Just saying vanitasvitae is right. Language was not the main reason for banning, but you might have noticed that already.
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
danielhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
ThibGhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
alexishas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
tahas left
Nekithas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
Yagizahas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
sezuanhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
olihas joined
vaulorhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
sezuanhas left
Tobiashas joined
alexishas left
Annhas left
Annhas joined
Annhas left
Annhas joined
alexishas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
Annhas left
alexishas left
olihas joined
olihas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
alexishas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
tahas left
sezuanhas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
Yagizahas left
labdsfhas left
Guushas left
Tobiashas joined
Guushas left
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
goffihas joined
Guushas left
efrithas joined
andyhas joined
andyhas left
andyhas joined
vaulorhas left
Sevehas left
Guushas left
Sevehas joined
Tobiashas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
rionhas joined
vaulorhas joined
efrithas left
alacerhas joined
thorstenhas left
thorstenhas joined
olihas joined
alacerhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
olihas left
olihas joined
labdsfhas joined
olihas joined
olihas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
remkohas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
Steve Killehas left
rionhas left
rionhas left
Steve Killehas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
dwd
jonas’, Thought - given Last Call has three outcomes (back to Experimental, Reject, or Draft), should we explicitly ask people in the (now traditional) Last Call questions which should happen?
Ge0rG
dwd: that would be great.
pep.
I think that's a good idea
lhas joined
lhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
ThibGhas joined
ThibGhas joined
jonas’
dwd, seems smart
jonas’
dwd, PR welcome, the template is in xsf/xeps:tools/send-updates.py
MattJ: I wanted to group by author on https://matthewwild.co.uk/uploads/xepql/
MattJ
or was that a joke? I didn't read the backlog :)
MattJ
Right, author. I haven't done that yet because I wasn't sure how to represent it - a XEP can have multiple authors
MattJ
so either I condense it into a string or make a second table
MattJ
s/I/you/
Ge0rG
there are also authors who are also XML entities, like &dcridland;
lnjhas left
MattJ
Oh, also authors aren't in xeplist.xml
dwd
I am not an XML Entity, I am a free man!
dwd
MattJ, Second table, BTW. Otherwise you'll need to decide whether XEP-0001 gets sorted as PSA or me, for instance.
MattJ
Right
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphm
I'm surprised that there are authors who aren't entities.
dwd
It used to be an automatic thing that you were put as an entity on your first XEP being adopted.
dwd
Mostly so that if you changed affiliation/address, it got changed for all your XEPs.
dwd
(Reminds me, I should PR my new contact details)
Ge0rGhas left
pep.
"dwd> It used to be an automatic thing that you were put as an entity on your first XEP being adopted.", some kind of elevation? :)
dwd
pep., Purely a management thing by PSA, I think.
dwd
pep., Although I like the idea of PSA, as constitutional monarch, creating someone an XML entity, like being created a peer of the realm.
pep.
(I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(emotion) :P)
pep.
heh
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
Zashhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Zashhas left
ralphmhas joined
intosihas joined
ralphm
dwd: but taking you as an example, XEPS 0399, 0400, and 0402 don't use your XML entity.
ralphm
(also several specs in the inbox)
ralphm
so at least we're not doing this consistently
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rG
dwd: should the order of authors be represented as well?
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
dwd
ralphm, That's probably not good.
ralphm
surely not good, I'd say
ralphm
It would probably be very useful to replace all <author/> blocks with entities.
ralphm
And have a pass at each author's details. Many of them have moved companies, etc.
ralphm
(cue patches welcome)
jonas’
ralphm, file an issue, it is on my editor todo in my head anyways
ralphm
jonas’: I will!
Guus
(file a pr while you're at it *badumtissh*
ThibGhas left
ThibGhas joined
Zashhas left
danielhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphm
Guus: too late, I already suggested that
Guus
you only cue'd it. I see us as a well oiled machine: you line 'm up, I finish 'm.
Guus
also, let's argue more about this!
Guusshall stop procrastinating now.
