or not?
jonaswmmm, I know of a protocol which suggested inclusion of XEP-0080 payload into messages. Ge0rG?
jonasw(it’ll haunt you forever!)
lovetoxeither way gajim supports xep 80 🙂
MattJlovetox, the XEP provides two parts: the data format (<geoloc>), and a recommended transport (PEP)
MattJThe point is, any time you need to encode location in XMPP, the same data format/code can be reused without inventing something new
lovetoxah i see
lovetoxso you want to use the geoloc element with another transport
jonaswextensible XML is extensible
lovetoxin this case a message
MattJSo yeah, if you want to send a specific location once over XMPP, but don't want to publish it to all your contacts, I think including it directly in a message is quite sensible
ZashSo, the thing, it's just sending <body>geo:x,y</body> right?
Alexhas joined
lovetoxyeah and this is useable by the user even if the client doesnt support locations
lovetoxi think firefox even supports this uri scheme
Zashgeo:0,0
Ge0rGjonasw: no!
efrithas left
Ge0rGjonasw: or I'll PR xmpp-echo-bot into xmpp.org/clients!
MattJRight, so like OOB (which is similar - it defines a data format as well as different ways of using it, iq vs. message), the <body> may be used only as a fallback
ZashHaving a graceful fallback in <body> is sane.
ZashHaving *only* the body is meh.
MattJHowever like OOB, we have the problem where it's not known if the <body> is just a fallback, or also includes some information to which the data payload is an addition
MattJe.g. <body>Don't come to this place, here be dragons</body><geoloc>...</geoloc>
MattJClient sees <geoloc> and says "I know this! They sent a location, so I'll show that instead of the <body>..."
ZashThere used to be thing magical awesome feature negotiation, but we've killed that, thanks to Carbons and MAM
MattJZash, that never worked with offline messages either
alexishas left
alexishas joined
lovetoxMattJ we can decide
lovetoxthe dataformat has a description attr
MattJRight, that's currently a problem I have with OOB
lovetoxso if we have description ignore body
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJThat means I can't use OOB like an "attachment" feature
alexishas left
alexishas joined
goffihas joined
MattJ<body>Here is that Word document containing the virus I received earlier</body><oob><desc>Word document</desc>...</oob>
lumihas left
danielFwiw Conversations will only use the oob tag if it's either the same as the body or if the body doesn't exists
MattJI can think of a protcol solution, not sure whether it's actually a good idea or not
danielI'm not defending oob as the best thing ever invented
danielBut the word document situation wouldn't happen
Zash> Here is that Word document containing the virus I received earlier
Where, I don't see it?
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJZash, fair point :)
ZashNice things be unavailable.
MattJSo for backward compatibility, we have to always use <body> as a fallback
jubalhhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJso <desc> suddenly makes sense as a non-fallback piece of text
lovetoxyes if desc is there hide body
ZashIf only anyone actually used taht
andyhas joined
jubalhhas left
ZashI'd wanna have this, but it won't work today:
body := $desc \n $uri
oob := { uri = $uri, desc = $desc }
MattJZash, yes, pretty much what I'm proposing
MattJThe current Conversations logic makes sense, to defend against any clients which may be treating <body> *not* as a fallback
MattJBut I'm not sure whether any clients actually do that today
la|r|mahas joined
MattJSo we just need to document that oob always overrides body, and the accompanying text, if any, is in <desc>
daniel> I'd wanna have this, but it won't work today:
> body := $desc \n $uri
> oob := { uri = $uri, desc = $desc }
I can live with that.
danielFor now it won't break Conversations.
danielAnd in the future I might implement support
MattJdaniel, iirc you said the text wouldn't be displayed in any case?
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJOh right, it would ignore the oob for now
danielWell by not break I mean Conversations would display the fallback
MattJGot it
Ge0rGit would break inline image display ;)
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
MattJLuckily XEP-0066 is still Draft :)
KevDoes 66 have anything over SIMS?
MattJBut even the example there is using it in an attachment-style
MattJKev, yes, things support it already :)
ZashSmall, simple, self-contained.
alexishas left
MattJI think it's simple because it's always just a URL
MattJSIMS suddenly pulls in Jingle
MattJand that's quite a commitment for a client that simply wants to display an image
alexishas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
alexishas left
KevSIMS doesn't need to be Jingle though, does it? It can just do URLs?
