XSF Discussion - 2019-01-11

  1. daniel has left
  2. daniel has joined
  3. alexis has joined
  4. mtavares has left
  5. daniel has left
  6. daniel has joined
  7. alexis has left
  8. alexis has joined
  9. mtavares has joined
  10. efrit has left
  11. Half-ShotX has left
  12. Half-ShotX has left
  13. jjrh has left
  14. mtavares has left
  15. mtavares has joined
  16. alexis has left
  17. alexis has joined
  18. lskdjf has joined
  19. Half-ShotX has left
  20. neshtaxmpp has joined
  21. UsL has left
  22. UsL has joined
  23. krauq has joined
  24. mtavares has left
  25. genofire has left
  26. alexis has left
  27. alexis has joined
  28. mtavares has joined
  29. mtavares has left
  30. mrDoctorWho has joined
  31. mtavares has joined
  32. vinx55 has joined
  33. mightyBroccoli has left
  34. mightyBroccoli has joined
  35. mtavares has left
  36. igoose has left
  37. igoose has joined
  38. l has left
  39. genofire has left
  40. mtavares has joined
  41. mtavares has left
  42. vinx55 has left
  43. mtavares has joined
  44. frainz has left
  45. mtavares has joined
  46. alexis has left
  47. alexis has joined
  48. alexis has joined
  49. mtavares has joined
  50. lorddavidiii has left
  51. lorddavidiii has joined
  52. lorddavidiii has left
  53. lorddavidiii has joined
  54. mrDoctorWho has left
  55. Syndace has left
  56. Syndace has joined
  57. mtavares has left
  58. ThibG has joined
  59. mtavares has joined
  60. mtavares has left
  61. alexis has left
  62. alexis has joined
  63. Half-ShotX has left
  64. thorsten has left
  65. thorsten has joined
  66. daniel has joined
  67. alexis has left
  68. alexis has joined
  69. alexis has joined
  70. Yagiza has joined
  71. mtavares has joined
  72. alexis has left
  73. alexis has joined
  74. mtavares has left
  75. mtavares has joined
  76. mtavares has left
  77. alexis has left
  78. alexis has joined
  79. alexis has left
  80. alexis has joined
  81. alexis has left
  82. moparisthebest has joined
  83. alexis has joined
  84. alexis has left
  85. mtavares has joined
  86. alexis has joined
  87. Nekit has joined
  88. mtavares has left
  89. mtavares has joined
  90. steven has left
  91. thorsten has left
  92. thorsten has joined
  93. mtavares has joined
  94. jjrh has left
  95. mtavares has joined
  96. alacer has left
  97. alacer has joined
  98. alexis has left
  99. lnj has joined
  100. mtavares has joined
  101. alexis has joined
  102. thorsten has left
  103. thorsten has joined
  104. Tobias has joined
  105. mtavares has joined
  106. 404.city has joined
  107. 404.city has left
  108. lovetox has joined
  109. lnj has left
  110. j.r has joined
  111. lovetox has left
  112. frainz has joined
  113. frainz has left
  114. ThibG has left
  115. ThibG has joined
  116. frainz has joined
  117. labdsf has left
  118. j.r has joined
  119. mtavares has left
  120. mtavares has joined
  121. Nekit has left
  122. Nekit has joined
  123. frainz has left
  124. moparisthebest has joined
  125. mtavares has joined
  126. mtavares has joined
  127. goffi has joined
  128. lorddavidiii has left
  129. alacer has left
  130. alacer has joined
  131. thorsten has left
  132. andy has joined
  133. alexis has left
  134. alexis has joined
  135. j.r has joined
  136. Zash has left
  137. lorddavidiii has left
  138. Zash has joined
  139. ralphm has left
  140. daniel has joined
  141. j.r has joined
  142. steven has joined
  143. oli has joined
  144. labdsf has joined
  145. tux has joined
  146. sezuan has left
  147. Steve Kille has left
  148. !xsf_Martin has joined
  149. !xsf_Martin has left
  150. Steve Kille has joined
  151. !xsf_Martin has joined
  152. oli has joined
  153. j.r has joined
  154. !xsf_Martin has left
  155. !xsf_Martin has joined
  156. mtavares has joined
  157. mtavares has joined
  158. thorsten has joined
  159. alacer has left
  160. lnj has joined
  161. vinx55 has joined
  162. Half-ShotX has left
  163. andy has left
  164. Half-ShotX has joined
  165. Half-ShotX has left
  166. alexis has left
  167. alexis has joined
  168. Half-ShotX has joined
  169. Guus has left
  170. mimi89999 has joined
  171. dwd 1. Is this document needed to fill gaps in the XMPP Standards Foundation's policies and procedures, or to clarify an existing XSF policy or procedure? 2. Does the document address the problem stated in the introduction and requirements? 3. Should the XSF adopt this document as part of its policies and procedures? 4. Do you have any concerns about the effects of this policy? 5. Is the document accurate and clearly written?
  172. j.r has joined
  173. Half-ShotX has left
  174. sezuan has left
  175. Half-ShotX has joined
  176. Half-ShotX has left
  177. alacer has joined
  178. efrit has joined
  179. andy has joined
  180. Maranda has joined
  181. dwd Speaking of XEP-0345, I should look at that and see where I left it... I know I had comments from Zash, and can't recall if I addressed them.
  182. Guus Thanks dwd
  183. Zash I did what
  184. Guus jonas’ what he said ^
  185. dwd Zash, You complained about the "legal name" thing, I think.
  186. dwd Zash, It was a while ago though.
  187. Zash Maybe I did
  188. Zash I neither confirm nor deny this
  189. Half-ShotX has joined
  190. Guus I wonder if there's a more accurate/applicable term than 'legal name'
  191. Guus I myself am not using my legal name
  192. dwd Guus, It varies between jurisidctions, which doesn't help.
  193. Guus I'm using "Guus der Kinderen", while legally, I shall be referred to as "Gustaaf Johannes Stephanes der Kinderen"
  194. Half-ShotX has left
  195. Guus (which basically is used only when I renew my passport or book a flight - I was once scolded by a police officer for failing to spell my own legal name 😉 )
  196. dwd Guus, So I believe that most European countries are very particular about names, whereas places like the UK are very relaxed (hence I can be Dave Cridland on legal forms as well as David Alan Cridland).