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
lumihas joined
lnjhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
ralphm
:-D
frainzhas joined
genofirehas left
danielhas joined
alexishas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Zashhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
intosihas left
intosihas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
!xsf_Martinhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
jjrhhas left
Tobiashas joined
Tobiashas joined
labdsfhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
labdsfhas joined
Zashhas left
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
frainzhas left
frainzhas joined
alacerhas joined
efrithas joined
thorstenhas left
thorstenhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
alacerhas left
efrithas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
alacerhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
pep.has left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
labdsfhas left
labdsfhas joined
Ge0rG
What's the ETA to Board Meeting?
Guus
12 minutes from now.
Ge0rG
Thanks.
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
APachhas left
Steve Killehas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Guus
which is now.
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rG
Wow.
nyco
Boom
Guus
ralphm / nyco / MattJ ?
Guus
Seve
nyco
for whom the gavel bangs
Guus
I got scared by that boom 🙂
ralphm
here
nyco
ah, too loud, sorry
ralphmbangs gavel
ralphm
0. Welcome + Agenda
MattJ
Here
ralphm
I'm in a video conference, too, but I'll try to manage.
nyco
is it an open standards, at least?
Guus
good luck 🙂
ralphm
nyco: bluejeans :-(
nyco
I'm in a Trello board, too, but I'll try to manage 😉 https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings
ralphm
Seve?
ralphm
1. Minutes
Seve
Here
ralphm
Who can take notes and issue minutes?
ralphm
dwd maybe?
Guus
phonecall, afk
ralphm
This is proving to be a problem. I think we should explicitly ask for volunteers on the members list.
ralphm
I'll send an e-mail about this.
MattJ
+1
jonas’
I happen to be here for a change, so I can do it
MattJ
Sorry, I really can't offer right now
ralphm
jonas’: thanks, sir!
Guus
(back)
MattJ
Thanks jonas’!
ralphm
2. GSoC
ralphm
Are there any updates on this?
Guus
flow might have more, but
flow
Working on the application and preparing a blog post, ETA 1-2days
Guus
our application was registered, at least flow and myself are signed up as org admin.
MattJ
That's great news
Guus
(do we need to keep this in Board's trello?)
ralphm
flow: do we have project proposals already?
nyco
(no need for me to keep it in Board's board)
flow
ralphm, not yet, that is why I am preparing a blog post asking for projects to submit their proposal(s)
flow
(sorry, on phone, hence a I'm bit slow to respond)
Half-ShotXhas joined
ThibGhas joined
ralphm
I think it might be good to keep on the agenda to keep track of the process until submission. It might also be good to review the final application before we send it in, as we as an organization will make certain promises about things like replacing mentors if they disappear, and such.
ralphm
flow: ok thanks.
ralphm
3. Summit / FOSDEM
ralphm
People are signing up for hotels.
ralphm
We will issue the form for Dinner soon.
ralphm
Make sure to select the Dame Blanche, of course.
Sevesmiles
Guus
:rolleyes:
nyco
(note: I might not be able to join this year, my kid's broken leg...)
Guus
nyco 😞
ralphm
Guus and I also happened to have a bit of a chat (after talking to Peter, later in this meeting) on what to do with hoodies/t-shirts, etc.
Half-ShotXhas left
ralphm
Still some more discussion to make a final call on this, but we're thinking of issuing a new batch of hoodies like last time, and possibly Summit-specific t-shirts. Ideas welcome in the summit MUC room.
ralphm
nyco: nooooh!
Guus
The FOSDEM stand space still concerns me. We have not been allotted a lot of space this year.
pep.
:o
ralphm
Yes, this will be a challenge, but we'll manage I'm sure. I've requested the organization if it would be possible to have the vending machines removed.
nyco
please, no VLC! I love them, they are friends... but... too loud, too much presences, we are hidden...
jonas’
(summit MUC = xmpp:summit@muc.xmpp.org?join I assume?)
ralphm
Also for contact details of the people next to us, so we can send them some info on what we plan to do.
ralphm
jonas’: yes
Seve
True, I completely agree
Guus
nyco they'll be at the same spot again
Guus
jonas’ yes
jonas’
I lack context
nyco
if we have more space towards the stairs, we can occupy less space close to the vending machines, allowing free/open access
jonas’
about the booth VLC thing
ralphm
nyco: the stands have already been assigned, and there's nothing we can do to change the current assignments.
ralphm
However
Guus
jonas’ the VLC crowd is very ... present. 🙂
ralphm
We will have a discussion for next year. FOSDEM has some ideas on this that are probably better discussed in person.
nyco
so we have to be creative to "exist" and be more visible
jonas’
Guus, I got that much, why does it concern us though?
ralphm
nyco: yes
Seve
jonas’, they make a great job about engaging with people and we are quite behind them, so it is hard for us to get noticed, but it is more because of where is our place
nyco
you say too much or too little 😉
Guus
let's move this discussion into the SCAM room though.
jonas’
Seve, that was the missing bit of info, thanks
nyco
right, SCAM
ralphm
ok, let's move
jonas’
SCAM MUC = ?
