XSF Discussion - 2019-01-17

  1. ta

    Just saying vanitasvitae is right. Language was not the main reason for banning, but you might have noticed that already.

  2. 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?

  3. Ge0rG

    dwd: that would be great.

  4. pep.

    I think that's a good idea

  5. jonas’

    dwd, seems smart

  6. jonas’

    dwd, PR welcome, the template is in xsf/xeps:tools/send-updates.py

  7. dwd

    jonas’, https://twitter.com/clonezone/status/162319083860271104

  8. jonas’

    dwd, -EATWORK, otherwise I would have done it myself.

  9. Guus

    For the record: my "patches welcome" are most often "I don't have time to work on that now."

  10. edhelas

    Guus damn, stop saying out loud our dirty little secrets

  11. pep.

    Why do you think I open tickets

  12. Guus

    edhelas I'm just arguing against the "patches welcome" equals "fuck off" statement. I think that's an unfair one.

  13. Guus

    (I was also wondering for a moment why Jonas is eating his work).

  14. ralphm

    Guus: I use it to mean: "I think that's a great idea, including you putting in some work in to make it happen."

  15. ralphm


  16. ralphm

    I often see people vaguely guesturing in a direction, hoping that someone will pick up the work for them.

  17. Kev

    I use it mostly for "I don't care about this issue. If you care enough then put the work in and do it, instead of telling me I should be", I think.

  18. Kev

    Which might be a rephrasing of Ralph's :)

  19. Guus

    Seems fair to say that it means different things to different people.

  20. Guus

    (also, "having time" is often a matter of prioritization).

  21. ralphm

    Sure, it is about not making time to do something.

  22. Ge0rG

    MattJ: can we get an author column in your XEPs SQL please?

  23. Guus

    (prettyplease respond with: "patches welcome")

  24. Guus


  25. ralphm


  26. MattJ

    Ge0rG, what column?

  27. Ge0rG

    MattJ: I wanted to group by author on https://matthewwild.co.uk/uploads/xepql/

  28. MattJ

    or was that a joke? I didn't read the backlog :)

  29. MattJ

    Right, author. I haven't done that yet because I wasn't sure how to represent it - a XEP can have multiple authors

  30. MattJ

    so either I condense it into a string or make a second table

  31. MattJ


  32. Ge0rG

    there are also authors who are also XML entities, like &dcridland;

  33. MattJ

    Oh, also authors aren't in xeplist.xml

  34. dwd

    I am not an XML Entity, I am a free man!

  35. dwd

    MattJ, Second table, BTW. Otherwise you'll need to decide whether XEP-0001 gets sorted as PSA or me, for instance.

  36. MattJ


  37. ralphm

    I'm surprised that there are authors who aren't entities.

  38. dwd

    It used to be an automatic thing that you were put as an entity on your first XEP being adopted.

  39. dwd

    Mostly so that if you changed affiliation/address, it got changed for all your XEPs.

  40. dwd

    (Reminds me, I should PR my new contact details)

  41. 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? :)

  42. dwd

    pep., Purely a management thing by PSA, I think.

  43. 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.

  44. pep.

    (I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(emotion) :P)

  45. pep.


  46. ralphm

    dwd: but taking you as an example, XEPS 0399, 0400, and 0402 don't use your XML entity.

  47. ralphm

    (also several specs in the inbox)

  48. ralphm

    so at least we're not doing this consistently

  49. Ge0rG

    dwd: should the order of authors be represented as well?

  50. dwd

    ralphm, That's probably not good.

  51. ralphm

    surely not good, I'd say

  52. ralphm

    It would probably be very useful to replace all <author/> blocks with entities.

  53. ralphm

    And have a pass at each author's details. Many of them have moved companies, etc.

  54. ralphm

    (cue patches welcome)

  55. jonas’

    ralphm, file an issue, it is on my editor todo in my head anyways

  56. ralphm

    jonas’: I will!

  57. Guus

    (file a pr while you're at it *badumtissh*

  58. ralphm

    Guus: too late, I already suggested that

  59. Guus

    you only cue'd it. I see us as a well oiled machine: you line 'm up, I finish 'm.

  60. Guus

    also, let's argue more about this!

  61. Guus shall stop procrastinating now.

  62. ralphm


  63. Ge0rG

    What's the ETA to Board Meeting?

  64. Guus

    12 minutes from now.

  65. Ge0rG


  66. Guus

    which is now.

