Hmm, just noticed that Conversations doesn't (also) send XEP-0080 payload when sharing location.
dwdhas left
danielhas left
daniel
ralphm: is there any client that will do something reasonable if I just stick a geoloc element in the message (w/o the pubsub overhead)?
daniel
Assuming 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
ralphm
I'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
lovetox
are these not 2 different use cases
Valerianhas left
lovetox
i always thought xep 80 is more of a, contantly sharing your location all the time
lovetox
conversations just shares the location at one point in time with a geo uri or not?
jonasw
mmm, I know of a protocol which suggested inclusion of XEP-0080 payload into messages. Ge0rG?
jonasw
(it’ll haunt you forever!)
lovetox
either way gajim supports xep 80 🙂
MattJ
lovetox, the XEP provides two parts: the data format (<geoloc>), and a recommended transport (PEP)
MattJ
The point is, any time you need to encode location in XMPP, the same data format/code can be reused without inventing something new
lovetox
ah i see
lovetox
so you want to use the geoloc element with another transport
jonasw
extensible XML is extensible
lovetox
in this case a message
MattJ
So 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
Zash
So, the thing, it's just sending <body>geo:x,y</body> right?
Alexhas joined
lovetox
yeah and this is useable by the user even if the client doesnt support locations
lovetox
i think firefox even supports this uri scheme
Zash
geo:0,0
Ge0rG
jonasw: no!
efrithas left
Ge0rG
jonasw: or I'll PR xmpp-echo-bot into xmpp.org/clients!
MattJ
Right, 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
Zash
Having a graceful fallback in <body> is sane.
Zash
Having *only* the body is meh.
MattJ
However 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
MattJ
e.g. <body>Don't come to this place, here be dragons</body><geoloc>...</geoloc>
MattJ
Client sees <geoloc> and says "I know this! They sent a location, so I'll show that instead of the <body>..."
Zash
There used to be thing magical awesome feature negotiation, but we've killed that, thanks to Carbons and MAM
MattJ
Zash, that never worked with offline messages either
alexishas left
alexishas joined
lovetox
MattJ we can decide
lovetox
the dataformat has a description attr
MattJ
Right, that's currently a problem I have with OOB
lovetox
so if we have description ignore body
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJ
That 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
daniel
Fwiw Conversations will only use the oob tag if it's either the same as the body or if the body doesn't exists
MattJ
I can think of a protcol solution, not sure whether it's actually a good idea or not
daniel
I'm not defending oob as the best thing ever invented
> Here is that Word document containing the virus I received earlier
Where, I don't see it?
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJ
Zash, fair point :)
Zash
Nice things be unavailable.
MattJ
So for backward compatibility, we have to always use <body> as a fallback
jubalhhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJ
so <desc> suddenly makes sense as a non-fallback piece of text
lovetox
yes if desc is there hide body
Zash
If only anyone actually used taht
andyhas joined
jubalhhas left
Zash
I'd wanna have this, but it won't work today:
body := $desc \n $uri
oob := { uri = $uri, desc = $desc }
MattJ
Zash, yes, pretty much what I'm proposing
MattJ
The current Conversations logic makes sense, to defend against any clients which may be treating <body> *not* as a fallback
MattJ
But I'm not sure whether any clients actually do that today
la|r|mahas joined
MattJ
So 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.
daniel
For now it won't break Conversations.
daniel
And in the future I might implement support
MattJ
daniel, iirc you said the text wouldn't be displayed in any case?
alexishas left
alexishas joined
MattJ
Oh right, it would ignore the oob for now
daniel
Well by not break I mean Conversations would display the fallback
MattJ
Got it
Ge0rG
it would break inline image display ;)
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
MattJ
Luckily XEP-0066 is still Draft :)
Kev
Does 66 have anything over SIMS?
MattJ
But even the example there is using it in an attachment-style
MattJ
Kev, yes, things support it already :)
Zash
Small, simple, self-contained.
alexishas left
MattJ
I think it's simple because it's always just a URL
MattJ
SIMS suddenly pulls in Jingle
MattJ
and that's quite a commitment for a client that simply wants to display an image
alexishas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
alexishas left
Kev
SIMS doesn't need to be Jingle though, does it? It can just do URLs?