KevOr I've completely misunderstood.
alexishas joined
ZashBut why would you if you're just sending URLs anyways?
Zash(SIMS has more things that are useful tho)
KevBecause you usually want metadata with it.
MattJKev, "a client supporting this XEP MUST implement Jingle File Transfer (XEP-0234) [2] and HTTP File Upload (XEP-0363) [4]."
andyhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJwhich is weird, because even to just receive and display images from others, I MUST implement a XEP related to uploading?
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
KevYeah, either it's useful just for fetching stuff, in which case it shouldn't have that, or we should move all the metadata stuff into references itself.
ZashMaybe separate requirements for sending and receiving?
mrdoctorwhohas left
MattJand rather than forcing client to implement Jingle, there should be a fallback as we have with the OOB solution
MattJSo I think that answers why OOB > SIMS right now (but may not always be)
Ge0rGall the refererence / link XEPs suck in different ways.
MattJThe sad truth is, anybody can click a URL, but you can't count on all of a user's clients supporting Jingle
vanitasvitaehas left
tuxhas left
KevAre you interested in just a clickable URL though?
MattJ(I don't think any of mine do, and one is a console client that I use via ssh... what is it supposed to do with a Jingle reference?)
MattJNo, I'm saying that a clickable URL is the common fallback that works absolutely everywhere
alexishas left
alexishas joined
lovetoxxep 80 links to a invalid site
lovetoxhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/gps_datum.html
Dave Cridlandhas left
Andrew Nenakhov> Luckily XEP-0066 is still Draft :)
Btw I don't see why would anyone use 066 over 221 for inline image display
vanitasvitaehas left
Yagizahas joined
alexishas left
MattJHeh
alexishas joined
mrdoctorwhohas left
SamWhitedhas left
SamWhitedhas joined
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas joined
jubalhhas left
danielhas left
andyhas joined
danielhas left
@Alacerhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
@Alacerhas left
@Alacerhas joined
danielhas left
danielby the way if any server operators are interested in having their uptime tracked you can add your own server with this form: https://status.conversations.im/add/
danielyou can of course also just self host the thing. but apparantly some people don't want to
rionhas joined
danielhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
andyhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jonaswGDPR meeting in 5? pep., Ge0rG, winfried
pep.oh right
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jubalhhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
j.rhas joined
jubalhhas left
jubalhhas left
Ge0rG🤦
alexishas left
Valerianhas joined
alexishas joined
winfriedGive me one minute
jonaswGe0rG, why?
Zash> 15:56:00 jonasw> GDPR meeting in 5?
You have until 16:01
Ge0rGjonasw: it was just an ACK of my presence
jonaswweird way to ack
pep.!
pep.I got beverage and snack, all the good stuff
Ge0rG🙋
MarandaGe0rG's famous ack
Ge0rGbetter now?
alexishas left
MarandaWell I imagine a headdesk would be stranger for a ACK
jonaswGe0rG, yes
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
winfriedacks his presence
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
pep.!
Ge0rGAre we there yet?
Yagizahas left
jonasw.
winfriedall present
winfried*bangs* the gavel
winfriedpep.: thanks for your logs!
dwdhas left
jerehas joined
pep.I was a bit lost with the two last meetings, not sure in what category to put what we talked about
jerehas joined
winfriedwe have to do the spamdetection and can then move on to the consequences
jonaswI’d like to insert a point: do we want to send a posting to the gdpr list set up by the debian folks?
winfriedpep.: When I have a bit time to spare, I wil check
pep.yes I would like to
Ge0rGjonasw: 👍
pep.jonasw, can do
winfriedgood plan
Ge0rGtiden up the wiki a bit after this meeting and send it out?
pep.Ok
alexishas joined
winfriedthat is that earth.li list?
alexishas left
winfriedGe0rG: good plan, maybe add a summary so far?
pep.yes
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
pep.winfried, boarf
winfriedLOL
pep.It's still a wip
winfriedit is
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
winfrieddo we need any reflection on the process before diving into it?
alexishas left
rtq3has left
winfriedI guess not... ;-)
winfriedlast point of 1.1d before diving into 1.1e: spam detection. What are we doing there and is that justified
pep.If we want to provide a proper service to other users of the network I guess we have to yes
alexishas joined
Ge0rGwinfried: what I am doing: automatic analysis of all messages for matching one of two sets of certain (super secret) criteria.
winfriedpep.: I was referring to legal grounds for processing, but you are right, that doesn't justify it
Alexhas left
Ge0rGmessages that match criterion 1: manual analysis of body text (this might be really evil, dunno)
Ge0rGmessages that match criterion 2: automatic blocking of the sender JID forever.
pep.hmm, wouldn't any manual analysis directly fall under 9.1?
winfriedGe0rG: fixed criteria or self-learning/statistical ones?
