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


  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’


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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’


  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’


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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’


  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


  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