Kev
Or I've completely misunderstood.
alexishas joined
Zash
But why would you if you're just sending URLs anyways?
Zash
(SIMS has more things that are useful tho)
Kev
Because you usually want metadata with it.
MattJ
Kev, "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
MattJ
which is weird, because even to just receive and display images from others, I MUST implement a XEP related to uploading?
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Kev
Yeah, 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.
Zash
Maybe separate requirements for sending and receiving?
mrdoctorwhohas left
MattJ
and rather than forcing client to implement Jingle, there should be a fallback as we have with the OOB solution
MattJ
So I think that answers why OOB > SIMS right now (but may not always be)
Ge0rG
all the refererence / link XEPs suck in different ways.
MattJ
The 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
Kev
Are 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?)
MattJ
No, I'm saying that a clickable URL is the common fallback that works absolutely everywhere
alexishas left
alexishas joined
lovetox
xep 80 links to a invalid site
lovetox
https://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
MattJ
Heh
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
daniel
by 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/
daniel
you 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
jonasw
GDPR 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
winfried
Give me one minute
jonasw
Ge0rG, why?
Zash
> 15:56:00 jonasw> GDPR meeting in 5?
You have until 16:01
Ge0rG
jonasw: it was just an ACK of my presence
jonasw
weird way to ack
pep.
!
pep.
I got beverage and snack, all the good stuff
Ge0rG
🙋
Maranda
Ge0rG's famous ack
Ge0rG
better now?
alexishas left
Maranda
Well I imagine a headdesk would be stranger for a ACK
jonasw
Ge0rG, yes
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
winfriedacks his presence
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
pep.
!
Ge0rG
Are we there yet?
Yagizahas left
jonasw
.
winfried
all present
winfried*bangs* the gavel
winfried
pep.: 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
winfried
we have to do the spamdetection and can then move on to the consequences
jonasw
I’d like to insert a point: do we want to send a posting to the gdpr list set up by the debian folks?
winfried
pep.: When I have a bit time to spare, I wil check
pep.
yes I would like to
Ge0rG
jonasw: 👍
pep.
jonasw, can do
winfried
good plan
Ge0rG
tiden up the wiki a bit after this meeting and send it out?
pep.
Ok
alexishas joined
winfried
that is that earth.li list?
alexishas left
winfried
Ge0rG: good plan, maybe add a summary so far?
pep.
yes
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
pep.
winfried, boarf
winfried
LOL
pep.
It's still a wip
winfried
it is
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
winfried
do we need any reflection on the process before diving into it?
alexishas left
rtq3has left
winfried
I guess not... ;-)
winfried
last 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
Ge0rG
winfried: what I am doing: automatic analysis of all messages for matching one of two sets of certain (super secret) criteria.
winfried
pep.: I was referring to legal grounds for processing, but you are right, that doesn't justify it
Alexhas left
Ge0rG
messages that match criterion 1: manual analysis of body text (this might be really evil, dunno)
Ge0rG
messages that match criterion 2: automatic blocking of the sender JID forever.
pep.
hmm, wouldn't any manual analysis directly fall under 9.1?
winfried
Ge0rG: fixed criteria or self-learning/statistical ones?
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jonasw
Ge0rG, all of that falls apart once spammers start to OMEMO things, right?
jonasw
or at least the body text analysis
Ge0rG
winfried: 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
Ge0rG
jonasw: 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
winfried
pep.: e2ee is a security risk!
pep.
:)
pep.
Ge0rG, I'd say that's a bit involved for spammers no?
jonasw
manually reading the body seems fairly evil though
pep.