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jonaswGe0rG, all of that falls apart once spammers start to OMEMO things, right?
jonaswor at least the body text analysis
Ge0rGwinfried: fixed criteria. The manual analysis is only used to improve the criteria-2 list
alexishas left
pep.Ah, you're talking about non-bayes analysis or similar I guess
Ge0rGjonasw: yes. I'm eagerly awaiting that day so I can start blocking OMEMO
alexishas joined
winfriedhas a head crunching regulations and articles
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
Ge0rG*crunch*
moparisthebesthas joined
pep.hmm, the e2ee thing seems annoying yeah
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
winfriedpep.: e2ee is a security risk!
pep.:)
pep.Ge0rG, I'd say that's a bit involved for spammers no?
jonaswmanually reading the body seems fairly evil though
pep.Anyway..
winfriedlets brainstorm a bit
pep.jonasw, agreed
moparisthebestit's ok, the spammers aren't going to sue him for it
rtq3has joined
winfriedabuse detection/prevention is a ground for processing
pep.moparisthebest, might not be spammers he's reading messages of
danielI think the target audience of their spam hates omemo and uses pidgin or other crappy messengers. So I honestly wouldn't expect them to start using omemo any time soon
jonaswwinfried, in any case: spam filtering is currently not standardised and I’m not sure if we need to cover it within the XSF
winfriedas long as it proportionate
jonaswat least not at this point in time
winfriedso reading every message is not proportionate, reading messages already marked as spam is
pep.winfried, is it?
pep.is it written in your bible
jonaswwinfried, depends on how you mark as spam
moparisthebestpoint is, no one could tell if you did or not, so it's legal!
pep.moparisthebest, shush
jonaswif you learn on spam based on viagra and penis enlargement, your spam detection could easily trip off at 9.1-relveant non-spam content.
moparisthebestwhat this: Ge0rG, do you ever manually read messages? (answer no)
winfriedpep.: well, that is one of the things I was doubting about
Yagizahas joined
winfriedbut here in the netherlands 'escalating fraud prevention' is accepted right now
pep.jonasw, your spam filter could also be "true"
winfried(though a bit controversial)
winfriedpep., jonasw very true
jonaswI motion that we skip spam detection of any kind for now, because of lack of standardisation. Just leave a note that any type of body analysis might go into 9.1 realm.
winfriedin the escalating things, metadata is the first step, then automated detection then manual analysis
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: yes I do.
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfriedmoparisthebest: it is justifyable if it is proportionate and if it can't be done in an other way
moparisthebestoops, you messed up Ge0rG :P
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfriedjonasw: I think we need to give some warnings about it, but we can't fully handle it indeed
winfriedso +1 to the motion of jonasw
pep.how the hell does google justify that
pep.yeah I also want to leave this aside for now
winfriedpep.: Google just lets you sign that they own your soul and your communications
rtq3has left
winfriedGe0rG: ?
rtq3has joined
winfriedis it me, or did everybody leave for a friday afternoon beer on a terrace?
ZashGood idea!
pep.I was also planning something similar
pep.it's sunny in the England, joy!
pep.it's sunny in England, joy!
Ge0rGwinfried: what was your question, sorry?
ZashIt was sunny here yesterday.
rionhas left
ZashNow it's grey meh.
moparisthebestkinda on topic: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/30509/how-are-gdpr-fines-actually-enforced-for-us-companies-with-no-physical-presence
winfrieddo you ack leaving spam detection with a note about possible problems with it?
alexishas joined
moparisthebest"The GDPR requires non-EU entities handling EU data to appoint a representative in the EU, and this representative will be able receive the fines or other penalties relating to regulation compliance." ;; haha EU lawmakers really are insane aren't they?
Ge0rGwinfried: yes, ack
winfriedQ1.1e!
goffihas left
pep.winfried, what do you want to put in 1.1e?
Ge0rGpep.: I'd say specific action items for people involved (i.e. server operators)
pep.State what fine if you don't do x or y?
