XSF Discussion - 2019-01-17

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

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?

dwd: that would be great.

I think that's a good idea

dwd, seems smart

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

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

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

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

Guus damn, stop saying out loud our dirty little secrets

Why do you think I open tickets

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

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

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

-in

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

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.

Which might be a rephrasing of Ralph's :)

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

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

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

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

(prettyplease respond with: "patches welcome")

😇

http://www.cutestpage.com/pictures/Pretty_Please_Cat.jpg

Ge0rG, what column?

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

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

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

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

s/I/you/

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

Oh, also authors aren't in xeplist.xml

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

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

Right

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

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

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

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

"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? :)

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

pep., Although I like the idea of PSA, as constitutional monarch, creating someone an XML entity, like being created a peer of the realm.

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

heh

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

(also several specs in the inbox)

so at least we're not doing this consistently

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

ralphm, That's probably not good.

surely not good, I'd say

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

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

(cue patches welcome)

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

jonas’: I will!

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

Guus: too late, I already suggested that

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

also, let's argue more about this!

:-D

What's the ETA to Board Meeting?

12 minutes from now.

Thanks.

which is now.

Wow.

Boom

ralphm / nyco / MattJ ?

Seve

for whom the gavel bangs

I got scared by that boom 🙂

here

ah, too loud, sorry

0. Welcome + Agenda

Here

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

is it an open standards, at least?

good luck 🙂

nyco: bluejeans :-(

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

Seve?

1. Minutes

Here

Who can take notes and issue minutes?

dwd maybe?

phonecall, afk

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

I'll send an e-mail about this.

+1

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

Sorry, I really can't offer right now

jonas’: thanks, sir!

(back)

Thanks jonas’!

2. GSoC

Are there any updates on this?

flow might have more, but

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

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

That's great news

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

flow: do we have project proposals already?

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

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

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

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.

flow: ok thanks.

3. Summit / FOSDEM

People are signing up for hotels.

We will issue the form for Dinner soon.

Make sure to select the Dame Blanche, of course.

:rolleyes:

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

nyco 😞

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.

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.

nyco: nooooh!

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

:o

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.

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

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

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

jonas’: yes

True, I completely agree

nyco they'll be at the same spot again

jonas’ yes

I lack context

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

about the booth VLC thing

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

However

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

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

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

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

nyco: yes

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

you say too much or too little 😉

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

Seve, that was the missing bit of info, thanks

right, SCAM

ok, let's move

SCAM MUC = ?

scam@muc.xmpp.org

scam@muc.xmpp.org

too fast!

found it

4. Chat with Peter

(should use the muc search next time!)

The chat with Peter was had!

(and enjoyable)

We covered three topics

(yes!)

First the question on the Executive Director.

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

and the ED makes it happen (with others)

much like in business corps

"executant" it is, then ✏

so, do we need one?

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

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

Indeed

or a member could be the ED

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

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

whoever that is

To prevent us from having to make adjustments to the bylaws, I suggest we keep the role, but agree to not currently appoint anyone.

Can the person be a Board member?

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

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

ralphm, why?

If only because they will have a deciding voice.

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

(in case of a stalled vote)

ah, I see

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

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.

Executive Chair

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

(not to be confused with an execution chair)

(haha)

ralphm, maybe explicitly ask the membership on members@

not everyone will read the minutes that closely

jonas 🙂

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

vacant ED: +1

heh

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

Ok

The second topic was sponsorship.

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

(and financials in general)

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

the Board ?

MattJ: the Board

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

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

MattJ, ask the membership?

right

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

Ge0rG: dude, wait

"dude, wait longer"

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

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

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.

we have to just propose, not be salesy

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

We do need to think about what we can offer

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

.oO(Conversations!)

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

The third topic was the Jabber Trademark

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

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

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

Thanks nyco

thx all

Thanks nyco

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

But decisions lie with the Board

Peter has provided feedback on one current application.

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

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

I would suggest taking his opinion seriously.

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

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."

(quoting Peter there)

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.

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

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

jonas’: sure

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

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

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?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

right

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

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

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.

exaclty that is my concern, ralphm

Ge0rG opinion on what, exactly?

Guus: on whether JabberSPAM is an appropriate name or not

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

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.

We can then pick it up next week.

ralphm: alright, I can do that.

Ge0rG: cool!

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

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

6. Typos in Deferred

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

who's going to create the PR?

jonas’ ?

.

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

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

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.

So I guess we're waiting for jonas’

I forgot about that, sorry

As did I.

7. Last Calls on Experimental XEPS

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

MattJ filed this card

ralphm, not current

it was a few days ago actually

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

that’s not the origin though

ralphm, this seems to be different

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

that’s not the issue

Ok

But it is connected

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

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"

from Experimental

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

we do, the Editor can just do that

but that’s not the problem

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

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

It doesn't say how the process is initiated

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?

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

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

So, how _is_ the process triggered?

It mostly isn't :)

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

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

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

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

Hah

Ok, I can include this in my PR

<3

ralphm, that would be great!

But it would be indeed: Ask Council

Thank you 🙂

I think we're all agreed on that

good

8 minutes until I need to go.

8. Ask for Editors

Please, more of them.

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

ok

9. AOB

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

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

Ok

With that

10. Date of Next

+1W

Hopefully only 30 min

11. Close

Thanks all!

Thank you very much guys!

Thanks!

minutes will follow in a minute

Thanks :)

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.

FWIW, I prefer it if board plays it safe

in my own interest as sublicense holder ;-)

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.

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

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.

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.

Guus: yeah, I can fully understand that

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

"xmppblorg" :D

:D

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.

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

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

Ge0rG ask Peter

Guus: will do

ok, I need to be off

or at least, do other stuff

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

Guus: thanks very much!

yw

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

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

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?

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

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

the PMs are in the user’s account archive

the MUC archive is only type="groupchat"

If at all...

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

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

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

Zash, Ge0rG surely hasn’t

Guus, kind of like that

jonas’: I have, because Burn MAM!

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

Ge0rG I like your way of thinking.

> 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?

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

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

> 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?

Somebody please invoke standards@

I won’t go near that