  67. Ge0rG


  68. nyco


  69. Guus

    ralphm / nyco / MattJ ?

  70. Guus


  71. nyco

    for whom the gavel bangs

  72. Guus

    I got scared by that boom 🙂

  73. ralphm


  74. nyco

    ah, too loud, sorry

  75. ralphm bangs gavel

  76. ralphm

    0. Welcome + Agenda

  77. MattJ


  78. ralphm

    I'm in a video conference, too, but I'll try to manage.

  79. nyco

    is it an open standards, at least?

  80. Guus

    good luck 🙂

  81. ralphm

    nyco: bluejeans :-(

  82. nyco

    I'm in a Trello board, too, but I'll try to manage 😉 https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

  83. ralphm


  84. ralphm

    1. Minutes

  85. Seve


  86. ralphm

    Who can take notes and issue minutes?

  87. ralphm

    dwd maybe?

  88. Guus

    phonecall, afk

  89. ralphm

    This is proving to be a problem. I think we should explicitly ask for volunteers on the members list.

  90. ralphm

    I'll send an e-mail about this.

  91. MattJ


  92. jonas’

    I happen to be here for a change, so I can do it

  93. MattJ

    Sorry, I really can't offer right now

  94. ralphm

    jonas’: thanks, sir!

  95. Guus


  96. MattJ

    Thanks jonas’!

  97. ralphm

    2. GSoC

  98. ralphm

    Are there any updates on this?

  99. Guus

    flow might have more, but

  100. flow

    Working on the application and preparing a blog post, ETA 1-2days

  101. Guus

    our application was registered, at least flow and myself are signed up as org admin.

  102. MattJ

    That's great news

  103. Guus

    (do we need to keep this in Board's trello?)

  104. ralphm

    flow: do we have project proposals already?

  105. nyco

    (no need for me to keep it in Board's board)

  106. flow

    ralphm, not yet, that is why I am preparing a blog post asking for projects to submit their proposal(s)

  107. flow

    (sorry, on phone, hence a I'm bit slow to respond)

  108. 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.

  109. ralphm

    flow: ok thanks.

  110. ralphm

    3. Summit / FOSDEM

  111. ralphm

    People are signing up for hotels.

  112. ralphm

    We will issue the form for Dinner soon.

  113. ralphm

    Make sure to select the Dame Blanche, of course.

  114. Seve smiles

  115. Guus


  116. nyco

    (note: I might not be able to join this year, my kid's broken leg...)

  117. Guus

    nyco 😞

  118. 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.

  119. 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.

  120. ralphm

    nyco: nooooh!

  121. Guus

    The FOSDEM stand space still concerns me. We have not been allotted a lot of space this year.

  122. pep.


  123. 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.

  124. nyco

    please, no VLC! I love them, they are friends... but... too loud, too much presences, we are hidden...

  125. jonas’

    (summit MUC = xmpp:summit@muc.xmpp.org?join I assume?)

  126. ralphm

    Also for contact details of the people next to us, so we can send them some info on what we plan to do.

  127. ralphm

    jonas’: yes

  128. Seve

    True, I completely agree

  129. Guus

    nyco they'll be at the same spot again

  130. Guus

    jonas’ yes

  131. jonas’

    I lack context

  132. nyco

    if we have more space towards the stairs, we can occupy less space close to the vending machines, allowing free/open access

  133. jonas’

    about the booth VLC thing

  134. ralphm

    nyco: the stands have already been assigned, and there's nothing we can do to change the current assignments.

  135. ralphm


  136. Guus

    jonas’ the VLC crowd is very ... present. 🙂

  137. ralphm

    We will have a discussion for next year. FOSDEM has some ideas on this that are probably better discussed in person.

  138. nyco

    so we have to be creative to "exist" and be more visible

  139. jonas’

    Guus, I got that much, why does it concern us though?

  140. ralphm

    nyco: yes

  141. 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

  142. nyco

    you say too much or too little 😉

  143. Guus

    let's move this discussion into the SCAM room though.

  144. jonas’

    Seve, that was the missing bit of info, thanks

  145. nyco

    right, SCAM

  146. ralphm

    ok, let's move

  147. jonas’

    SCAM MUC = ?

  148. Guus


  149. nyco


  150. nyco

    too fast!

  151. jonas’

    found it

  152. ralphm

    4. Chat with Peter

  153. jonas’

    (should use the muc search next time!)

  154. ralphm

    The chat with Peter was had!