Wiktorhas left
goffihas joined
winfriedup to now we found several limits, things to consider regarding the processing we are doing
pep.istr winfried also talking about drafting a policy or sth
Ge0rGpep.: the fines aren't clear yet. The maximum fines are well-defined, but there are zero rulings yet
winfriedI think we should no look at what we must do to fix those issues
Ge0rGwinfried: {not,now}?
winfriedlike s2s to a server that is violating privacy
winfriednow
pep.winfried, I guess you can blacklist once you become aware
Ge0rGbut how do you become aware?
winfriedshall we first make a list of issues to consider?
Ge0rGI don't think it's useful in any way to block s2s
pep.Ge0rG, that'S the trick
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rGWe need to ensure that the users are informed about the possibility of their data leaving the EU
jubalhhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfriedOK, I opened pandora's box of s2s
winfriedlets empty it...
winfriedissue a: can it be justified?
winfried(to do s2s)
pep.what can?
pep.ah, we said article 6 and 49.1b
pep.6.1b and 49.1b ?
winfriedpep.: exactly, but that assumes no more processing then is needed for the task
pep.We can also ask for consent with 6.1a and 49.1a iirc
winfriedso how do we assure there is no more processing then needed for the task?
pep.For the part that's not covered by implicit consent
winfriedpep.: yes
winfriedbut how do we know we need extra consent?
alexishas left
alexishas joined
pep.all we haven't covered in 1.1c/d I would say?
winfriedI guess we can't enforce this by technical means, it is a legal issue
moparisthebestdoes an incoming message to your user make it your user's message? in which case you already have their consent?
winfriedmoparisthebest: no
moparisthebestwhy not?
pep.winfried, did we not say yes to this question?
winfriedmoparisthebest: it still contains pii from the sender
pep.right, assuming no further analysis of the message
moparisthebestthat they willingly sent to your user, put completely under your user's control?
moparisthebestwhich they granted consent to you for, maybe?
winfriedpep.: on storage (MAM) of the conversation not on the processing (relaying) the message
winfriedmoparisthebest: by willingly sending it to a user, the sender agrees to the processing of sending the message, the receiver is no part of that
moparisthebestdoes anyone actually know that are is everyone just guessing until it's tested in court?
pep.hmm
MattJmoparisthebest, nobody knows
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfriedmoparisthebest: there are some wp29 guidelines, they have a legal status
moparisthebestI'd think they'd all be equally arguable in court
jonaswwinfried, didn’t we establish last time the opposite of that?
jonaswlike, received message == recipients content => covered by recipients consent.
winfriedjonasw: hmmm... refresh my mind (it has a friday explosion)
moparisthebestagain, what are the email providers doing? that's really all we need to know, numerous email providers are far bigger and have far more money than the entire XMPP network
jonaswwinfried, I’m semi-afk myself, but I think we figured that due to the fact that the recipients server has consent from the recipient for processing, it’s fine because the sender gave the recipient the data.
jonaswmoparisthebest, nobody knows!
winfriedjonasw: I thought that was only in the context of MAM at the receiver server
jonaswmoparisthebest, they won’t tell you because it threatens them legally
pep.moparisthebest, https://www.earth.li/pipermail/gdpr-discuss/2018-April/000013.html a quite I liked in there, "Of course, anyone's reading might contrast quite a bit from how lawyers will over time engineer courts into interpreting it"
jonaswwinfried, okay, what are we talking about if not about MAM?
moparisthebestjonasw, than that's what we should find out rather than trying to make up stuff on our own?
winfriedjonasw: relaying the message, logging it, spam filtering it
jonaswmoparisthebest, except that they won’t tell us
winfriedusing it for profiling for targeted advertisement
jonaswbecause it threatens them legally to do so, I guess
pep.moparisthebest, also business opportunities, so insentive not to reveal how they do it
jonaswthat, too
jonaswbut I guess they’re more afraid of them actually not being compliant
pep.possibly
moparisthebestbut there are plenty of more open ones that would too?
moparisthebestpresumably
winfriedmoparisthebest: there are many things unclear on the gdpr, but many thing things *are*, we can anticipate on that
jonaswhm, we could ask posteo
winfriedmoparisthebest: and many companies try to ignore the obvious, for example because it doesn't fit in their business model
moparisthebestit's not great but, seems like good odds an email provider will be targetted way before any xmpp provider, could just wait and see...