Guus
scam@muc.xmpp.org
nyco
scam@muc.xmpp.org
nyco
too fast!
jonas’
found it
ralphm
4. Chat with Peter
jonas’
(should use the muc search next time!)
ralphm
The chat with Peter was had!
Guus
(and enjoyable)
ralphm
We covered three topics
ralphm
(yes!)
ralphm
First the question on the Executive Director.
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphm
The idea behind this function is that usually the Board provides direction...
Peter also referred to being the 'face of the organziation' in that role
ralphm
Currently, the Board seems to do both. As such it might not make sense to actually have an ED right now.
ralphm
Indeed
nyco
or a member could be the ED
Guus
I concur with ralphm . Peter thought the same: we don't necessarily need someone in that role now.
Half-ShotXhas left
ralphm
nyco: well, the point is that Board usually appoints an ED
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphm
whoever that is
winfriedhas left
Guus
To prevent us from having to make adjustments to the bylaws, I suggest we keep the role, but agree to not currently appoint anyone.
MattJ
Can the person be a Board member?
ralphm
MattJ: I think so, *but* members have in earlier meetings expressed that this is not desirable
nyco
Guus if that's possible, then it's cool
jonas’
ralphm, why?
ralphm
If only because they will have a deciding voice.
Guus
MattJ I'm not sure if that's relevant, if there's little distinction between a board member and ED.
ralphm
(in case of a stalled vote)
jonas’
ah, I see
nyco
(guys, I'll have to leave no later than 16:00)
andyhas left
ralphm
And in the absence of a 'face', I think that role falls to the Chair. But I don't think we should make the Chair our ED.
nyco
Executive Chair
ralphm
So as long as the membership doesn't object, I'd say we leave this position vacant for now.
jonas’
(not to be confused with an execution chair)
ralphm
(haha)
jonas’
ralphm, maybe explicitly ask the membership on members@
jonas’
not everyone will read the minutes that closely
Guus
jonas 🙂
APachhas joined
ralphm
jonas’: well, people should, that's the least they can do as members
nyco
vacant ED: +1
jonas’
heh
Guus
let's vote on this next week, to give members time to pitch in.
ralphm
Ok
ralphm
The second topic was sponsorship.
MattJ
The ED has roles and responsibilities in the Bylaws, so who do these fall to?
ralphm
(and financials in general)
MattJ
Ok, we can discuss on list for the sake of time here
nyco
the Board ?
ralphm
MattJ: the Board
MattJ
ralphm, and per your answer to my previous question, what would happen in the case of a stalled vote?
ralphm
Our current financials are still pretty decent. However, no money is coming in lately
jonas’
MattJ, ask the membership?
ralphm
right
Ge0rGstill has a rather complex request on the Board agenda, and it's already over a month old.
ralphm
Also our list of sponsors I think would currently only include USSHC
ralphm
Ge0rG: dude, wait
Guus
"dude, wait longer"
ralphm
So we need to clean that up *and* ask previous sponsors if they'd like to sponsor again.
Guus
ralphm: I suggest that we don't try to hard with previous sponsers, but define a list of potentials instead.
ralphm
We also made a bit of a list of potential new sponsors. Basically entities that use XMPP as part of their business. E.g. certain gaming companies.
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
Tobiashas joined
nyco
we have to just propose, not be salesy
ralphm
So if people reading this (or the minutes) have ideas and contacts, please let me know.
Guus
We do need to think about what we can offer
nyco
all app makers on the App Stores, who use XMPP in the core of the products
jonas’
.oO(Conversations!)
