taJust 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
dwdjonas’, 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?
Ge0rGdwd: 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
ralphmdwd: but taking you as an example, XEPS 0399, 0400, and 0402 don't use your XML entity.
ralphm(also several specs in the inbox)
ralphmso at least we're not doing this consistently
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rGdwd: should the order of authors be represented as well?
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
dwdralphm, That's probably not good.
ralphmsurely not good, I'd say
ralphmIt would probably be very useful to replace all <author/> blocks with entities.
ralphmAnd 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
ralphmjonas’: 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
ralphmGuus: too late, I already suggested that
Guusyou only cue'd it. I see us as a well oiled machine: you line 'm up, I finish 'm.
Guusalso, 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
Ge0rGWhat's the ETA to Board Meeting?
Guus12 minutes from now.
Ge0rGThanks.
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
APachhas left
Steve Killehas left
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Guuswhich is now.
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rGWow.
nycoBoom
Guusralphm / nyco / MattJ ?
GuusSeve
nycofor whom the gavel bangs
GuusI got scared by that boom 🙂
ralphmhere
nycoah, too loud, sorry
ralphmbangs gavel
ralphm0. Welcome + Agenda
MattJHere
ralphmI'm in a video conference, too, but I'll try to manage.
nycois it an open standards, at least?
Guusgood luck 🙂
ralphmnyco: bluejeans :-(
nycoI'm in a Trello board, too, but I'll try to manage 😉 https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings
ralphmSeve?
ralphm1. Minutes
SeveHere
ralphmWho can take notes and issue minutes?
ralphmdwd maybe?
Guusphonecall, afk
ralphmThis is proving to be a problem. I think we should explicitly ask for volunteers on the members list.
ralphmI'll send an e-mail about this.
MattJ+1
jonas’I happen to be here for a change, so I can do it
MattJSorry, I really can't offer right now
ralphmjonas’: thanks, sir!
Guus(back)
MattJThanks jonas’!
ralphm2. GSoC
ralphmAre there any updates on this?
Guusflow might have more, but
flowWorking on the application and preparing a blog post, ETA 1-2days
Guusour application was registered, at least flow and myself are signed up as org admin.
MattJThat's great news
Guus(do we need to keep this in Board's trello?)
ralphmflow: do we have project proposals already?
nyco(no need for me to keep it in Board's board)
flowralphm, 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
ralphmI 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.
ralphmflow: ok thanks.
ralphm3. Summit / FOSDEM
ralphmPeople are signing up for hotels.
ralphmWe will issue the form for Dinner soon.
ralphmMake 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...)
Guusnyco 😞
ralphmGuus 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
ralphmStill 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.
ralphmnyco: nooooh!
GuusThe FOSDEM stand space still concerns me. We have not been allotted a lot of space this year.
pep.:o
ralphmYes, 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.
nycoplease, 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?)
ralphmAlso for contact details of the people next to us, so we can send them some info on what we plan to do.
ralphmjonas’: yes
SeveTrue, I completely agree
Guusnyco they'll be at the same spot again
Guusjonas’ yes
jonas’I lack context
nycoif 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
ralphmnyco: the stands have already been assigned, and there's nothing we can do to change the current assignments.
ralphmHowever
Guusjonas’ the VLC crowd is very ... present. 🙂
ralphmWe will have a discussion for next year. FOSDEM has some ideas on this that are probably better discussed in person.
nycoso we have to be creative to "exist" and be more visible
jonas’Guus, I got that much, why does it concern us though?
ralphmnyco: yes
Sevejonas’, 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
nycoyou say too much or too little 😉
Guuslet's move this discussion into the SCAM room though.
jonas’Seve, that was the missing bit of info, thanks
nycoright, SCAM
ralphmok, let's move
jonas’SCAM MUC = ?
Guusscam@muc.xmpp.org
nycoscam@muc.xmpp.org
nycotoo fast!
jonas’found it
ralphm4. Chat with Peter
jonas’(should use the muc search next time!)
ralphmThe chat with Peter was had!
Guus(and enjoyable)
ralphmWe covered three topics
ralphm(yes!)
ralphmFirst the question on the Executive Director.
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphmThe idea behind this function is that usually the Board provides direction...
ralphmand the ED makes it happen (with others)
ralphmmuch like in business corps
nyco"exectutant" it is, then
nyco"executant" it is, then
nycoso, do we need one?