pep.moparisthebest, not sure that's a good option
moparisthebestthe other option is for non-lawyers to try to interpret lawyer-speak, and guess what a lawyer and judge will decide
pep.So.. we didn't get really far today
moparisthebestalso, not a good option
winfriedmoparisthebest: I don't want to tell my customers "we are neatly ignoring the law, because we hope somebody else gets caught first"
moparisthebestwhether you try really hard to comply or not, that's still essentially the position you are in
winfriedpep.: yes, I am a bit frustrated too...
pep.moparisthebest, if this doesn't interest you, fine
winfriedmoparisthebest: it is not that black-white, many things *are* clear
jonaswsorry, I was more distracted than I expected during this timeslot :/
moparisthebestdon't get me wrong you guys are doing good work and finding the baseline of generally what looks to be compliant
moparisthebestbut none of you are lawyers, and even if you were, they can be wrong too
moparisthebestit's a terrible situation, I'm just glad I'm not in the EU
pep.moparisthebest, yes everybody can be wrong and we'll see on the first court cases
pep.In the meantime, we kind of have to do something about it anyway
HolgerThat's true for basically any law that applies to whatever you do.
pep.yes
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: the good thing is that if you show to the court that you clearly did your best to follow the rules, your probability of ending up in jail sinks
MattJObligatory link to http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 if you haven't read it, on the subject of law and computing
dwdhas left
moparisthebestmy only concern pep. is you overanalyze something and end up crippling federation or something that is useful
pep.moparisthebest, we're only giving guidelines, and we welcome anybody to give input, or even bring lawyers to the dicussion if possible
pep.moparisthebest, also as Ge0rG said
moparisthebestyea but if the guidelines end up being 'disable federation except on an opt-in manual basis' that ruins everything
SamWhitedFYI, there's a bit of XMPP discussion in this Google Allo/SMS thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16882539
winfriedmoparisthebest: I think we are in matter of fact analyzing how far we can go with federation without running into big problems
pep.that is not where we're headed no
Timhas joined
waqashas joined
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
Valerianhas left
pep.Shall we plan next
winfriedyes... I will try to make a analysis/summary of the discussion so far and the issues to tackle before it
pep.I can't do Wed and (Fri morning)
alexishas left
alexishas joined
pep.Tue 12:30 CEST as before?
jonaswpep., that would work for me
winfriedTue I am stuck
pep.winfried, yes that'd be nice to know where we're at
pep.Mon maybe?
winfriedmon wfm
pep.Mon 1230 CEST
winfriedwfm
pep.jonasw, Ge0rG
jonaswpep., can do
Ge0rGMon and Tue should both work
pep.Ok!
pep.Mon 1230 CEST it is
alexishas left
pep.*bang*
alexishas joined
Ge0rGpep.: thanks for chairing! ;)
pep.haha
Ge0rGthanks to winfried too, obviously
Ge0rGSorry I was semi-AFK, had two important and unscheduled customer calls :(
winfriedis searching the gavel
danielhas left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfriedGe0rG: I noticed something like that already, can happen
jonaswthanks all
Timhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
jubalhhas joined
danielhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
pep.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16882862 "an entirely over-the-top service that everyone could use, on any platform, without the consent, extra billing or buggy implementation of their carrier.", I guess they're missing the point, you still get the consent (in their meaning of the word) of WhatsApp to send your messages.
alexishas left
alexishas joined
intosihas left
danielhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
lskdjfhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
Guushas left
moparisthebesthttps://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/help ha lawyers eyeing GDPR stuff
rtq3has left
lovetoxThe Last Call ends on 2017-12-12
lovetoxsays xep 363
lovetoxso 4 months later what happens now?
MattJI last see an email from Dave Cridland saying: "Re-reading this and other feedback, I'm going to push back on moving this to Draft until substantial improvements are done to Security Considerations in particular, and normative language use in general."
MattJThere has been an update to the XEP since then however
jerehas joined
SamWhitedIt might be time for the editors to reissue the LC on that
jerehas joined
danielI'll do one tiny update. Give me second
lovetoxdoes the xsf have tool to track these things?
lovetoxthere are probably 100 xeps in different states that have deadlines
lovetoxmy observation is that these dates are not actually tracked, so the deadlines mean nothing
Guushas left
rtq3has joined
lovetoxi dont know what the correct process is, but a xep where the LC ended and it was voted to not advance, should be moved back to experimental or something
jonaswlovetox, seems legit
jonasweditor’s bsy though
lovetoxand not kept in this LC ended, but we have to search the mailinglist what actually happend -state
KevAs with all things, feel free to help do something about it :)
lovetoxi just did, its not meant as whining, i deal with this at work everyday, i asked if you have a tool to track these deadlines?