Anyway..
winfried
lets brainstorm a bit
pep.
jonasw, agreed
moparisthebest
it's ok, the spammers aren't going to sue him for it
rtq3has joined
winfried
abuse detection/prevention is a ground for processing
pep.
moparisthebest, might not be spammers he's reading messages of
daniel
I 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
jonasw
winfried, in any case: spam filtering is currently not standardised and I’m not sure if we need to cover it within the XSF
winfried
as long as it proportionate
jonasw
at least not at this point in time
winfried
so reading every message is not proportionate, reading messages already marked as spam is
pep.
winfried, is it?
pep.
is it written in your bible
jonasw
winfried, depends on how you mark as spam
moparisthebest
point is, no one could tell if you did or not, so it's legal!
pep.
moparisthebest, shush
jonasw
if you learn on spam based on viagra and penis enlargement, your spam detection could easily trip off at 9.1-relveant non-spam content.
moparisthebest
what this: Ge0rG, do you ever manually read messages? (answer no)
winfried
pep.: well, that is one of the things I was doubting about
Yagizahas joined
winfried
but 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)
winfried
pep., jonasw very true
jonasw
I 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.
winfried
in the escalating things, metadata is the first step, then automated detection then manual analysis
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: yes I do.
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfried
moparisthebest: it is justifyable if it is proportionate and if it can't be done in an other way
moparisthebest
oops, you messed up Ge0rG :P
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfried
jonasw: I think we need to give some warnings about it, but we can't fully handle it indeed
winfried
so +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
winfried
pep.: Google just lets you sign that they own your soul and your communications
rtq3has left
winfried
Ge0rG: ?
rtq3has joined
winfried
is it me, or did everybody leave for a friday afternoon beer on a terrace?
kinda on topic: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/30509/how-are-gdpr-fines-actually-enforced-for-us-companies-with-no-physical-presence
winfried
do 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?
Ge0rG
winfried: yes, ack
winfried
Q1.1e!
goffihas left
pep.
winfried, what do you want to put in 1.1e?
Ge0rG
pep.: 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
winfried
up 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
Ge0rG
pep.: the fines aren't clear yet. The maximum fines are well-defined, but there are zero rulings yet
winfried
I think we should no look at what we must do to fix those issues
Ge0rG
winfried: {not,now}?
winfried
like s2s to a server that is violating privacy
winfried
now
pep.
winfried, I guess you can blacklist once you become aware
Ge0rG
but how do you become aware?
winfried
shall we first make a list of issues to consider?
Ge0rG
I don't think it's useful in any way to block s2s
pep.
Ge0rG, that'S the trick
jubalhhas joined
Ge0rG
We need to ensure that the users are informed about the possibility of their data leaving the EU
jubalhhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfried
OK, I opened pandora's box of s2s
winfried
lets empty it...
winfried
issue 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 ?
winfried
pep.: 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
winfried
so 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
winfried
pep.: yes
winfried
but 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?
winfried
I guess we can't enforce this by technical means, it is a legal issue
moparisthebest
does an incoming message to your user make it your user's message? in which case you already have their consent?
winfried
moparisthebest: no
moparisthebest
why not?
pep.
winfried, did we not say yes to this question?
winfried
moparisthebest: it still contains pii from the sender
pep.
right, assuming no further analysis of the message
moparisthebest
that they willingly sent to your user, put completely under your user's control?
moparisthebest
which they granted consent to you for, maybe?
winfried
pep.: on storage (MAM) of the conversation not on the processing (relaying) the message
winfried
moparisthebest: by willingly sending it to a user, the sender agrees to the processing of sending the message, the receiver is no part of that
moparisthebest
does anyone actually know that are is everyone just guessing until it's tested in court?
pep.
hmm
MattJ
moparisthebest, nobody knows
alexishas left
alexishas joined
winfried
moparisthebest: there are some wp29 guidelines, they have a legal status
moparisthebest
I'd think they'd all be equally arguable in court
jonasw
winfried, didn’t we establish last time the opposite of that?
jonasw
like, received message == recipients content => covered by recipients consent.
winfried
jonasw: hmmm... refresh my mind (it has a friday explosion)
moparisthebest
again, 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
jonasw
winfried, 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.
jonasw
moparisthebest, nobody knows!