GuusPeter also referred to being the 'face of the organziation' in that role
ralphmCurrently, the Board seems to do both. As such it might not make sense to actually have an ED right now.
ralphmIndeed
nycoor a member could be the ED
GuusI concur with ralphm . Peter thought the same: we don't necessarily need someone in that role now.
Half-ShotXhas left
ralphmnyco: well, the point is that Board usually appoints an ED
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphmwhoever that is
winfriedhas left
GuusTo prevent us from having to make adjustments to the bylaws, I suggest we keep the role, but agree to not currently appoint anyone.
MattJCan the person be a Board member?
ralphmMattJ: I think so, *but* members have in earlier meetings expressed that this is not desirable
nycoGuus if that's possible, then it's cool
jonas’ralphm, why?
ralphmIf only because they will have a deciding voice.
GuusMattJ 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
ralphmAnd 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.
nycoExecutive Chair
ralphmSo 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
Guusjonas 🙂
APachhas joined
ralphmjonas’: well, people should, that's the least they can do as members
nycovacant ED: +1
jonas’heh
Guuslet's vote on this next week, to give members time to pitch in.
ralphmOk
ralphmThe second topic was sponsorship.
MattJThe ED has roles and responsibilities in the Bylaws, so who do these fall to?
ralphm(and financials in general)
MattJOk, we can discuss on list for the sake of time here
nycothe Board ?
ralphmMattJ: the Board
MattJralphm, and per your answer to my previous question, what would happen in the case of a stalled vote?
ralphmOur current financials are still pretty decent. However, no money is coming in lately
jonas’MattJ, ask the membership?
ralphmright
Ge0rGstill has a rather complex request on the Board agenda, and it's already over a month old.
ralphmAlso our list of sponsors I think would currently only include USSHC
ralphmGe0rG: dude, wait
Guus"dude, wait longer"
ralphmSo we need to clean that up *and* ask previous sponsors if they'd like to sponsor again.
Guusralphm: I suggest that we don't try to hard with previous sponsers, but define a list of potentials instead.
ralphmWe 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
nycowe have to just propose, not be salesy
ralphmSo if people reading this (or the minutes) have ideas and contacts, please let me know.
GuusWe do need to think about what we can offer
nycoall app makers on the App Stores, who use XMPP in the core of the products
jonas’.oO(Conversations!)
Guushow we can engage sponsors, but importantly, keep them engaged.
ralphmThe third topic was the Jabber Trademark
nycoGuus let's start with what we have always done, and iterate next year thanks to 2019 feedback
APachhas left
ralphmThis has always been handled by Peter in his capacity as ED.
nycosorry, I'm out, see you, I'll read
GuusThanks nyco
nycothx all
MattJThanks nyco
ralphmHe's still the most knowledgable and has had contact with Cisco Legal
ralphmBut decisions lie with the Board
ralphmPeter has provided feedback on one current application.
ralphmBut I've not seen a reply on this from the applicant, yet.
nycohas left
Ge0rGralphm: there was not much *actionable* advice. It was more opinions in my reading
ralphmI would suggest taking his opinion seriously.
Guusthere's two bits of implied advice, which we can turn into direct questions
Guus1) 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)
ralphmAnd 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.
GuusI 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"?
ralphmjonas’: sure
jonas’because this seems only be partially related to the chat with Peter
Ge0rGGuus: so now I need to either rename my project or press Board into deciding whether it violates the decency criteria?
GuusGe0rG 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?)
Ge0rGI'm agreeing with becoming the licensee, as opposed to a non existing legal entity.
ralphmAnd having to rename your project was always a possible outcome.
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rGGuus: yes, it stands for "Spam Prevention and Abuse Management".
Ge0rGWe already have a SCAM team in the XSF, so it's a bit ironic to not allow that
ralphmSCAM 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...
ralphmright
Half-ShotXhas joined
Ge0rGI'd really love to hear the official Board opinion on that.
GuusI believe that "Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management" has way less chance to trip the 'derogatory or demeaning' clause than "SPAM"
ralphmThe 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.
Guusexaclty that is my concern, ralphm
GuusGe0rG opinion on what, exactly?
Ge0rGGuus: on whether JabberSPAM is an appropriate name or not
GuusGe0rG if read out of context, 'derogatory or demeaning' applies to the term "JabberSPAM"
ralphmGe0rG: 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.
ralphmWe can then pick it up next week.