KevNot beyond basic things like popping it in Trello (unless jonasw tells me we've got something better I'm not aware of).
KevWe could, in principle, scrape the dates out of the XEPs automatically, but I don't believe we have anything currently to do that.
alexishas left
Zash`grep`
alexishas joined
lovetoxis there any automatic state changes happening?
lovetoxlike triggered by something, and executed by the server without the editor doing something?
Guushas left
lovetoxor does every state change need a manual triggering by the editor?
KevState changes are all manual (which is right, I think).
KevSending emails is also manual, which isn't right - that bit's nearly automated but not quite finished.
SamWhitedhas left
lovetoxso if every state change is manual, then a simple excel (or whatever you use on linux) list with the 400 xeps and there current status would be sufficient
lovetoxif its on the server and everyone has access to
lovetoxbefore council meeting, look at the list, filter state X look at deadline, and bring to vote
ralphmhas left
lovetoxits not really elaborate solution, but i think thats sufficient for the task
alexishas left
alexishas joined
SamWhitedhas left
MattJI don't think the spreadsheet part is even necessary
SamWhitedhas joined
KevI don't think that helps in this particular case, though, which was that it was blocked pending changes, and either the changes didn't happen, or it wasn't clear that they had.
lovetoxthe problem is, nobody looked if they happend
lovetoxbecause it was not on the agenda anymore
lovetoxwhich it would have been if there was a list with all LC xeps
lovetoxbecause then it would be easy to look at all LC every council meeting
lovetoxand im not sure what you mean by "blocked"
lovetoxif LC ended, and you block it, then it cant be in LC anymore
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
rionhas joined
lovetoxor maybe thats the problem, that its not usual to set the xep back to experimantal
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
MattJI feel almost like we need some tests for the xeps repo to highlight inconsistencies
Kevlovetox: Because it shouldn't go back to Experimental really. According to our process it should be rejected.
KevWhich is obviously not right.
KevSo just leaving it in Proposed is what tends to happen.
lovetoxyour process gives you only Accepted or Rejected
lovetox?
lovetoxafter a LC
lovetoxthis seems not good, maybe add that it can be set back to experimental if the xep in gerneral is useful, but lacks some things
sezuanhas left
Martinhas joined
tuxhas joined
Guushas left
@Alacerhas left
Dave CridlandYeah, we should allow popping things back to Experimental.
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Dave CridlandAlthough possibly the right thing to do is pop them into Rejected, but allow Rejected XEPs to be pulled back to Experimental, like Deferred ones.
ralphmhas joined
Dave Cridland(The difference being that if Council has rejected it, and nobody does anythign further, it should probably stay rejected and not automatically go back to Experimental)
Ge0rGDave Cridland: that sounds like the perfect recipe for offending authors.
KevI'm not sure that's true (Dave)
KevIt seems that an abandoned LC XEP is much like an abandoned Experimental XEP.
Dave CridlandKev, So Deferred?
KevAnd letting them both be Experimental at the time of last action, and defer naturally seems sane to me.
ralphmAre we talking about the Proposed state?
Ge0rGDeferred sounds better
Kevralphm: Yes.
ludohas left
lovetoxyou dont want to set it to a state where devs are scared to implement it, only because one council member thought some minor thing has to be adjusted
ludohas joined
KevSo an E with 5 months before Def goes to LC, gets -1, it then goes back to E for another 5 until it goes Def.
lovetoxso Rejected sounds bad
KevOr something.
Kevlovetox: Indeed.
lovetoxYes Kev your proposal sounds sane
ralphmRejected would be the appropriate state if the author is unwilling to change it based on said council members' comments.
Kevralphm: I don't think so based purely on that criterion.
Nekithas left
ralphmI am ok with an edge Rejected->Experimental
lovetoxyes of course, the case we talk currently is, nobody had time to look at things, or forgot but the xep is a good xep 🙂
KevBecause if it's a worthwhile XEP with an intransigent author, the right thing is to assign a new author.
KevNot to kill the XEP.
ralphmKev: allowing Rejected->Experimental would enable just that, no?