winfried
jonasw: I thought that was only in the context of MAM at the receiver server
jonasw
moparisthebest, 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"
jonasw
winfried, okay, what are we talking about if not about MAM?
moparisthebest
jonasw, than that's what we should find out rather than trying to make up stuff on our own?
winfried
jonasw: relaying the message, logging it, spam filtering it
jonasw
moparisthebest, except that they won’t tell us
winfried
using it for profiling for targeted advertisement
jonasw
because it threatens them legally to do so, I guess
pep.
moparisthebest, also business opportunities, so insentive not to reveal how they do it
jonasw
that, too
jonasw
but I guess they’re more afraid of them actually not being compliant
pep.
possibly
moparisthebest
but there are plenty of more open ones that would too?
moparisthebest
presumably
winfried
moparisthebest: there are many things unclear on the gdpr, but many thing things *are*, we can anticipate on that
jonasw
hm, we could ask posteo
winfried
moparisthebest: and many companies try to ignore the obvious, for example because it doesn't fit in their business model
moparisthebest
it'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
moparisthebest
the 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
moparisthebest
also, not a good option
winfried
moparisthebest: I don't want to tell my customers "we are neatly ignoring the law, because we hope somebody else gets caught first"
moparisthebest
whether you try really hard to comply or not, that's still essentially the position you are in
winfried
pep.: yes, I am a bit frustrated too...
pep.
moparisthebest, if this doesn't interest you, fine
winfried
moparisthebest: it is not that black-white, many things *are* clear
jonasw
sorry, I was more distracted than I expected during this timeslot :/
moparisthebest
don't get me wrong you guys are doing good work and finding the baseline of generally what looks to be compliant
moparisthebest
but none of you are lawyers, and even if you were, they can be wrong too
moparisthebest
it'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
Holger
That's true for basically any law that applies to whatever you do.
pep.
yes
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: 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
MattJ
Obligatory link to http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 if you haven't read it, on the subject of law and computing
dwdhas left
moparisthebest
my 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
moparisthebest
yea but if the guidelines end up being 'disable federation except on an opt-in manual basis' that ruins everything
SamWhited
FYI, there's a bit of XMPP discussion in this Google Allo/SMS thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16882539
winfried
moparisthebest: 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
winfried
yes... 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?
jonasw
pep., that would work for me
winfried
Tue I am stuck
pep.
winfried, yes that'd be nice to know where we're at
pep.
Mon maybe?
winfried
mon wfm
pep.
Mon 1230 CEST
winfried
wfm
pep.
jonasw, Ge0rG
jonasw
pep., can do
Ge0rG
Mon and Tue should both work
pep.
Ok!
pep.
Mon 1230 CEST it is
alexishas left
pep.
*bang*
alexishas joined
Ge0rG
pep.: thanks for chairing! ;)
pep.
haha
Ge0rG
thanks to winfried too, obviously
Ge0rG
Sorry 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
winfried
Ge0rG: I noticed something like that already, can happen
jonasw
thanks 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
moparisthebest
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/help ha lawyers eyeing GDPR stuff
rtq3has left
lovetox
The Last Call ends on 2017-12-12
lovetox
says xep 363
lovetox
so 4 months later what happens now?
MattJ
I 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."
MattJ
There has been an update to the XEP since then however
jerehas joined
SamWhited
It might be time for the editors to reissue the LC on that
jerehas joined
daniel
I'll do one tiny update. Give me second
lovetox
does the xsf have tool to track these things?
lovetox
there are probably 100 xeps in different states that have deadlines
lovetox
my observation is that these dates are not actually tracked, so the deadlines mean nothing
Guushas left
rtq3has joined
lovetox
i 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
jonasw
lovetox, seems legit
jonasw
editor’s bsy though
lovetox
and not kept in this LC ended, but we have to search the mailinglist what actually happend -state
Kev
As with all things, feel free to help do something about it :)
lovetox
i 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?
Kev
Not beyond basic things like popping it in Trello (unless jonasw tells me we've got something better I'm not aware of).
Kev
We 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
lovetox
is there any automatic state changes happening?
lovetox
like triggered by something, and executed by the server without the editor doing something?