  197. Guus I don't mind using the term 'legal name' though - but if there's something more applicable, we could use that instead.
  198. dwd Guus, Also I'm calling you "Gustaaf" from now on.
  199. efrit has left
  200. Guus I would be disappointed if you did not.
  201. j.r has joined
  202. dwd Hmmm. So XEP-0345 still has warts from when it was trying to handle the corporate applicants that our bylaws allowed at the time.
  203. efrit has joined
  204. dwd And, yes, still have the legal name bit - bit also I'm sure we discussed adding something about "names by which an applicant is likely to be known".
  205. Guus Legal Name / Personal Name / Name by which the person is commonly known
  206. Guus something like that?
  207. Guus (I did a wiki search)
  208. Zash X.500 commonName
  209. lorddavidiii has left
  210. dwd So we had a discussion about people putting in a real name, but not the nickname they generally use - when that nickname itself couldn't be connected to their real name. This has meant in one case that someone didn't get voted on (they didn't mention the nickname by which everyone knew them), for instance.
  211. Guus Yeah, the Bear case
  212. dwd I actually meant the Mike Taylor case, but yes.
  213. Half-ShotX has joined
  214. Guus Although I do think we shouldn't base or policies on that incident.
  215. Guus we discussed earlier that having legal/personal names could be required, as members can be elected in positions of legal meaning.
  216. Guus legal status?
  217. Guus you know what I mean.
  218. Zash Having a suggestion that it's sane to mention if you use a nickname is probably sensible
  219. Guus I'm not sure if the state of Delaware would allow for officers to serve when they're only identified by a nickname, or are anonymous.
  220. Guus I think we need not even have the suggestion, to be honest.
  221. Guus everyone keeps bringing up this one incident
  222. Guus this shall not happen again (and to be honest, if it does, that's pretty silly)
  223. Zash I mean like an implementation note, not a formal requirement.
  224. Guus i won't object, but seems over the top to me. *shrug*
  225. rion has left
  226. mtavares has joined
  227. daniel has joined
  228. frainz has joined
  229. Half-ShotX has left
  230. l has joined
  231. pep. I'm not using my full legal name either fwiw :x
  232. Zash :O
  233. pep. Zash: you go me I'm a fraud
  234. vinx55 has left
  235. Half-ShotX has joined
  236. mtavares has joined
  237. alacer has left
  238. efrit has left
  239. Half-ShotX has left
  240. Half-ShotX has joined
  241. Half-ShotX has left
  242. lnj has left
  243. alexis has left
  244. alexis has joined
  245. mtavares has joined
  246. tux has joined
  247. ThibG has joined
  248. pep. Zash: you got me I'm a fraud
  249. igoose has left
  250. igoose has joined
  251. efrit has joined
  252. Half-ShotX has joined
  253. edhelas has left
  254. edhelas has joined
  255. lskdjf has joined
  256. APach has left
  257. nyco has left
  258. l has joined
  259. efrit has left
  260. alexis has left
  261. alexis has joined
  262. alexis has left
  263. alexis has joined
  264. krauq has left
  265. jubalh has joined
  266. alexis has left
  267. Half-ShotX has left
  268. alexis has joined
  269. Half-ShotX has joined
  270. efrit has joined
  271. Half-ShotX has left
  272. Half-ShotX has joined
  273. alexis has left
  274. alexis has joined
  275. mrDoctorWho has left
  276. moparisthebest has joined
  277. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  278. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  279. moparisthebest has joined
  280. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  281. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  282. efrit has left
  283. daniel has joined
  284. Half-ShotX has left
  285. Half-ShotX has joined
  286. Half-ShotX has left
  287. efrit has joined
  288. efrit has left
  289. Half-ShotX has joined
  290. efrit has joined
  291. mtavares has joined
  292. mtavares has joined
  293. efrit has left
  294. efrit has joined
  295. Half-ShotX has left
  296. Half-ShotX has joined
  297. mtavares has joined
  298. Half-ShotX has left
  299. tux has joined
  300. Half-ShotX has joined
  301. intosi has left
  302. mtavares has joined
  303. mtavares has joined
  304. j.r has joined
  305. _purple_bot has left
  306. Half-ShotX has left
  307. efrit has left
  308. MattJ Ok, how does a XEP author request an LC?
  309. Ge0rG MattJ: ask Council typically
  310. jonas’ MattJ, I think the Approving Body needs to request an LC
  311. Ge0rG at least for protocol XEPs
  312. MattJ I don't think this is really well documented
  313. jonas’ I think it is in XEP-0001
  314. MattJ s/well //
  315. MattJ It is, and it isn't
  316. jonas’ (maybe because it’s not the authors job to request an LC)
  317. jonas’ (formally)
  318. MattJ So the council just decides one day?
  319. MattJ Why haven't they decided about my XEP-nnnn?
  320. MattJ I think the process is a bit poor here
  321. MattJ The council, especially these days, is pretty much reactive in my experience
  322. Zash Needs moar vision
  323. Ge0rG MattJ: the Council always was reactive
  324. APach has left
  325. MattJ Ge0rG, in the early days the council was more active I think
  326. Ge0rG Except for individual Council members who have or had an agenda, which they are perfectly able to pursuit with their non-Council hat on.
  327. krauq has joined
  328. krauq has joined
  329. MattJ Meetings used to be twice as long as they are today, for a start :)
  330. j.r has joined
  331. MattJ They can't pursue it with a non-Council hat on, since as jonas’ said, Council is the one that decides on the LC