Kevralphm: Pointlessly, IMHO.
lovetoxRejected should be an end state
lovetoxin my opinion
KevI think allowing LC to end in any of Draft, Rejected, Experimental would be good to me.
ralphmSomebody wants to pick up the Rejected XEP, does the work, suggests going back to Experimental.
KevAnd leaving it to Council to decide which.
alexishas left
ralphmSure
alexishas joined
lovetoxso in this case now with httpupload
ralphmBut then you have to define how a vote in Council causes which transition
lovetoxi message the editor, saying LC has ended, no changes on the xep
lovetoxthen he has to set it to rejected
alexishas left
lovetox10 minutes later daniel messages: oh i make the change i forgot
alexishas joined
alexishas left
lovetoxthen he has to put it again into experimental..
tahas joined
ralphmlovetox: in the current process, only Council can make it go to Rejected to begin with, after a vote.
lovetoxgood, so council should decide
ralphmSo it is Experimental -> Proposed -[vote]-> Rejected/Draft
lovetoxexperimental because author was reached and promises to do something
lovetoxor rejected, we cant reach anyone
lovetoxi feel there is no need for a hard state machine, LC -> Rejected -> experimental
lovetoxalthough i dont care in the end, but this probably generates work for the editor
lovetoxand has no real gain
Nekithas joined
lovetoxcouncil can determine if its worth to go from LC -> Experimantal
ralphmIf a modification to XEP-0001 is proposed, including how voting in Council works with three possible outcomes, I'd of course be happy to entertain that proposal in an upcoming Board meeting/
MattJI'm not sure LC should be an explicit state, I think that's the problem here
Dave Cridlandlovetox, The benefit of a hard state machine is that people are slightly less likely to scream about abuse of power.
Ge0rGIt's great to have a process to change the process.
KevMattJ: That may well be.
lovetoxDave Cridland, hm yes didnt saw it from this point of vie
Ge0rGDave Cridland: I'm pretty sure if there is a Collusion of Council, we can figure out a way to formally follow the process to achieve any desired abuse of power.
Ge0rG&
lovetoxalso would it be a abuse of power if the council votes on the state?
lovetoxi think not
lovetoxhas left
KevIf I was proposing wording to xep1, I would go with a slightly more formal:
When LC expires, Council shall vote on advancement to Draft. If this vote fails Council shall then vote on Rejection. If this vote also fails, the XEP shall return to a state of Experimental (and shall later be deferred after the normal period after the substantive modification).
matlaghas joined
Guushas left
jubalhhas left
tuxhas joined
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
alexishas joined
intosihas joined
SaltyBoneshas left
SaltyBoneshas joined
lumihas joined
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
intosihas left
Holgerhas left
Guushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas left
ralphmI'd +1 that
ralphmSo please send a request to that end to Board
Dave Cridlandhas left
ralphmI think it would be useful, though, to actually record objections in the Changelog. We haven't done this, before, but it might be useful to see the history if progressing failed at some point.
Ge0rGRCS is the massive fail that happens when telcos try to grasp and monetize whatsapp
lovetoxi dont get it, its not anymore just about messaging
lovetoxthis reads like all it does is send one message to a contact
moparisthebestwe should make bets how long this lasts before google abandons it
lovetoxi bet it doesnt even start
Ge0rG"RCS could allow free chats across different networks on Android or other devices" except that it's operated by the telcos and billed by the message
moparisthebestI give it maybe a year before they give up
moparisthebestyea I agree lovetox I don't think it'll ever get off the ground, but I give it a year until they give up
moparisthebestthink of the poor telcos missing out on all those sweet per message fees! <- something no one has ever said except telco CEOs
Ge0rGRCS was "introduced" in 2012 and nobody wanted it but the carriers. No idea who paid Google how much to get them behind it.
Ge0rGBut as it doesn't even fit Google's business strategy, I would counter-bet that this public announcement is all we are going to see of their involvment
lovetoxin most countrys sms are free anyway
dwdhas left
Ge0rGOkay, there is _maybe_ one way for Google to align it with their strategy - by selling targeted RCS spam to companies
danielhas left
marchas left
Ge0rGlovetox: SMS were free, then telcos discovered they can bill users per message and then it took over a decade to get decent flatrate offers
vanitasvitaehas left
lovetoxyeah i just mean, now why going back
Ge0rGI've only switched to an SMS flat two months ago
lovetoxnobody will accept paying for a message
Ge0rGlovetox: because RCS is a premium service
Ge0rGlovetox: have a look at MMS.
lovetoxnobody used that ^^
Ge0rGlovetox: my father-in-law used that, before I gave him ChatSecure. At least MMS was working.
vanitasvitaehas joined
Guushas left
Ge0rGbesides, telcos will go a long way to protect their revenue model. One of the reasons Windows Phone failed was that telcos feared it would come bundled with Skype
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
Guushas left
lnjhas left
marchas joined
ralphmhas joined
ralphmhas joined
ludohas left
ludohas joined
ralphmRCS is much much older than 2012.