Guus
how we can engage sponsors, but importantly, keep them engaged.
ralphm
The third topic was the Jabber Trademark
nyco
Guus let's start with what we have always done, and iterate next year thanks to 2019 feedback
APachhas left
ralphm
This has always been handled by Peter in his capacity as ED.
nyco
sorry, I'm out, see you, I'll read
Guus
Thanks nyco
nyco
thx all
MattJ
Thanks nyco
ralphm
He's still the most knowledgable and has had contact with Cisco Legal
ralphm
But decisions lie with the Board
ralphm
Peter has provided feedback on one current application.
ralphm
But I've not seen a reply on this from the applicant, yet.
nycohas left
Ge0rG
ralphm: there was not much *actionable* advice. It was more opinions in my reading
ralphm
I would suggest taking his opinion seriously.
Guus
there's two bits of implied advice, which we can turn into direct questions
Guus
1) is the name JabberSPAM appropriate: "The usage guidelines [0] mention that a
sublicensed name should not be "derogatory or demeaning to Jabber
technology or the Jabber Community" and should not be "misleading or
likely to cause confusion". The JabberSPAM name comes close to violating
these criteria, in my opinion."
Guus
(quoting Peter there)
ralphm
And there's also a question in there on who'll be the licensee, so sending in a response would help the Board to see how to continue.
Guus
I understand the tongue-in-cheek reference here, but I also understand Peter's point.
jonas’
shall I put this under a fresh agendum, like "5. JabberSPAM trademark application"?
ralphm
jonas’: sure
jonas’
because this seems only be partially related to the chat with Peter
Ge0rG
Guus: so now I need to either rename my project or press Board into deciding whether it violates the decency criteria?
Guus
Ge0rG a third option would perhaps be to find middle ground, and make out the license to the full name (SPAM in your entity's name is an abbrevation, right?)
Ge0rG
I'm agreeing with becoming the licensee, as opposed to a non existing legal entity.
ralphm
And having to rename your project was always a possible outcome.
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rG
Guus: yes, it stands for "Spam Prevention and Abuse Management".
Ge0rG
We already have a SCAM team in the XSF, so it's a bit ironic to not allow that
ralphm
SCAM is not in anyway affiliated with the Jabber trademark so that's not relevant.
jonas’
it’s obvious that there are different rules at play for a trademark owned by Cisco and a work team in the XSF...
ralphm
right
Half-ShotXhas joined
Ge0rG
I'd really love to hear the official Board opinion on that.
Guus
I believe that "Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management" has way less chance to trip the 'derogatory or demeaning' clause than "SPAM"
ralphm
The point is that if we don't adhere to the guidelines, Cisco might decide to take matters in their own hands. I don't think that's a desirable outcome.
Guus
exaclty that is my concern, ralphm
Guus
Ge0rG opinion on what, exactly?
Ge0rG
Guus: on whether JabberSPAM is an appropriate name or not
Guus
Ge0rG if read out of context, 'derogatory or demeaning' applies to the term "JabberSPAM"
ralphm
Ge0rG: I'd suggest you then write a reply to the e-mail Peter sent and then we can pick it up from there. I think it would be good to have a single e-mail with, for example, you explaining what the full name of the project is and answer the question about the licensee.
ralphm
We can then pick it up next week.
Ge0rG
ralphm: alright, I can do that.
ralphm
Ge0rG: cool!
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rG+1Ws
Guus
The second advice of Peter was to approach this as a person, not organization
Guus
as that'll most likely prevent a requirement to pay a fee.
ralphm
6. Typos in Deferred
ralphm
I think we're still waiting for a PR on this.
Guus
who's going to create the PR?
Guus
jonas’ ?
Guus
(we'll wait for a long time if we're all waiting on eachoter)✎
jonas’
.
Ge0rG
Guus: "most likely" is rather vague as well.