  332. Ge0rG MattJ: yes, but the author can ask the council to vote on an LC, and the council will
  333. MattJ I'm not currently on Council, and as an "outsider" it's not clear anywhere how to get my XEP to LC
  334. Ge0rG I'm not even sure whether Council would issue an LC without the author asking for it.
  335. Half-ShotX has left
  336. Ge0rG so it looks like we need a PR for XEP-0001, and a Board vote.
  337. MattJ In my experience they rarely do (and many deferred-but-widely-implemented XEPs to prove it)
  338. Ge0rG MattJ: how is Council supposed to know when an Experimental XEP is ready to advance?
  339. MattJ XEP-0313 is one of the deferred-if-not-for-a-typo XEPs btw
  340. Ge0rG Yes, and this is a process violation.
  341. Ge0rG At least according to how we perceive the process.
  342. MattJ If XEP-0313 is not on the council's radar for an LC, I don't think there's much hope for any other XEPs :)
  343. MattJ I'm happy if the answer is "the author should typically request an LC", but as I said, this is not documented anywhere
  344. Zash `select * from xeps where status == deferred order by date`
  345. MattJ I think in the past it wasn't necessary, as there was more overlap between Council and Authors, and Council were more proactive in driving the process
  346. MattJ I'm not saying it's necessarily bad that that has changed, it wasn't an approach that necessarily scales well
  347. mtavares has joined
  348. Half-ShotX has left
  349. MattJ But I think we do need to make it clearer to authors (or anyone) that they should ping Council for LCs
  350. Ge0rG MattJ: what you are saying is that due to the overlap, it wasn't possible to see whether the LC was demanded with the author-hat or with the council-hat on.
  351. MattJ Yes, I guess I am
  352. Ge0rG MattJ: and I agree with the latter statement, which is why I was calling for a PR against 0001
  353. Ge0rG With due process, this is a Board topic.
  354. Half-ShotX has left
  355. MattJ Not that it really mattered, but I think XEP-0001 assumes the Council hat, which doesn't apply for a reactive Council
  356. MattJ Sure, I can add it to Trello
  357. efrit has joined
  358. j.r has joined
  359. Ge0rG MattJ: being a Council member, I'm not sure what would enable me to ask for an LC on somebody else's XEP, except maybe when 12 months have passed and it would become Deferred otherwise
  360. MattJ Pretty sure you're free to suggest an LC at any time, on anything
  361. Ge0rG MattJ: so the only alternative I see to "author must ping Council" is "Council must cast an LC vote on deferral"
  362. Half-ShotX has left
  363. jonas’ MattJ, I take it as: conucil should make a point out of looking at one deferred XEP a week to decide what to do about it
  364. jonas’ MattJ, Ge0rG, I take it as: council should make a point out of looking at one deferred XEP a week to decide what to do about it
  365. Ge0rG MattJ: but there is no item on a Council member TODO list of "review all experimental XEPs for a potential LC", and that would be O(fucking much work)
  366. MattJ That would be a nice move to clear up the backlog, and deferred XEPs should be reviewed as they are deferred also
  367. Zash xeps->collectgarbage()
  368. MattJ Ge0rG, then I think author (or implementer) initiating is fine
  369. MattJ Didn't this happen recently? Some XEP got deferred and someone had a minor panic on standards@
  370. jonas’ I’ll set up a script which randomly picks a deferred XEP a week and submits it to council agenda
  371. MattJ and the reply was "Don't worry, this XEP won't slip through"
  372. Ge0rG jonas’: NOOO!
  373. Zash jonas’: 👍
  374. Ge0rG MattJ: if the author can't keep the XEP from being Deferred, why is Council supposed to keep track of that?
  375. Half-ShotX has left
  376. Half-ShotX has joined
  377. Zash $ curl https://xmpp.org/extensions/xeplist.xml | xml2 | 2csv xep-infos/xep type status |stats | head -n5 155 Standards Track,Deferred 77 Standards Track,ProtoXEP 63 Standards Track,Draft 31 Standards Track,Retracted 29 Standards Track,Experimental
  378. Ge0rG Speaking with my overworked-council-member hat on, authors have an effort of O(1), we have an effort of O(N). I disapprove of any process that increases my load because authors don't care enough about their piece.
  379. MattJ https://trello.com/c/BXijmEEc/329-clarify-how-to-initiate-a-last-call-for-experimental-xeps
  380. Kev What's the question?
  381. jonas’ Ge0rG, I think Council looking at a Deferred XEP each week would not only benefit advancement, but also the proficiency of Council in the protocols which exist
  382. MattJ Ge0rG, I'm 100% fine with that approach, I don't want to burden Council (though perhaps some one-off initiative to skim and clean up a backlog of deferred XEPs may be warranted)
  383. jonas’ which is kind of a must-have to judge ProtoXEPs
  384. jonas’ and it’s not *that* much workload, is it?
  385. MattJ Ge0rG, I lean towards LC requiring an explicit action from someone (author or implementer, or any member perhaps)
  386. Ge0rG jonas’: so let's assume we have a look at a random deferred XEP a week. What's the expected outcome?
  387. Ge0rG MattJ: +1
  388. Zash O(n+1) == O(n) right? :)
  389. Ge0rG MattJ: I'm not absolutely opposed to "any member", but I also don't see the point
  390. Half-ShotX has left
  391. jonas’ Ge0rG, one of "it needs work by author, blacklist for random looking at until it was Un-deferred", "it should be LC’d, issue an LC"
  392. Kev I'm missing the context here (and no time to scroll back). This isn't what the procedure is for going to LC (which is well defined, I think), but how to make Council consider something for LC?
  393. Ge0rG Kev: exactly
  394. MattJ Kev, correct
  395. jubalh has left
  396. Ge0rG Kev: the rules are that Council can issue an LC, but we probably won't do that on our own
  397. Kev And 'someone asks Council to consider it' isn't enough?
  398. Ge0rG Kev: not documented
  399. MattJ Kev, that part isn't documented
  400. Kev Does it need to be?
  401. Ge0rG jonas’: "it needs work by author" is implicit, and "work by author" might well be "ask for LC"
  402. MattJ Kev, given a large number of deferred implemented XEPs, I'd say yes
  403. Ge0rG jonas’: also the author might have a large modification pending, so issuing an LC might well be counterproductive
  404. Kev MattJ: You believe XEP1 saying "Council will consider LCing when someone asks them to" would cause that not to happen?
  405. Ge0rG which is also why I'm opposed to "any member might ask for an LC" and tend to restrict that to author/implementor
  406. Ge0rG Kev: 🍿
  407. intosi has left
  408. MattJ Kev, no, but it's a start
  409. Half-ShotX has left
  410. Kev Ge0rG: I don't see a reason to limit the number of people able to ask for an LC. You give reasons for an LC not to be issued, not for it to not be considered.