Ge0rGralphm: but that's when it emerged to the general public and made everybody realize how big it's going to fail.
Yagizahas left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
ralphmhas joined
alexishas left
ralphmI.e. it builds on IMS, which started in 1999 or so.
ralphmYeah, I can only hope that with Google touching it, it will be truly dead soon.
jubalhhas left
marchas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
ralphmhas joined
Zashhas left
Andrew NenakhovAverage Google service lifespan is like 1400 days... So this RCS will likely be over by 2023
Andrew NenakhovSource for lifespan: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/22/google-keep-services-closed
ralphmI don't Allo is that old
ralphm(think)
Andrew NenakhovFor some it happens sooner. That's why it is called "average" )
Andrew NenakhovAllo is 3 years old I guess
dwd21 Septmeber 2016, apparently.
dwdSo 18 months.
Andrew NenakhovActually reading that link I remembered how much I liked Google Wave
ralphmHah, Google Wave's federation effort was one guy.
Andrew NenakhovOh, I recalled that it was announced in spring event, but not in 2015 but in 2016, so it's closer to 2 years
ralphm(and yes, I have the t-shirt)
dwdAndrew Nenakhov, Announced in Google I/O 2016 (Spring?) but not launched for months afterward.
Dave Cridlandhas left
vanillahas joined
@Alacerhas joined
Andrew NenakhovWell, if you have 5 (6?) competing messaging services, it's quite probable they'll have shorter than average lifespan 😂
sezuanhas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
ralphmhas joined
j.rhas joined
dwdhas left
la|r|mahas left
la|r|mahas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
alexishas joined
Zashhas left
jubalhhas joined
alexishas left
Zashhas left
SamWhitedhas left
ibikkhas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
marmistrzhas joined
dwdhas left
Lancehas joined
ralphmhas joined
dwdhas joined
ludohas left
ludohas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
dwdhas left
SamWhitedhas joined
rionhas left
Nekithas left
alexishas joined
jubalhhas left
dwdhas joined
dwdhas left
efrithas joined
dwdhas joined
lnjhas left
Marandahas left
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
ibikkhas left
dwdhas left
ibikkhas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
danielhas left
remkohas left
marmistrzhas joined
danielhas left
Wiktorhas joined
ThibGhas joined
ThibGhas joined
danielhas left
lovetoxhas left
danielhas left
pep.has left
intosihas joined
Nekithas joined
SamWhitedhas left
lskdjfhas left
danielhas joined
danielhas joined
danielhas joined
lnjhas joined
lnjhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
mimi89999has left
lnjhas joined
danielhas joined
ralphmhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
ralphmToo bad I was busy at work today, but I love debunking comments on HN. Like this one https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16882916
danielhas left
danielhas left
lnjhas left
lnjhas left
ludohas left
moparisthebest"it’s driven by the same companies that charge the equivalent of $1000+/mb for sms delivery" ha I never thought about it like that, excellent
alexishas left
ludohas joined
alexishas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Ge0rGralphm: I'm not sure which part of your comment is "debunking"
ralphmhas joined
ralphmWell, the argument that XMPP is too old
Dave Cridlandhas left
ralphmBut I guess my other comment is better
Ge0rGralphm: that was not an argument the OP made. They only wrote that XMPP failed, without a root cause analysis
Dave Cridlandhas left
ralphmIt was implied, I think, but sure
Ge0rGralphm: I'm not sure about that.
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas left
ralphmPeople on HN generally use two arguments against XMPP: 1) too old, 2) xml/battery
winfriedhas left
ZashYou forget those who go "lalalallaala, matrix is the best!!"
Dave Cridlandhas left
danielhas joined
Zashand "matrix is winning because bridges"
Dave Cridlandhas left
pep.daniel, seems interesting!
Dave Cridlandhas left
Ge0rGZash: we need a matrix bridge to rule them all
XSF Discussion - 2018-04-20