  155. Guus

    (and enjoyable)

  156. ralphm

    We covered three topics

  157. ralphm


  158. ralphm

    First the question on the Executive Director.

  159. ralphm

    The idea behind this function is that usually the Board provides direction...

  160. ralphm

    and the ED makes it happen (with others)

  161. ralphm

    much like in business corps

  162. nyco

    "exectutant" it is, then

  163. nyco

    "executant" it is, then

  164. nyco

    so, do we need one?

  165. Guus

    Peter also referred to being the 'face of the organziation' in that role

  166. ralphm

    Currently, the Board seems to do both. As such it might not make sense to actually have an ED right now.

  167. ralphm


  168. nyco

    or a member could be the ED

  169. Guus

    I concur with ralphm . Peter thought the same: we don't necessarily need someone in that role now.

  170. ralphm

    nyco: well, the point is that Board usually appoints an ED

  171. ralphm

    whoever that is

  172. 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.

  173. MattJ

    Can the person be a Board member?

  174. ralphm

    MattJ: I think so, *but* members have in earlier meetings expressed that this is not desirable

  175. nyco

    Guus if that's possible, then it's cool

  176. jonas’

    ralphm, why?

  177. ralphm

    If only because they will have a deciding voice.

  178. Guus

    MattJ I'm not sure if that's relevant, if there's little distinction between a board member and ED.

  179. ralphm

    (in case of a stalled vote)

  180. jonas’

    ah, I see

  181. nyco

    (guys, I'll have to leave no later than 16:00)

  182. 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.

  183. nyco

    Executive Chair

  184. ralphm

    So as long as the membership doesn't object, I'd say we leave this position vacant for now.

  185. jonas’

    (not to be confused with an execution chair)

  186. ralphm


  187. jonas’

    ralphm, maybe explicitly ask the membership on members@

  188. jonas’

    not everyone will read the minutes that closely

  189. Guus

    jonas 🙂

  190. ralphm

    jonas’: well, people should, that's the least they can do as members

  191. nyco

    vacant ED: +1

  192. jonas’


  193. Guus

    let's vote on this next week, to give members time to pitch in.

  194. ralphm


  195. ralphm

    The second topic was sponsorship.

  196. MattJ

    The ED has roles and responsibilities in the Bylaws, so who do these fall to?

  197. ralphm

    (and financials in general)

  198. MattJ

    Ok, we can discuss on list for the sake of time here

  199. nyco

    the Board ?

  200. ralphm

    MattJ: the Board

  201. MattJ

    ralphm, and per your answer to my previous question, what would happen in the case of a stalled vote?

  202. ralphm

    Our current financials are still pretty decent. However, no money is coming in lately

  203. jonas’

    MattJ, ask the membership?

  204. ralphm


  205. Ge0rG still has a rather complex request on the Board agenda, and it's already over a month old.

  206. ralphm

    Also our list of sponsors I think would currently only include USSHC

  207. ralphm

    Ge0rG: dude, wait

  208. Guus

    "dude, wait longer"

  209. ralphm

    So we need to clean that up *and* ask previous sponsors if they'd like to sponsor again.

  210. Guus

    ralphm: I suggest that we don't try to hard with previous sponsers, but define a list of potentials instead.

  211. 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.

  212. nyco

    we have to just propose, not be salesy

  213. ralphm

    So if people reading this (or the minutes) have ideas and contacts, please let me know.

  214. Guus

    We do need to think about what we can offer

  215. nyco

    all app makers on the App Stores, who use XMPP in the core of the products

  216. jonas’


  217. Guus

    how we can engage sponsors, but importantly, keep them engaged.

  218. ralphm

    The third topic was the Jabber Trademark

  219. nyco

    Guus let's start with what we have always done, and iterate next year thanks to 2019 feedback

  220. ralphm

    This has always been handled by Peter in his capacity as ED.

  221. nyco

    sorry, I'm out, see you, I'll read

  222. Guus

    Thanks nyco

  223. nyco

    thx all

  224. MattJ

    Thanks nyco

  225. ralphm

    He's still the most knowledgable and has had contact with Cisco Legal

  226. ralphm

    But decisions lie with the Board

  227. ralphm

    Peter has provided feedback on one current application.

  228. ralphm

    But I've not seen a reply on this from the applicant, yet.

  229. Ge0rG

    ralphm: there was not much *actionable* advice. It was more opinions in my reading

  230. ralphm

    I would suggest taking his opinion seriously.