  411. Kev (3 negations in a sentence. Take that English non-natives)
  412. Kev (3 negations in a sentence. Take that, English non-natives)
  413. Ge0rG has left
  414. Guus we'll be impressed at 4+, Kev - this is not amateur hour.
  415. Guus (we shall also be simply guessing as to what you're trying to say at that point)
  416. Kev I couldn't possibly disagree with you less.
  417. Kev MattJ: FWIW, I don't think the issue of stuff being Deferred is that people are sitting there thinking "Well, I'd like to get this into a Last Call, but I don't think I'm able to ask for that", so I'm not sure that changing Xep1 here helps in any significant way, but I also can't see why adding "Council will consider LCs when asked" should be harmful.
  418. MattJ Kev, I don't think they are actively thinking that, but I don't think it's either clear to anyone that this is what needs to happen
  419. MattJ That's the subtle difference between what you're suggesting I believe and what I actually believe
  420. Kev I think putting something into xep1 is a fairly inefficient way of getting it into the collective consciousness. Xep1 is great as a 'how do I' but otherwise I don't think people usually memorise it.
  421. MattJ Yes, I definitely agree with that - but as I said, it's a start
  422. MattJ If we agree that this is what the process looks like, let's make sure it's documented in XEP-0001
  423. Kev I think a more effective start might just be mailing standards@ saying "Anything that should be LCd?".
  424. MattJ and then we can move onto the collective consciousness
  425. daniel has joined
  426. MattJ Yes, that is sensible too
  427. mtavares has joined
  428. Kev It might be highly informative to ask Authors of Experimental or Deferred XEPs what they think is preventing advancement at the moment.
  429. Half-ShotX has left
  430. Guus I wonder if many XEPs slide off to "deferred" as a consequence of us being 'done discussing' without an explicit "ok, let's advance it" comment.
  431. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  432. !xsf_Martin has joined
  433. Guus I like Kev's idea of a poll of sorts.
  434. Ge0rG Kev [14:07]: > It might be highly informative to ask Authors of Experimental or Deferred XEPs what they think is preventing advancement at the moment. Is that kind of a Last Call?
  435. MattJ Heh
  436. j.r has joined
  437. Ge0rG XEP-0379 is largely ready, except for the boilerplate, but it seems nobody cares enough.
  438. Kev Ge0rG: An anti-LC, yes.
  439. Guus would it be helpful to have an (automated) "so, what's next for this XEP?" question go out to an auther/memberlist X days after a state change?
  440. Ge0rG Kev: anti as in anticipation?
  441. efrit has left
  442. Ge0rG Guus: yes. I propose after six months of no activity
  443. Ge0rG Or maybe 3 months, because we want to accelerate
  444. Guus (not counting for editorial activity 😉 )
  445. Guus (not counting editorial activity? 😉 )
  446. Ge0rG Guus: heh!
  447. efrit has joined
  448. Zash has left
  449. APach has left
  450. Half-ShotX has left
  451. Half-ShotX has left
  452. Half-ShotX has left
  453. Half-ShotX has joined
  454. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  455. Half-ShotX has left
  456. Half-ShotX has joined
  457. mtavares has left
  458. mtavares has joined
  459. Half-ShotX has left
  460. dwd It might actually be useful to have something like the Tao Of The XSF. An explanatory guide to the workings of the XSF which is a companion to XEP-0001, rather than trying to formally codify everything.
  461. Half-ShotX has left
  462. MattJ +1
  463. Half-ShotX has left
  464. Half-ShotX has left
  465. Half-ShotX has joined
  466. Kev We have The Tao of XMPP, don't we?
  467. Kev Or does it not fit in there?
  468. dwd I made https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/733, but I now realise I can't set the "Needs Council" label on it.
  469. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  470. dwd Help me, jonas’ - you're my only hope.
  471. Kev Not strictly true.
  472. Kev Or, maybe true outside the context of this desire.
  473. dwd :-)
  474. j.r has joined
  475. tux has joined
  476. Ge0rG has joined
  477. Half-ShotX has left
  478. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  479. thorsten has left
  480. intosi has left
  481. intosi has joined
  482. Half-ShotX has joined
  483. pep. When is the summit dinner thing happening again? Is it Thursday or Friday or none of the above?
  484. Guus Thursday
  485. thorsten has joined
  486. pep. Also dinner means evening right? I know quite a few English people using it to say lunch
  487. Ge0rG The one time I attended Summit dinner, it was in the evening
  488. MattJ :)
  489. Guus Yes, evening
  490. Guus During the day, we lunch at Cisco
  491. oli has joined
  492. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  493. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  494. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  495. marc_ has joined
  496. Half-ShotX has left
  497. Half-ShotX has joined
  498. Half-ShotX has left
  499. j.r has joined
  500. neshtaxmpp has left
  501. neshtaxmpp has left
  502. ThibG has joined
  503. ThibG has joined
  504. Yagiza has left
  505. !xsf_Martin has joined
  506. moparisthebest has left
  507. Half-ShotX has joined
  508. andy has left
  509. steven has left
  510. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  511. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  512. Half-ShotX has left
  513. Half-ShotX has joined
  514. Half-ShotX has left
  515. Half-ShotX has joined
  516. jonas’ dwd, hm, I’m not sure I’m fond of xsf/xeps being used as tracker for council
  517. jonas’ although one could argue that this issue is very close to a PR
  518. dwd I understand your concern, but think of it this way - once voted on, the issue is for the Editors to act upon.