Guushas left
lovetox
or does every state change need a manual triggering by the editor?
Kev
State changes are all manual (which is right, I think).
Kev
Sending emails is also manual, which isn't right - that bit's nearly automated but not quite finished.
SamWhitedhas left
lovetox
so 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
lovetox
if its on the server and everyone has access to
lovetox
before council meeting, look at the list, filter state X look at deadline, and bring to vote
ralphmhas left
lovetox
its not really elaborate solution, but i think thats sufficient for the task
alexishas left
alexishas joined
SamWhitedhas left
MattJ
I don't think the spreadsheet part is even necessary
SamWhitedhas joined
Kev
I 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.
lovetox
the problem is, nobody looked if they happend
lovetox
because it was not on the agenda anymore
lovetox
which it would have been if there was a list with all LC xeps
lovetox
because then it would be easy to look at all LC every council meeting
lovetox
and im not sure what you mean by "blocked"
lovetox
if LC ended, and you block it, then it cant be in LC anymore
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
rionhas joined
lovetox
or maybe thats the problem, that its not usual to set the xep back to experimantal
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
MattJ
I feel almost like we need some tests for the xeps repo to highlight inconsistencies
lovetox: Because it shouldn't go back to Experimental really. According to our process it should be rejected.
Kev
Which is obviously not right.
Kev
So just leaving it in Proposed is what tends to happen.
lovetox
your process gives you only Accepted or Rejected
lovetox
?
lovetox
after a LC
lovetox
this 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 Cridland
Yeah, we should allow popping things back to Experimental.
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Dave Cridland
Although 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)
Ge0rG
Dave Cridland: that sounds like the perfect recipe for offending authors.
Kev
I'm not sure that's true (Dave)
Kev
It seems that an abandoned LC XEP is much like an abandoned Experimental XEP.
Dave Cridland
Kev, So Deferred?
Kev
And letting them both be Experimental at the time of last action, and defer naturally seems sane to me.
ralphm
Are we talking about the Proposed state?
Ge0rG
Deferred sounds better
Kev
ralphm: Yes.
ludohas left
lovetox
you 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
Kev
So 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.
lovetox
so Rejected sounds bad
Kev
Or something.
Kev
lovetox: Indeed.
lovetox
Yes Kev your proposal sounds sane
ralphm
Rejected would be the appropriate state if the author is unwilling to change it based on said council members' comments.
Kev
ralphm: I don't think so based purely on that criterion.
Nekithas left
ralphm
I am ok with an edge Rejected->Experimental
lovetox
yes of course, the case we talk currently is, nobody had time to look at things, or forgot but the xep is a good xep 🙂
Kev
Because if it's a worthwhile XEP with an intransigent author, the right thing is to assign a new author.
Kev
Not to kill the XEP.
ralphm
Kev: allowing Rejected->Experimental would enable just that, no?
Kev
ralphm: Pointlessly, IMHO.
lovetox
Rejected should be an end state
lovetox
in my opinion
Kev
I think allowing LC to end in any of Draft, Rejected, Experimental would be good to me.
ralphm
Somebody wants to pick up the Rejected XEP, does the work, suggests going back to Experimental.
Kev
And leaving it to Council to decide which.
alexishas left
ralphm
Sure
alexishas joined
lovetox
so in this case now with httpupload
ralphm
But then you have to define how a vote in Council causes which transition
lovetox
i message the editor, saying LC has ended, no changes on the xep
lovetox
then he has to set it to rejected
alexishas left
lovetox
10 minutes later daniel messages: oh i make the change i forgot
alexishas joined
alexishas left
lovetox
then he has to put it again into experimental..
tahas joined
ralphm
lovetox: in the current process, only Council can make it go to Rejected to begin with, after a vote.
lovetox
good, so council should decide
ralphm
So it is Experimental -> Proposed -[vote]-> Rejected/Draft
lovetox
experimental because author was reached and promises to do something
lovetox
or rejected, we cant reach anyone
lovetox
i feel there is no need for a hard state machine, LC -> Rejected -> experimental
lovetox
although i dont care in the end, but this probably generates work for the editor
lovetox
and has no real gain
Nekithas joined
lovetox
council can determine if its worth to go from LC -> Experimantal
ralphm
If 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/
MattJ
I'm not sure LC should be an explicit state, I think that's the problem here
Dave Cridland
lovetox, The benefit of a hard state machine is that people are slightly less likely to scream about abuse of power.