  231. Guus

    there's two bits of implied advice, which we can turn into direct questions

  232. 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."

  233. Guus

    (quoting Peter there)

  234. 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.

  235. Guus

    I understand the tongue-in-cheek reference here, but I also understand Peter's point.

  236. jonas’

    shall I put this under a fresh agendum, like "5. JabberSPAM trademark application"?

  237. ralphm

    jonas’: sure

  238. jonas’

    because this seems only be partially related to the chat with Peter

  239. Ge0rG

    Guus: so now I need to either rename my project or press Board into deciding whether it violates the decency criteria?

  240. 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?)

  241. Ge0rG

    I'm agreeing with becoming the licensee, as opposed to a non existing legal entity.

  242. ralphm

    And having to rename your project was always a possible outcome.

  243. Ge0rG

    Guus: yes, it stands for "Spam Prevention and Abuse Management".

  244. Ge0rG

    We already have a SCAM team in the XSF, so it's a bit ironic to not allow that

  245. ralphm

    SCAM is not in anyway affiliated with the Jabber trademark so that's not relevant.

  246. jonas’

    it’s obvious that there are different rules at play for a trademark owned by Cisco and a work team in the XSF...

  247. ralphm


  248. Ge0rG

    I'd really love to hear the official Board opinion on that.

  249. Guus

    I believe that "Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management" has way less chance to trip the 'derogatory or demeaning' clause than "SPAM"

  250. 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.

  251. Guus

    exaclty that is my concern, ralphm

  252. Guus

    Ge0rG opinion on what, exactly?

  253. Ge0rG

    Guus: on whether JabberSPAM is an appropriate name or not

  254. Guus

    Ge0rG if read out of context, 'derogatory or demeaning' applies to the term "JabberSPAM"

  255. 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.

  256. ralphm

    We can then pick it up next week.

  257. Ge0rG

    ralphm: alright, I can do that.

  258. ralphm

    Ge0rG: cool!

  259. Ge0rG +1Ws

  260. Guus

    The second advice of Peter was to approach this as a person, not organization

  261. Guus

    as that'll most likely prevent a requirement to pay a fee.

  262. ralphm

    6. Typos in Deferred

  263. ralphm

    I think we're still waiting for a PR on this.

  264. Guus

    who's going to create the PR?

  265. Guus

    jonas’ ?

  266. Guus

    (we'll wait for a long time if we're all waiting on eachoter)

  267. jonas’


  268. Ge0rG

    Guus: "most likely" is rather vague as well.

  269. Guus

    (we'll wait for a long time if we're all waiting on eachother)

  270. 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.

  271. ralphm

    So I guess we're waiting for jonas’

  272. jonas’

    I forgot about that, sorry

  273. Guus

    As did I.

  274. ralphm

    7. Last Calls on Experimental XEPS

  275. ralphm

    I think this coincides with the current discussion on standards@ ?

  276. ralphm

    MattJ filed this card

  277. jonas’

    ralphm, not current

  278. jonas’

    it was a few days ago actually

  279. ralphm

    jonas’: I wrote four e-mails in a thread on Deferred XEPs

  280. jonas’

    that’s not the origin though

  281. Guus

    ralphm, this seems to be different

  282. ralphm

    I'm preparing a PR on the ability to move Deferred XEPs to Proposed.

  283. jonas’

    that’s not the issue

  284. ralphm


  285. ralphm

    But it is connected

  286. jonas’

    the question from Matt was that there is no clear instruction for an Author how to get their XEP into LC

  287. 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"

  288. jonas’

    from Experimental

  289. ralphm

    In the sense that we don't have a way currently to mark XEPs as undeferred after 12 months without a change.

  290. jonas’

    we do, the Editor can just do that

  291. jonas’

    but that’s not the problem

  292. ralphm

    The expected process for moving from Experimental to Proposed has two whole sections in XEP-0001

  293. jonas’

    ralphm, I think that might be the issue ;-)

  294. MattJ

    It doesn't say how the process is initiated

  295. 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?

  296. jonas’

    Guus, no, this is about an author who has no idea how to get their XEP into LC

  297. MattJ

    It's about the two lengthy paragraphs not actually saying how the process gets triggered

  298. Guus

    So, how _is_ the process triggered?

  299. MattJ

    It mostly isn't :)

  300. Guus

    (and can we copy/paste that answer into 0001?)