  519. jonas’ true
  520. Guus dwd, wanna reclaim your throne at IRF? 🙂
  521. Guus (chat now)
  522. Guus or meet, rather
  523. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  524. neshtaxmpp has joined
  525. oli has joined
  526. Kev jonas’: I think it's requesting a change to the XEPs.
  527. Kev (Just one that Council must first approve)
  528. Kev So it doesn't seem desperately inappropriate, to me.
  529. jonas’ I agree
  530. Half-ShotX has left
  531. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  532. alexis has joined
  533. lumi has joined
  534. labdsf has left
  535. labdsf has joined
  536. krauq has joined
  537. alexis has left
  538. alexis has joined
  539. alexis has left
  540. alexis has joined
  541. krauq has joined
  542. Half-ShotX has joined
  543. Holger has left
  544. efrit has left
  545. efrit has joined
  546. alacer has joined
  547. Half-ShotX has left
  548. Half-ShotX has joined
  549. Ann has joined
  550. lovetox has joined
  551. Ann has left
  552. Half-ShotX has left
  553. Half-ShotX has joined
  554. Half-ShotX has left
  555. Half-ShotX has joined
  556. oli has joined
  557. Ann has joined
  558. nyco has left
  559. nyco has joined
  560. peter has joined
  561. j.r has joined
  562. thorsten has left
  563. lumi has left
  564. Zash has left
  565. lumi has joined
  566. alacer has left
  567. thorsten has joined
  568. ralphm has joined
  569. alexis has joined
  570. daniel has left
  571. daniel has joined
  572. Half-ShotX has left
  573. alexis has joined
  574. Guus has joined
  575. Guus has joined
  576. Guus has joined
  577. Half-ShotX has joined
  578. j.r has joined
  579. alexis has left
  580. alexis has joined
  581. sezuan has left
  582. Nekit has left
  583. Nekit has joined
  584. Half-ShotX has left
  585. alacer has joined
  586. alexis has left
  587. alexis has joined
  588. krauq has joined
  589. krauq has joined
  590. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  591. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  592. Half-ShotX has joined
  593. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  594. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  595. alacer has left
  596. alacer has joined
  597. alexis has joined
  598. lnj has joined
  599. alexis has left
  600. alexis has joined
  601. ThibG has joined
  602. alacer has left
  603. alacer has joined
  604. oli has left
  605. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  606. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  607. jonas’ MattJ, from XEP-0335: > The <json> element MUST only contain character data, and the data MUST conform to RFC 4627 [3]. Specifically, the element MUST NOT be empty, as the empty string is not valid JSON. The data MUST be encoded as UTF-8 (though officially unspecified, this is the de facto encoding for JSON today).
  608. jonas’ this wording does not make sense
  609. jonas’ XML character data is a sequence of codepoints
  610. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  611. jonas’ you can’t put UTF-8 into a sequence of codepoints in a way which makes sense
  612. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  613. MattJ Spoken like a true Python developer :)
  614. jonas’ don’t make me say unfriendly things ;-)
  615. MattJ I think you have a slight technical argument, but I don't know if just dropping this text is the right thing to do
  616. MattJ Given that there is no standard encoding for JSON, and XMPP is defined as always UTF-8
  617. rion has left
  618. oli has left
  619. MattJ It seems like something that ought to be highlighted
  620. jonas’ no
  621. jonas’ the XML library will give you the character data in whatever encoding is convenient for your language
  622. MattJ XMPP is defined as always UTF-8
  623. Kev You're both correct.
  624. MattJ and this XEP concerns XMPP, not your language
  625. peter Unicode codepoints need to be encoded somehow. I can write [U+13DA] [U+13A2] [U+13B5] [U+13CB] [U+13A2] [U+13CB] [U+13D2] on a piece of paper and those are Unicode codepoints, but that's not helpful to a computer.
  626. jonas’ MattJ, what happens on the byte level is irrelevant to the XEP
  627. Ge0rG Hi peter! I have a task for you!
  628. MattJ Ge0rG, unfair!
  629. Guus has left
  630. Kev You'll get it in some arbitrary encoding depending how unhelpful your language/libs are. But what is written on the wire is UTF-8 encoded.
  631. Ge0rG > what happens on the byte level, stays on the byte level
  632. jonas’ Kev, exactly
  633. jonas’ and that’s why it doesn’t make sense to specify what encoding the JSON data inside the <json/> is in.
  634. Kev And the XEP is saying (as I read it) that when you serialise these data, you must serialise them as UTF-8. I don't see a problem with that.
  635. jonas’ it is not at all encdoed, on a logical level, between the JSON output and the input to the XML library
  636. Ge0rG it's UTF-8 *below* XMPP, and _implementation defined_ *above* XMPP.
  637. Kev It's just being consistent with XMPP.
  638. jonas’ Kev, then it should simply omitted
  639. Kev Also, Hi Peter.
  640. jonas’ to avoid confusion
  641. MattJ jonas’, what confusion could arise?
  642. jonas’ and to avoid people in laguages which make that type of mistake easy double-UTF-8-encoding the data.
  643. Kev jonas’: If we ommitted all the bits from specs that people /should/ realise, we'll end up in a terrible terrible place :)
  644. Kev jonas’: If we omitted all the bits from specs that people /should/ realise, we'll end up in a terrible terrible place :)
  645. efrit has left
  646. oli has left
  647. jonas’ info which would be *useful* to implementors would be: > The <json> element MUST only contain character data, and the data MUST conform to RFC 4627 [3]. Specifically, the element MUST NOT be empty, as the empty string is not valid JSON. Implementations should take care to ensure that the JSON encoder and the XML library use the same character encoding on the interface between them.
  648. jonas’ info which would be *useful* to implementors would be: > The <json> element MUST only contain character data, and the data MUST conform to RFC 4627 [3]. Specifically, the element MUST NOT be empty, as the empty string is not valid JSON. Implementations must ensure that the JSON encoder and the XML library use the same character encoding on the interface between them.
  649. jonas’ (intentional lower-case "must" since it doesn’t happen on the wire)
  650. Kev That text seems less helpful to me.
  651. jonas’ I could be using an XML library which uses arrays of 4-byte integers to represent the character data. putting UTF-8 encoded JSON in there will not work.
  652. jonas’ (or I could be in JavaScript, where all strings are UTF-16, the worst of all worlds)
  653. Kev Nor does the XEP suggest it should.
  654. Kev Just that what's written on the wire is UTF-8.
  655. jonas’ no, I don’t read it that way
  656. jonas’ it is talking about character and JSON data all the time
  657. jonas’ that’s definitely above the XML layer
  658. jonas’ (read: after the UTF-8 from the wire has been decoded into a representation of unicode codepoints chosen by the library)
  659. Ge0rG That XEP is missing the most obvious example of `{"evil":"</json>"}`
  660. Ge0rG I agree with jonas’' reading here. The XEP requires that you put the JSON library output UTF-8 bytestring into the character stream of the XMPP library input.
  661. jonas’ which is either resulting in a TypeError (Python3, maybe others), or double-encoded garbage. which will only be noticed once you leave the ASCII range.