Ge0rG
It's great to have a process to change the process.
Kev
MattJ: That may well be.
lovetox
Dave Cridland, hm yes didnt saw it from this point of vie
Ge0rG
Dave 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&
lovetox
also would it be a abuse of power if the council votes on the state?
lovetox
i think not
lovetoxhas left
Kev
If 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
ralphm
I'd +1 that
ralphm
So please send a request to that end to Board
Dave Cridlandhas left
ralphm
I 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.
RCS is the massive fail that happens when telcos try to grasp and monetize whatsapp
lovetox
i dont get it, its not anymore just about messaging
lovetox
this reads like all it does is send one message to a contact
moparisthebest
we should make bets how long this lasts before google abandons it
lovetox
i 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
moparisthebest
I give it maybe a year before they give up
moparisthebest
yea I agree lovetox I don't think it'll ever get off the ground, but I give it a year until they give up
moparisthebest
think of the poor telcos missing out on all those sweet per message fees! <- something no one has ever said except telco CEOs
Ge0rG
RCS was "introduced" in 2012 and nobody wanted it but the carriers. No idea who paid Google how much to get them behind it.
Ge0rG
But 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
lovetox
in most countrys sms are free anyway
dwdhas left
Ge0rG
Okay, there is _maybe_ one way for Google to align it with their strategy - by selling targeted RCS spam to companies
danielhas left
marchas left
Ge0rG
lovetox: 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
lovetox
yeah i just mean, now why going back
Ge0rG
I've only switched to an SMS flat two months ago
lovetox
nobody will accept paying for a message
Ge0rG
lovetox: because RCS is a premium service
Ge0rG
lovetox: have a look at MMS.
lovetox
nobody used that ^^
Ge0rG
lovetox: my father-in-law used that, before I gave him ChatSecure. At least MMS was working.
vanitasvitaehas joined
Guushas left
Ge0rG
besides, 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
ralphm
RCS is much much older than 2012.
Ge0rG
ralphm: 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
ralphm
I.e. it builds on IMS, which started in 1999 or so.
ralphm
Yeah, 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 Nenakhov
Average Google service lifespan is like 1400 days... So this RCS will likely be over by 2023
Andrew Nenakhov
Source for lifespan: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/22/google-keep-services-closed
ralphm
I don't Allo is that old
ralphm
(think)
Andrew Nenakhov
For some it happens sooner. That's why it is called "average" )
Andrew Nenakhov
Allo is 3 years old I guess
dwd
21 Septmeber 2016, apparently.
dwd
So 18 months.
Andrew Nenakhov
Actually reading that link I remembered how much I liked Google Wave
ralphm
Hah, Google Wave's federation effort was one guy.
Andrew Nenakhov
Oh, 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)
dwd
Andrew Nenakhov, Announced in Google I/O 2016 (Spring?) but not launched for months afterward.
Dave Cridlandhas left
vanillahas joined
@Alacerhas joined
Andrew Nenakhov
Well, 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
ralphm
Too 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
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm not sure which part of your comment is "debunking"
ralphmhas joined
ralphm
Well, the argument that XMPP is too old
Dave Cridlandhas left
ralphm
But I guess my other comment is better
Ge0rG
ralphm: that was not an argument the OP made. They only wrote that XMPP failed, without a root cause analysis
Dave Cridlandhas left
ralphm
It was implied, I think, but sure
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm not sure about that.
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas left
ralphm
People on HN generally use two arguments against XMPP: 1) too old, 2) xml/battery
winfriedhas left
Zash
You forget those who go "lalalallaala, matrix is the best!!"