Guus
(we'll wait for a long time if we're all waiting on eachother) ✏
ralphm
Guus wrote on the card: In today's board meeting, Board agrees wiath Jonas' suggested change, and ask the Editor to draft a proposal for the change in XEP-0001.
ralphm
So I guess we're waiting for jonas’
jonas’
I forgot about that, sorry
Guus
As did I.
ralphm
7. Last Calls on Experimental XEPS
ralphm
I think this coincides with the current discussion on standards@ ?
ralphm
MattJ filed this card
jonas’
ralphm, not current
jonas’
it was a few days ago actually
ralphm
jonas’: I wrote four e-mails in a thread on Deferred XEPs
jonas’
that’s not the origin though
Guus
ralphm, this seems to be different
ralphm
I'm preparing a PR on the ability to move Deferred XEPs to Proposed.
jonas’
that’s not the issue
ralphm
Ok
ralphm
But it is connected
jonas’
the question from Matt was that there is no clear instruction for an Author how to get their XEP into LC
MattJ
The card description should be self-explanatory, but it boils down to "The expected process for a XEP to move from Experimental to Proposed is not explicitly documented"
jjrhhas left
jonas’
from Experimental
ralphm
In the sense that we don't have a way currently to mark XEPs as undeferred after 12 months without a change.
jonas’
we do, the Editor can just do that
jonas’
but that’s not the problem
ralphm
The expected process for moving from Experimental to Proposed has two whole sections in XEP-0001
jonas’
ralphm, I think that might be the issue ;-)
MattJ
It doesn't say how the process is initiated
Guus
is this about the council not always acting fast enough for the 12-month limit to expire on XEPs that are perfectly fine to go through?
jonas’
Guus, no, this is about an author who has no idea how to get their XEP into LC
MattJ
It's about the two lengthy paragraphs not actually saying how the process gets triggered
Guus
So, how _is_ the process triggered?
MattJ
It mostly isn't :)
Guus
(and can we copy/paste that answer into 0001?)
jonas’
Guus, currently it is "figure out that you need ask council, ask council"
MattJ
which I believe is one (not the only) reason we have many XEPs deferred that shouldn't really be
jonas’
(or council figures it out by itself, but that’s rather rare I guess)
ralphm
Hah
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphm
Ok, I can include this in my PR
jonas’
<3
MattJ
ralphm, that would be great!
ralphm
But it would be indeed: Ask Council
Guus
Thank you 🙂
MattJ
I think we're all agreed on that
ralphm
good
Guus
8 minutes until I need to go.
ralphm
8. Ask for Editors
ralphm
Please, more of them.
ralphm
jonas’: if you want to send out an e-mail to members@, please do.
jonas’
ok
ralphm
9. AOB
Guus
I was going to ask if nyco has had feedback from the designer friend he had, regarding compliance suite badges.
Guus
if you read this in the minutes, nyco... 🙂
ralphm
Ok
ralphm
With that
ralphm
10. Date of Next
ralphm
+1W
ralphm
Hopefully only 30 min
ralphm
11. Close
ralphm
Thanks all!
ralphmbangs gavel
Seve
Thank you very much guys!
Guus
Thanks!
jonas’
minutes will follow in a minute
MattJ
Thanks :)
Guus
Ge0rG I'm aware that I'm not speaking in absolutes, but that's because I'm not familiar enough with the matter to be that absolute. If you can agree / see reason in the advice / suggestions that were given, I'm hoping that you can consider modifying the application, so that we limit the chance that things get delayed further, or worse, rejected.
jonas’
FWIW, I prefer it if board plays it safe
jonas’
in my own interest as sublicense holder ;-)
Guus
And on the SCAM name - even while it's not related to the trademark, I wouldn't have picked that name if I had known about the trademark-related limitation.
Guus
(if I indeed was the one that picked it - probably, but don't remember)
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Guus
If you prefer to continue with "JabberSPAM", I do suggest to file under the full name: "Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management" instead. With what I know today, that'd be acceptable to me.
Guus
If a trademark professional at Cisco sees that we've sublicenced to 'JabberSPAM', then I think there's a real risk in them revoking our permit to issue licences. If that name comes to a vote, that's likely the reason why I'd be -1.
Ge0rG
Guus: yeah, I can fully understand that
Guus
I'm trying to think with you here, not make your life difficult
Guus
(as so far the quality of your life is influenced by a trademark issue 😉 )
Ge0rG
Guus: but if I apply for "Jabber Spam Protection and Abuse Management" and then abbreviate it as "JabberSPAM" in URLs, is that still covered? Probably not?
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rG
Guus: I'll raise that question in my email, so no need to answer it immediately
Guus
Ask Peter to be sure, but I think it is - and/or falls under the fair use policy.
jonas’
if all else fails, we can still go back to xmppbl.org
Ge0rG
jonas’: that reads like the sound I'd emit after eating too much SPAM. Way too much spam.