  662. Kev AFAICs, this text stops you doing something stupid like encoding UTF-16 JSON into UTF-8 XML character entities, and then the receiver trying to decode the JSON as UTF-8.
  663. MattJ Ge0rG, I don't think it's saying that at all
  664. jonas’ Kev, what are UTF-8 XML character entities?
  665. jonas’ the XEP should not be telling me how to use my XML library.
  666. Kev I mean byte encodings :p
  667. MattJ and I disagree that it's doing any such thing
  668. Ge0rG MattJ: > The <json> element MUST only contain character data [...]. The data MUST be encoded as UTF-8
  669. MattJ Ge0rG, where does it say "that you pass to your XML library"?
  670. Ge0rG MattJ: in the first part I quoted.
  671. jonas’ MattJ, if this is not about what is passed to the XML library, the sentence is at the wrong place, and confusing (as you can tell by our two readings)
  672. peter wanders off for 3 hours of video meetings, bbl
  673. ralphm Well, since I was co-responsible for the creation of the XEP, it should be like this in Python 3: the `str` serialization of JSON should be used as the XML text node contents.
  674. Ge0rG peter: awwww....
  675. jonas’ (the right place is RFC 6120, where it’s already written down)
  676. jonas’ ralphm, that’s "obvious", but I don’t think that’s the only valid (and likely) interpretation of the text.
  677. ralphm So yes, it is about unicode code points vs. UTF-8, and only a handfull of people really understand the difference
  678. jonas’ we should really link https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/10/08/the-absolute-minimum-every-software-developer-absolutely-positively-must-know-about-unicode-and-character-sets-no-excuses/ from all the XEPs.
  679. Ge0rG ralphm: right. And making incorrect claims in the XEP won't improve that.
  680. ralphm I await the PR
  681. Ge0rG I suggest adding an implementation note box saying that JSON libraries typically work with UTF-8, which also happens to be the encoding _underlying_ XMPP
  682. Kev jonas’: Weren't you arguing that stuff people should realise shouldn't be included in XEPs?
  683. jonas’ Kev, no, that’s not what I was trying to say
  684. jonas’ what I was trying to say is that XEPs operate on top of RFC 6120 XMPP (unless they modify core behaviour, like XEP-0138, or something like that). Thus, we’re dealing with the application side of XML. Thus, the encoding of the data *on the wire* is 100% irrelevant to what the XEPs are doing.
  685. jonas’ we could change RFC 6120 to mandate UTF-16 with surrogates and it should not change the wording of a XEP which operates on a high level such as XEP-0335
  686. ralphm If you want to be really pedantic, you should also say that we're talking about the XML line protocol with TCP binding for XMPP.
  687. jonas’ because the XML library has already taken care of converting the encoding from the wire to whatever is useful in the language
  688. Ann has left
  689. jonas’ Kev, just like you wouldn’t be saying that you have to escape < to &lt;. It’s implied in "you’re using XML, and you’re putting something into XML character data".
  690. ThibG has joined
  691. Ge0rG jonas’: > That XEP is missing the most obvious example of `{"evil":"</json>"}`
  692. Kev Oh, but I might say something like that (although not that specific example, obviously), if we were talking about delivering XML payloads inside XMPP.
  693. Ge0rG if you don't bring that example, people will string-concatenate the JSON to the XML.
  694. Kev Which is a thing that happens and catches people out
  695. ralphm So let's go with making sure that once serialized into UTF-8, the application programmer should make sure it is correctly decoded into the in-memory text format that should be the import of its XML library's text nodes.
  696. vanitasvitae has left
  697. jonas’ Kev, you could do that by saying "encode the XML payload to text and put that text into a XML text node"
  698. j.r has joined
  699. Ge0rG ralphm: which is a convoluted way to say what jonas’ suggested as the alternative wording ;)
  700. ralphm Ge0rG: you can't prevent people from doing string-concatenation anyway.
  701. jonas’ the library will do all the escaping needed to transport text.
  702. pep. ralphm, no but that example can raise some awareness
  703. Ge0rG pep.: 👍
  704. Kev "the library" - I think you're assuming particular implementations.
  705. jonas’ ralphm, I suggested to modify the paragraph to: > The <json> element MUST only contain character data, and the data MUST conform to RFC 4627 [3]. Specifically, the element MUST NOT be empty, as the empty string is not valid JSON. Implementations must ensure that the JSON encoder and the XML library use the same character encoding on the interface between them.
  706. ralphm also ]]>
  707. Ge0rG Kev: aren't you assuming particular implementations if you imply that the XMPP parser will emit UTF-8 for the element content?
  708. jonas’ Kev, no, that ("XML character data is an array of codepoints") XML Standard behaviour.
  709. Kev And also, there's nothing wrong with string concatenation.
  710. Kev jonas’: Yes. You're assuming that XMPP data is coming out of an XML library. No reason it needs to be (and it often isn't).
  711. Ge0rG Kev: string concatenation of structured data is what gets my dinner paid.
  712. jonas’ Kev, no, I am assuming XMPP operates on top of XML
  713. jonas’ and I sure hope that assumption is not wrong.
  714. Ge0rG jonas’: luckily, you only need to convince one Council member ;)
  715. Kev What does 'on top of XML' mean?
  716. Ge0rG that XMPP is a higher-level abstraction, and its underlying abstraction is a stream of XML
  717. Kev You said about 'the library' doing things for you, I'm just pointing out that there need be no 'XML libraries' involved in serialising XMPP.
  718. jonas’ Kev, I grant you that
  719. jonas’ aioxmpp itself isn’t using any XML library to serialise it
  720. jonas’ so let me reword things
  721. jonas’ > The <json> element MUST only contain character data, and the data MUST conform to RFC 4627 [3]. Specifically, the element MUST NOT be empty, as the empty string is not valid JSON. Implementations must ensure that the JSON data is encoded in a format suitable for transporting character data with the underlying XML implementation.
  722. Ge0rG > Specifically, the element MUST NOT be empty What about a string containing only whitespace?
  723. Ann has joined
  724. pep. Ge0rG, in json? that would be " "?
  725. jonas’ Ge0rG, one thing at a time, maybe?