  301. jonas’

    Guus, currently it is "figure out that you need ask council, ask council"

  302. MattJ

    which I believe is one (not the only) reason we have many XEPs deferred that shouldn't really be

  303. jonas’

    (or council figures it out by itself, but that’s rather rare I guess)

  304. ralphm


  305. ralphm

    Ok, I can include this in my PR

  306. jonas’


  307. MattJ

    ralphm, that would be great!

  308. ralphm

    But it would be indeed: Ask Council

  309. Guus

    Thank you 🙂

  310. MattJ

    I think we're all agreed on that

  311. ralphm


  312. Guus

    8 minutes until I need to go.

  313. ralphm

    8. Ask for Editors

  314. ralphm

    Please, more of them.

  315. ralphm

    jonas’: if you want to send out an e-mail to members@, please do.

  316. jonas’


  317. ralphm

    9. AOB

  318. Guus

    I was going to ask if nyco has had feedback from the designer friend he had, regarding compliance suite badges.

  319. Guus

    if you read this in the minutes, nyco... 🙂

  320. ralphm


  321. ralphm

    With that

  322. ralphm

    10. Date of Next

  323. ralphm


  324. ralphm

    Hopefully only 30 min

  325. ralphm

    11. Close

  326. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  327. ralphm bangs gavel

  328. Seve

    Thank you very much guys!

  329. Guus


  330. jonas’

    minutes will follow in a minute

  331. MattJ

    Thanks :)

  332. 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.

  333. jonas’

    FWIW, I prefer it if board plays it safe

  334. jonas’

    in my own interest as sublicense holder ;-)

  335. 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.

  336. Guus

    (if I indeed was the one that picked it - probably, but don't remember)

  337. 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.

  338. 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.

  339. Ge0rG

    Guus: yeah, I can fully understand that

  340. Guus

    I'm trying to think with you here, not make your life difficult

  341. Guus

    (as so far the quality of your life is influenced by a trademark issue 😉 )

  342. 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?

  343. Ge0rG

    Guus: I'll raise that question in my email, so no need to answer it immediately

  344. Guus

    Ask Peter to be sure, but I think it is - and/or falls under the fair use policy.

  345. jonas’

    if all else fails, we can still go back to xmppbl.org

  346. Ge0rG

    jonas’: that reads like the sound I'd emit after eating too much SPAM. Way too much spam.

  347. Guus

    if you do it that way, then you're putting "jabberSPAM" in context of "protection and abuse management"

  348. jonas’

    "xmppblorg" :D

  349. Zash


  350. 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.

  351. Ge0rG

    Guus: but my vagueness remark was about the person vs. org licensee statement.

  352. Ge0rG

    yeah, if you search github for "jabber spam" you'll end up a at spam bot implementation.

  353. Guus

    Ge0rG ask Peter

  354. Ge0rG

    Guus: will do

  355. Guus

    ok, I need to be off

  356. Guus

    or at least, do other stuff

  357. Guus

    I'm doing my best to help you move along here, even though it doesn't always look like it. 🙂

  358. Ge0rG

    Guus: thanks very much!

  359. Guus


  360. 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

  361. jonas’

    I am particularly curious about the "majority of members voting" rule

  362. 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?

  363. jonas’

    Guus, re stanza-id: it should not, because the stanza-id is the ID in the archive

  364. Guus

    right, and there's just one archive for the MUC - not a per-participant archive... (how does that work with PMs?)

  365. jonas’

    the PMs are in the user’s account archive

  366. jonas’

    the MUC archive is only type="groupchat"

  367. Ge0rG

    If at all...

  368. jonas’

    PMs are treated like normal chat, except that it’s weird

  369. Guus

    so... before processing inbound stanzas in a MUC service, slap on the stanza-id element, and be done?

  370. Zash

    I think we've ignored interactionts between MAM and MUC PMs so far

  371. jonas’

    Zash, Ge0rG surely hasn’t

  372. jonas’

    Guus, kind of like that

  373. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I have, because Burn MAM!

  374. Ge0rG

    Also you can't attribute PMs from MAM because the MUC might have been semi-anon.

  375. Guus

    Ge0rG I like your way of thinking.

  376. 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?

  377. jonas’

    Ge0rG, given that PMs didn’t even have <x/> until very recently, I doubt it.

  378. jonas’

    (and the account MAM can only archive what the account sees)

  379. 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?

  380. Ge0rG

    Somebody please invoke standards@

  381. Ge0rG &

  382. jonas’

    I won’t go near that