Guus
if you do it that way, then you're putting "jabberSPAM" in context of "protection and abuse management"
jonas’
"xmppblorg" :D
Zash
:D
Guus
as a side note: I'd be happy for people that search for 'spam' to end up at a prevention site, instead of something that'll actually help them generate spam.
Ge0rG
Guus: but my vagueness remark was about the person vs. org licensee statement.
Ge0rG
yeah, if you search github for "jabber spam" you'll end up a at spam bot implementation.
Guus
Ge0rG ask Peter
Ge0rG
Guus: will do
Guus
ok, I need to be off
Guus
or at least, do other stuff
Guus
I'm doing my best to help you move along here, even though it doesn't always look like it. 🙂
Ge0rG
Guus: thanks very much!
Guus
yw
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Annhas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Annhas left
Annhas joined
rionhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Annhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
andrey.ghas left
andrey.ghas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
olihas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
efrithas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
efrithas left
Marandahas left
ralphmhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Zashhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
valohas left
Guushas left
lhas left
lskdjfhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
jonas’
somebody wants to review if my implementation of Section 8.1 of the XSF Bylaws is correct?
https://github.com/horazont/councilbot/blob/feature/remodel/councilbot/state.py#L253
labdsfhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
ThibGhas joined
ThibGhas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
mightyBroccolihas left
jonas’
I am particularly curious about the "majority of members voting" rule
Half-ShotXhas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
tahas joined
valohas joined
mightyBroccolihas joined
Marandahas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
danielhas joined
Marandahas joined
Zashhas left
alexishas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
olihas left
valohas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
tuxhas joined
tahas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
tuxhas joined
!xsf_Martinhas left
!xsf_Martinhas joined
!xsf_Martinhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
sezuanhas left
olihas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
lumihas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
marc_has joined
jjrhhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
alacerhas left
ThibGhas joined
ThibGhas joined
labdsfhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
frainzhas left
labdsfhas left
frainzhas joined
labdsfhas joined
lumihas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
marc_has left
Neustradamushas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
jjrhhas left
Annhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
ThibGhas left
ThibGhas joined
Steve Killehas left
Annhas left
Annhas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
Steve Killehas left
Neustradamushas left
moparisthebesthas joined
Annhas left
jjrhhas left
Steve Killehas joined
igoosehas left
igoosehas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
lumihas left
labdsfhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
lumihas joined
labdsfhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
olihas left
Marandahas joined
Marandahas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
matlaghas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
danielhas joined
danielhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
rionhas left
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
Zashhas left
Zashhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
rionhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Guus
in context of XEP-0359, does an outbound MUC message have a different stanza ID for each outbound copy? What if the original message had a origin ID?
jonas’
Guus, re stanza-id: it should not, because the stanza-id is the ID in the archive
Guus
right, and there's just one archive for the MUC - not a per-participant archive... (how does that work with PMs?)
jonas’
the PMs are in the user’s account archive
jonas’
the MUC archive is only type="groupchat"
Ge0rG
If at all...
jonas’
PMs are treated like normal chat, except that it’s weird
marc_has joined
Guus
so... before processing inbound stanzas in a MUC service, slap on the stanza-id element, and be done?
Zash
I think we've ignored interactionts between MAM and MUC PMs so far
jonas’
Zash, Ge0rG surely hasn’t
jonas’
Guus, kind of like that
Ge0rG
jonas’: I have, because Burn MAM!
Ge0rG
Also you can't attribute PMs from MAM because the MUC might have been semi-anon.
Guus
Ge0rG I like your way of thinking.
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Ge0rG
> In the case of non-anonymous rooms or if the recipient of the MUC archive has the right to access the sender real JID at the time of the query, the archive message will use extended message information in an <x/> element qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace and containing an <item/> child with a 'jid' attribute specifying the occupant's full JID,
Will this element be present in PMs?
jonas’
Ge0rG, given that PMs didn’t even have <x/> until very recently, I doubt it.
jonas’
(and the account MAM can only archive what the account sees)
Ge0rG
> The archiving entity MUST strip any pre-existing <x> element from MUC messages (as MUC rooms are not required to do this).
This is going to break PM archival on the user account, right?