  726. Ge0rG jonas’: I liked your first suggestion better.
  727. jonas’ I could also use the first suggestion and s/library/implementation/
  728. MattJ Personally I think I'd rather just drop it
  729. jonas’ MattJ, I’d be fine with that, too
  730. Ge0rG pep.: no, I don't mean a JSON string containing only whitespace, I mean something like `<json> </json>`
  731. Ge0rG jonas’: +1 for "implementation"
  732. winfried has joined
  733. Ann has left
  734. !xsf_Martin has joined
  735. oli has left
  736. Nekit has left
  737. Nekit has joined
  738. oli has left
  739. dwd I find that last sentence about implementations and encodings more confusing than it's worth.
  740. peter I might also suggest reading https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6365 on these topics
  741. ralphm Ah yes
  742. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  743. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  744. ralphm has left
  745. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  746. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  747. Half-ShotX has left
  748. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  749. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  750. dwd Why not: The <json/> element MUST only contain character data, and the data MUST conform to JSON text as defined by RFC 4627.
  751. dwd (JSON text is defined in terms of codepoints via ABNF, and is thus prior to the encoding defined in §3 of RFC 4627)
  752. jonas’ dwd, that sounds very useful
  753. lumi has joined
  754. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  755. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  756. Half-ShotX has joined
  757. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  758. ta has joined
  759. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  760. Zash has left
  761. alexis has left
  762. alexis has joined
  763. steven has left
  764. peter https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259 is the most up-to-date JSON RFC
  765. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  766. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  767. dwd has left
  768. ThibG has left
  769. ThibG has joined
  770. labdsf has left
  771. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  772. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  773. ThibG has left
  774. ThibG has joined
  775. oli has left
  776. rion has joined
  777. j.r has joined
  778. mrDoctorWho has joined
  779. alexis has left
  780. alexis has joined
  781. Maranda has joined
  782. ta has left
  783. ühoreg has joined
  784. Half-Shot has joined
  785. benpa has joined
  786. Matthew has joined
  787. efrit has joined
  788. ThibG has left
  789. Half-ShotX has left
  790. thorsten has left
  791. thorsten has joined
  792. labdsf has joined
  793. ThibG has joined
  794. alexis has left
  795. alexis has joined
  796. tux has joined
  797. marc_ has left
  798. Steve Kille has left
  799. Steve Kille has left
  800. labdsf has left
  801. sezuan has left
  802. wheatleylaboratories has joined
  803. wheatleylaboratories has left
  804. frainz has left
  805. Half-ShotX has left
  806. Half-ShotX has left
  807. steven has left
  808. steven has left
  809. Yagiza has joined
  810. Half-ShotX has left
  811. efrit has left
  812. alacer has left
  813. Steve Kille has joined
  814. mtavares has left
  815. mtavares has joined
  816. daniel has left
  817. labdsf has joined
  818. efrit has joined
  819. daniel has joined
  820. Ge0rG has left
  821. labdsf has left
  822. labdsf has joined
  823. Maranda has joined
  824. lumi has left
  825. alexis has left
  826. alexis has joined
  827. moparisthebest has joined
  828. rion has left
  829. efrit has left
  830. alexis has joined
  831. jcbrand has joined
  832. jcbrand has left
  833. labdsf has left
  834. labdsf has joined
  835. rion has left
  836. ThibG has left
  837. ThibG has joined
  838. dwd has left
  839. steven has left
  840. mimi89999 has left
  841. frainz has joined
  842. APach has left
  843. steven has left
  844. rion has left
  845. alexis has left
  846. alexis has joined
  847. tux has joined
  848. tux has joined
  849. rion has left
  850. rion has left
  851. Guus has left
  852. alexis has joined
  853. tux has left
  854. tux has joined
  855. benpa has joined
  856. ühoreg has joined
  857. Half-Shot has joined
  858. _purple_bot has joined
  859. Matthew has joined
  860. alexis has joined
  861. sezuan has left
  862. oli has joined
  863. frainz has left
  864. alexis has joined
  865. oli has left
  866. oli is anyone using that json stuff?
  867. oli within xmpp i mean
  868. peter I've been hearing a lot about JSON recently. ;-)
  869. alexis has joined
  870. steven has left
  871. Ge0rG The J in JSON is for Jabber!
  872. steven has left
  873. Ge0rG Or was it the other way around?
  874. Ge0rG Like the X in Matrix is for XMPP
  875. alexis has left
  876. peter Ge0rG: What was the topic you wanted to discuss earlier?
  877. alexis has joined
  878. labdsf has left
  879. Ge0rG Monolithic Awfully Trendy Re-Implementation of XMPP
  880. peter ah
  881. Ge0rG peter: I've asked for a trademark permit some time ago
  882. peter I haven't followed that project and don't know much about it.
  883. peter Ge0rG: I sent you an email reply about that perhaps an hour ago. :-)
  884. oli i've got a notification from yxim, because the is an oli in monolithic
  885. Ge0rG peter: only to later realize that you need the 500$ license for an organization, regardless of the legal form.
  886. Ge0rG peter: oh cool, haven't checked yet, will do
  887. peter Ge0rG: OK good.
  888. sezuan has left
  889. peter And yes, best to avoid the organization route if possible. I don't see that it's necessary in this case.
  890. peter Ralph and Guus pinged me about on our video chat earlier.
  891. Half-ShotX has left
  892. peter Anyway, see email for details.
  893. Ge0rG peter: SPAM is a backronym for Spam Prevention and Abuse Management, which is a rather ironic thing and I liked it very much for that reason
  894. Link Mauve I haven’t read the 1644 lines of backlog yet (sorry!), but I’ve been wondering whether we should buy a Jabber license for JabberFR too; $500 is way too expensive for us, but we’ve been running the service since approximately 2003 (at least that’s as far the wayback machine takes us).
  895. Ge0rG peter: it's a group of projects related to spam fighting, so an organization seemed most appropriate, but I'm not fixed to that
  896. peter Ge0rG: Just trying to make it simpler for you. :-)
  897. peter Link Mauve: not necessary - domains do not require a license, that's fair use.
  898. labdsf has joined
  899. peter https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/usage-guidelines
  900. Link Mauve We’re not only using it for the domain, it’s the entire name of the association (French law 1901).
  901. Ge0rG peter: sometimes I'm deliberately not going the most simple route. Unless by simpler you implied cheaper... 😉
  902. peter I realize those pages are written in a somewhat confusing way. We "borrowed" all of that from the Linux Foundation many many years ago.