Ge0rGralphm: alright, I can do that.
ralphmGe0rG: cool!
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rG+1Ws
GuusThe second advice of Peter was to approach this as a person, not organization
Guusas that'll most likely prevent a requirement to pay a fee.
ralphm6. Typos in Deferred
ralphmI think we're still waiting for a PR on this.
Guuswho's going to create the PR?
Guusjonas’ ?
Guus(we'll wait for a long time if we're all waiting on eachoter)
jonas’.
Ge0rGGuus: "most likely" is rather vague as well.
Guus(we'll wait for a long time if we're all waiting on eachother)
ralphmGuus 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.
ralphmSo I guess we're waiting for jonas’
jonas’I forgot about that, sorry
GuusAs did I.
ralphm7. Last Calls on Experimental XEPS
ralphmI think this coincides with the current discussion on standards@ ?
ralphmMattJ filed this card
jonas’ralphm, not current
jonas’it was a few days ago actually
ralphmjonas’: I wrote four e-mails in a thread on Deferred XEPs
jonas’that’s not the origin though
Guusralphm, this seems to be different
ralphmI'm preparing a PR on the ability to move Deferred XEPs to Proposed.
jonas’that’s not the issue
ralphmOk
ralphmBut 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
MattJThe 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
ralphmIn 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
ralphmThe expected process for moving from Experimental to Proposed has two whole sections in XEP-0001
jonas’ralphm, I think that might be the issue ;-)
MattJIt doesn't say how the process is initiated
Guusis 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
MattJIt's about the two lengthy paragraphs not actually saying how the process gets triggered
GuusSo, how _is_ the process triggered?
MattJIt 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"
MattJwhich 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)
ralphmHah
Half-ShotXhas joined
ralphmOk, I can include this in my PR
jonas’<3
MattJralphm, that would be great!
ralphmBut it would be indeed: Ask Council
GuusThank you 🙂
MattJI think we're all agreed on that
ralphmgood
Guus8 minutes until I need to go.
ralphm8. Ask for Editors
ralphmPlease, more of them.
ralphmjonas’: if you want to send out an e-mail to members@, please do.
jonas’ok
ralphm9. AOB
GuusI was going to ask if nyco has had feedback from the designer friend he had, regarding compliance suite badges.
Guusif you read this in the minutes, nyco... 🙂
ralphmOk
ralphmWith that
ralphm10. Date of Next
ralphm+1W
ralphmHopefully only 30 min
ralphm11. Close
ralphmThanks all!
ralphmbangs gavel
SeveThank you very much guys!
GuusThanks!
jonas’minutes will follow in a minute
MattJThanks :)
GuusGe0rG 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 ;-)
GuusAnd 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
GuusIf 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.
GuusIf 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.
Ge0rGGuus: yeah, I can fully understand that
GuusI'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 😉 )
Ge0rGGuus: 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
Ge0rGGuus: I'll raise that question in my email, so no need to answer it immediately
GuusAsk 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
Ge0rGjonas’: that reads like the sound I'd emit after eating too much SPAM. Way too much spam.
Guusif you do it that way, then you're putting "jabberSPAM" in context of "protection and abuse management"
jonas’"xmppblorg" :D
Zash:D
Guusas 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.
Ge0rGGuus: but my vagueness remark was about the person vs. org licensee statement.
Ge0rGyeah, if you search github for "jabber spam" you'll end up a at spam bot implementation.
GuusGe0rG ask Peter
Ge0rGGuus: will do
Guusok, I need to be off
Guusor at least, do other stuff
GuusI'm doing my best to help you move along here, even though it doesn't always look like it. 🙂
Ge0rGGuus: thanks very much!
Guusyw
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
Guusin 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
Guusright, 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"
Ge0rGIf at all...
jonas’PMs are treated like normal chat, except that it’s weird
marc_has joined
Guusso... before processing inbound stanzas in a MUC service, slap on the stanza-id element, and be done?
ZashI think we've ignored interactionts between MAM and MUC PMs so far
jonas’Zash, Ge0rG surely hasn’t
jonas’Guus, kind of like that
Ge0rGjonas’: I have, because Burn MAM!
Ge0rGAlso you can't attribute PMs from MAM because the MUC might have been semi-anon.
GuusGe0rG 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?
XSF Discussion - 2019-01-17