-
ralphm
Hmm, just noticed that Conversations doesn't (also) send XEP-0080 payload when sharing location.
-
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
-
ralphm
I'm not sure, to be honest, but it is something I'm suggesting being implemented in what we are doing.
-
lovetox
are these not 2 different use cases
-
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
(itโll haunt you forever!)
-
lovetox
either way gajim supports xep 80 ๐
-
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?
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
MattJ
That means I can't use OOB like an "attachment" feature
-
MattJ
<body>Here is that Word document containing the virus I received earlier</body><oob><desc>Word document</desc>...</oob>
-
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
-
MattJ
<hide-body-if-you-understand>jabber:x:oob</hide-body-if-you-understand>
-
daniel
But 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?
-
MattJ
Zash, fair point :)
-
Zash
Nice things be unavailable.
-
MattJ
So for backward compatibility, we have to always use <body> as a fallback
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
Kev
SIMS doesn't need to be Jingle though, does it? It can just do URLs?
-
Kev
Or I've completely misunderstood.
-
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]."
-
MattJ
which is weird, because even to just receive and display images from others, I MUST implement a XEP related to uploading?
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
lovetox
xep 80 links to a invalid site
-
lovetox
https://xmpp.org/extensions/gps_datum.html
-
Andrew Nenakhov
> Luckily XEP-0066 is still Draft :) Btw I don't see why would anyone use 066 over 221 for inline image display
-
MattJ
Heh
-
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
-
jonasw
GDPR meeting in 5? pep., Ge0rG, winfried
-
pep.
oh right
-
Ge0rG
๐คฆ
-
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
๐
-
Maranda
Ge0rG's famous ack
-
Ge0rG
better now?
-
Maranda
Well I imagine a headdesk would be stranger for a ACK
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, yes
- winfried acks his presence
-
pep.
!
-
Ge0rG
Are we there yet?
-
jonasw
.
-
winfried
all present
- winfried *bangs* the gavel
-
winfried
pep.: thanks for your logs!
-
pep.
I was a bit lost with the two last meetings, not sure in what category to put what we talked about
-
winfried
we have to do the spamdetection and can then move on to the consequences
-
jonasw
Iโd 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: ๐
-
pep.
jonasw, can do
-
winfried
good plan
-
Ge0rG
tiden up the wiki a bit after this meeting and send it out?
-
pep.
Ok
-
winfried
that is that earth.li list?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: good plan, maybe add a summary so far?
-
pep.
yes
-
pep.
winfried, boarf
-
winfried
LOL
-
pep.
It's still a wip
-
winfried
it is
-
winfried
do we need any reflection on the process before diving into it?
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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
- winfried has a head crunching regulations and articles
-
Ge0rG
*crunch*
-
pep.
hmm, the e2ee thing seems annoying yeah
-
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
-
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 Iโm 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
winfried
Ge0rG: ?
-
winfried
is it me, or did everybody leave for a friday afternoon beer on a terrace?
-
Zash
Good idea!
-
pep.
I was also planning something similar
-
pep.
it's sunny in the England, joy!✎ -
pep.
it's sunny in England, joy! ✏
-
Ge0rG
winfried: what was your question, sorry?
-
Zash
It was sunny here yesterday.
-
Zash
Now it's grey meh.
-
moparisthebest
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?
-
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!
-
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?
-
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
-
Ge0rG
We need to ensure that the users are informed about the possibility of their data leaving the EU
-
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?
-
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
-
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, didnโt 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, Iโm semi-afk myself, but I think we figured that due to the fact that the recipients server has consent from the recipient for processing, itโs 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 wonโt 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 wonโt 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 theyโre 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
-
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
-
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)
-
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
-
pep.
*bang*
-
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 :(
- winfried is searching the gavel
-
winfried
Ge0rG: I noticed something like that already, can happen
-
jonasw
thanks all
-
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.
-
moparisthebest
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/help ha lawyers eyeing GDPR stuff
-
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
-
SamWhited
It might be time for the editors to reissue the LC on that
-
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
-
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
editorโs 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.
-
Zash
`grep`
-
lovetox
is there any automatic state changes happening?
-
lovetox
like triggered by something, and executed by the server without the editor doing something?
-
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.
-
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
-
lovetox
its not really elaborate solution, but i think thats sufficient for the task
-
MattJ
I don't think the spreadsheet part is even necessary
-
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
-
lovetox
or maybe thats the problem, that its not usual to set the xep back to experimantal
-
MattJ
I feel almost like we need some tests for the xeps repo to highlight inconsistencies
-
Zash
`xeps$ xpath -e /xep/header/lastcall xep-0???.xml`
-
Kev
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
-
Dave Cridland
Yeah, we should allow popping things back to Experimental.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ๐
-
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.
-
ralphm
Sure
-
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
-
lovetox
10 minutes later daniel messages: oh i make the change i forgot
-
lovetox
then he has to put it again into experimental..
-
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
-
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
-
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).
-
ralphm
I'd +1 that
-
ralphm
So please send a request to that end to Board
-
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.
-
Ge0rG
+1 to that
- Maranda ๐ muc favicons.
-
Maranda
๐คฃ
-
ralphm
https://twitter.com/ralphm/status/987382007452889088?s=09
-
ralphm
RCS? Come on.
-
Maranda
Apparently
-
moparisthebest
difference being they couldn't charge xmpp servers for federation like they can with carriers I'm assuming
-
moparisthebest
what is this? google's 10th attempt at instant messaging? 20th? I've lost count
-
lovetox
and this one is obviously going to failk✎ -
lovetox
and this one is obviously going to fail ✏
-
moparisthebest
sure I mean why would anyone think the 20th time is the charm :)
-
ralphm
moparisthebest I'm not sure if that's true, but it has little to do with Open
-
moparisthebest
right it's not open at all, this RCS business
-
Zash
Which RCS is this even?
-
moparisthebest
Zash, https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/19/google-changes-its-messaging-strategy-again-goodbye-to-allo-double-down-on-rcs/
-
Zash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services ?
-
MattJ
Yes
-
Ge0rG
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
-
Ge0rG
Okay, there is _maybe_ one way for Google to align it with their strategy - by selling targeted RCS spam to companies
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Andrew Nenakhov
Well, if you have 5 (6?) competing messaging services, it's quite probable they'll have shorter than average lifespan ๐
-
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
-
moparisthebest
"itโs driven by the same companies that charge the equivalent of $1000+/mb for sms delivery" ha I never thought about it like that, excellent
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm not sure which part of your comment is "debunking"
-
ralphm
Well, the argument that XMPP is too old
-
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
-
ralphm
It was implied, I think, but sure
-
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm not sure about that.
-
ralphm
People on HN generally use two arguments against XMPP: 1) too old, 2) xml/battery
-
Zash
You forget those who go "lalalallaala, matrix is the best!!"
-
Zash
and "matrix is winning because bridges"
-
pep.
daniel, seems interesting!
-
Ge0rG
Zash: we need a matrix bridge to rule them all
-
pep.
(goulash programming thing)