  903. peter Link Mauve: ah, interesting, I didn't realize that.
  904. rion has left
  905. Ge0rG peter: so in the end the decision about trademark use is up to Board?
  906. peter yes
  907. peter I just know a lot about the trademark. They make the decisions. :-)
  908. peter Time for my next video conference, bbiab.
  909. Ge0rG peter: good luck!
  910. oli has left
  911. oli just don't use jabber, this trademark sucks
  912. Ge0rG But the name is much better than "ex MP pee", and I can't afford to sponsor a re-branding for the whole thing.
  913. Half-ShotX has left
  914. oli may we ask the board to drop the trademark?
  915. oli or the licensing fee?
  916. lovetox has left
  917. Half-ShotX has left
  918. Ge0rG oli: the Trademark belongs to Cisco, after they bought Jabber Inc, a very long time ago. The XSF merely has a right to sub-license it. Please read up the Trademark pages on xmpp.org
  919. oli ah okay, i missed the cisco part
  920. oli so jabber is owned by evil corp
  921. oli too bad
  922. Ge0rG oli: it's complicated™
  923. nyco has left
  924. alexis has left
  925. lovetox has joined
  926. Guus What a bundle of joy here. 😀
  927. alexis has joined
  928. Guus Ge0rG: even though the decision lies with board, Peter has by far most experience here. Board is likely to pay close attention to his recommendations.
  929. Ge0rG Guus: I wouldn't have expected anything less
  930. Half-ShotX has left
  931. Ge0rG But I don't know yet how to turn "don't make your org an org" into something actionable
  932. Ge0rG Guus: do I need to do something or is Board in a position to move things forward now?
  933. Half-ShotX has left
  934. Half-ShotX has left
  935. frainz has joined
  936. Nekit has joined
  937. jonas’ where does the information with the $500 come from?
  938. Guus Ge0rG: as an organisation? I'm unsure if it can be avoided to charge you then.
  939. !xsf_Martin has left
  940. jonas’ because I cannot find it on https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/usage-guidelines
  941. Guus jonas’: website. That lists the trademark licence process
  942. Guus https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/trademark-license-agreement.html
  943. genofire has left
  944. Guus I believe that there's more, but I'm tired and on mobile
  945. jonas’ I am confused
  946. Ge0rG Guus: if changing my application type from organization to ??? will allow me to subvert the license payment, this brings up some uncomfortable questions.
  947. Ge0rG jonas’: checked the quote on trello already?
  948. jonas’ what is the difference between use in a software name under the GPL (§2.1 in https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/usage-guidelines ) and in an non-profit org name (§2.2 same document)?
  949. jonas’ no
  950. Ge0rG jonas’: ah, you found it
  951. jonas’ I see, where is that quote from?
  952. jonas’ (this one: > There is no fee required for software and other products licensed under an OSI approved open source license. Otherwise, the fee is $250.00 for use of the mark in connection with Jabber accessories or any use other than software or computer hardware, and a $500.00 one-time fee for use in connection with software or computer hardware or any other type of computer or Internet use of the Jabber mark. )
  953. jonas’ (this one: > There is no fee required for software and other products licensed under an OSI approved open source license. Otherwise, the fee is $250.00 for use of the mark in connection with Jabber accessories or any use other than software or computer hardware, and a $500.00 one-time fee for use in connection with software or computer hardware or any other type of computer or Internet use of the Jabber mark. )
  954. jonas’ ah, from "what’s required"
  955. Ge0rG https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/whats-required.html
  956. Guus I'm tuning out for tonight guys. My mind is blank at the moment.
  957. Yagiza has left
  958. tux has joined
  959. Ge0rG Guus: have a pleasant night!
  960. Ge0rG jonas’: so I can circumvent the license by making JabberSPAM an OSI licensed project, but I don't know how to map that to a github org
  961. Ge0rG jonas’: so I can circumvent the license *fee* by making JabberSPAM an OSI licensed project, but I don't know how to map that to a github org
  962. jonas’ jabbercat also has an github org
  963. frainz has left
  964. Half-ShotX has left
  965. oli first search result for jabberspam is: https://github.com/dorosch/jabber-spam-bot
  966. mightyBroccoli has left
  967. oli so you can be an organisation with an open source product called jabberspam without paying any licensing fee? is that correct?
  968. Half-ShotX has left
  969. Ge0rG oli: I'm as baffled as you are. I hope the Board will clarify that next Thursday
  970. frainz has joined
  971. alexis has left
  972. alexis has joined
  973. Zash has left
  974. Zash has left
  975. alexis has joined
  976. Half-ShotX has left
  977. lumi has joined
  978. neshtaxmpp has left
  979. neshtaxmpp has left
  980. moparisthebest has joined
  981. edhelas has left
  982. neshtaxmpp has left
  983. neshtaxmpp has left
  984. edhelas has joined
  985. peter has joined
  986. Half-ShotX has left
  987. Half-ShotX has left
  988. Zash has left
  989. rion has left
  990. peter has left
  991. jjrh has left
  992. alexis has left
  993. jjrh has left
  994. alexis has joined
  995. mtavares has left
  996. thorsten has left
  997. thorsten has joined
  998. goffi has joined
  999. oli has left
  1000. MattJ has joined
  1001. Half-ShotX has left
  1002. Syndace has joined
  1003. Syndace So, how is the "gather experience with full-stanza-encryption for OMEMO using OX" going?
  1004. Syndace also, what sort of thing do expect to learn through experience?
  1005. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  1006. frainz has left
  1007. mightyBroccoli has joined
  1008. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  1009. Neustradamus has left
  1010. lorddavidiii has left
  1011. tux has joined
  1012. sezuan has left
  1013. pep. Gajim is already implementing it right, I haven't had a look yet at what it puts inside
  1014. pep. And how it deals with merges
  1015. alexis has left
  1016. alexis has joined
  1017. genofire has left
  1018. genofire has joined
  1019. frainz has joined
  1020. alexis has joined
  1021. frainz has left
  1022. lovetox has left
  1023. Half-ShotX has left
  1024. ThibG has left