jonas’rion, I am aware of the email you are referring to; I have to think about it.
jonas’thanks for reminding me
jonas’rion, this has been requested several times, but I haven’t found a good way to implement it yet. Also, this needs a good way for the components to let the server know that their caps have changed. I have wire format for that in the pipeline, but I’m not really happy with it yet.
jonas’also, this is mostly server-side stuff then which I’m not at all familiar with
ZashIs there a way for anything to say "my caps changed"?
jonas’for clients, yes
jonas’they re-send presence
jonas’for anything else, not
jonas’Zash, you’re a server dev. what would you prefer? send an IQ to all your open outbound streams? a nonza to all your open outbound streams? have a pubsub node on the server JID itself to which interested peers can subscribe?
jonas’(the latter is then like the first option, except that you need to keep track about who is interested)
ZashWhat's the ultimate goal?
edhelasZash which metadata ?
1. provide clients with caps of JIDs related to their server (e.g. a MUC component) during connection startup (e.g. via a stream feature or something)
2. provide servers with means of learning their peers caps and keep them up-to-date (this was requested), and possibly broadcast changes of remote caps to interested local clients
Zashedhelas: It's a dataform, you can make something up. I'd suggest something with an URI value. Then stick an pubsub URI/L or whatever there.
edhelasZash this will require changes on the XMPP server, no ?
Zashjonas’: for 1) it's probably fine for the server to disco#info external components as they connect and stick a caps-hash in the stream features next to its own (needs some origin indicator)
jonas’Zash, what do external components do when they change their caps for whatever reason?
Zashjonas’: atm? nothing.
jonas’no, what are they supposed to do when that happens?
jonas’for example, change to an http upload component’s maximum file size
Zashjonas’: I guess that's what we need to figure out.
ZashSo yeah, I guess we want the new caps hash pushed to whoever's interested, probably in some container, most likeley some way to enable it.
ZashI do wonder if we need to ditch the current component protocol, since it's without stream features
ZashDoes it need to be global or local to the stream?
Zashjonas’: "caps push" or whatever
jonas’what does "global" mean then?
jonas’in the end, it should be able to propagate across domain boundaries I guess
Zashjonas’: do you(r client) want to be subscribed to eg all the MUCs you ever heard of?
Zashor, hm, your server maybe
jonas’but those one is joined in might be interested
jonas’but those one is joined in might be interesting
Zashjonas’: "global" as in something that uses stanzas, as opposed to a nonza-thing
jonas’I was thinking of using <message/> actually because messages with unknown payloads cause the least trouble
jonas’yeah... for s2s (and component<->server) that might be good enough
jonas’and when done cleverly it can be implemented with a pubsub component. although that gives me flashbacks of Push
Zashif it's something clients opt-in to then the payload container shouldn't matter
Zashmaybe some science is in order, like, what disco#info queries do clients send and to what
Seve@board I may be on mobile today unfortunately
Wish it worked ^
Ge0rG> send an IQ to all your open outbound streams?
What would be wrong with a roster-push style IQ for changed caps?
jonas’Ge0rG, client2s or s2s or component2s?
Ge0rGjonas’: s2s and component2s
Ge0rGbut yeah, having to disconnect and reconnect in the client is sucky. Also some clients will cache server caps in RAM to not play that dance every single time
jonas’on connecting, one could send the caps in stream features for s2s, too
Ge0rGjonas’: this doesn't even start to address the caps-change problem
jonas’Ge0rG, that’s true, but I don’t get your comment about reconnect
Ge0rGjonas’: the solution to update the client-side server-caps hash is to reconnect
Ge0rGjonas’: except when it's not
jonas’ah, I see
Ge0rGI don't think I made it more clear now.
jonas’enough to nudge my parser out of the local minimum and find a more sensible interpretation of this exchange
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas joined
Ge0rGWhy is everybody so unimpressed by the 0280 LC?
Ge0rGZash: yeah. Apparently last year's council never completed the LC
Ge0rGBut as the XEP hasn't changed in years, it still sucks and all my arguments from 2016 still are true.
Ge0rGquick poll: should I make XEP-0410 "Informational" instead of "Standards" before Proposing?
ZashIs this legal?
jonas’Ge0rG, I think switching tracks is a rather undefined thing to do
Ge0rGOhnoez. So now I need to ask Council for a decision on that, which will hand it over to Board for some serious XEP-0001 yak shaving.
Kev410 is Standards.
KevWait, I thought there was going to me a disco feature in there, did I dream that?
ZashKev: Do you have a good explanation of why?
Ge0rGThe only wire protocol it adds is the disco#info tag
jonas’that’s probably enough
KevZash: Because it introduces a new disco feature.
KevOr I thought it did, but it doesn't seem to.
jonas’I tend to agree with Kev; it essentially defines a behaviour for IQ ping on MUCs, with feature discovery.
jonas’that’s not just Informational IMO
jonas’Kev, it’s on the TODO, but Ge0rG didn’t want to make changes during LC
Ge0rGKev: PR is https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/739 - I'm just preparing it for Council submission
Ge0rGKev: and one of the LC notes was "Informational" or "Standards"
Ge0rGjonas’: now that the LC is formally over, I can ask you any time to merge the PR, right? (I'm not doing it yet, though)
jonas’I have to read up in '1 on that
jonas’the LC isn’t formally over until Council has voted, is it?
Ge0rGjonas’: until Council has voted about what exactly?
jonas’Advance vs. Reject
Ge0rGjonas’: and it will vote that on the XEP version submitted for LC? Regardless of two weeks worth of LC feedback?
Ge0rGOr will it Reject and I need to get you to apply the PR and then to re-LC?
jonas’sorry, I don’t have '1 in front of me
Ge0rGI've just sent a mail to standards@, and I'll kindly ask Dave to put the PR+XEP for a vote next week.
edhelasso I'd like your point of view on the experiment that I made to add avatar support in Pubsub, basically the idea is to publish 0084 items directly into the Pubsub node as items, this doesn't requires any changes server side, configuring the notifications without payload is adviced
edhelasthe only case it's meh is when a getitems is done on the node, then the base64 of the avatar is delivered
edhelason other cases, it's the same system as 0084
edhelasyou have a notification headline of the urn:xmpp:avatar:metadata item, you request the content, check the id and request the rest
jonas’defeats the entire design of '84 with the separate nodes to handle the issue with the large payload
jonas’will not work properly with node item count limits
jonas’mixes data and metadata in the same "stream"
edhelasjonas’ what is the issue of mixing different kind of content in the same stream ? we have namespace for that
edhelason my side it's the only solution that I found that doesn't requires big changes server side
edhelasand I'll not wait for MIX to have such basic features available
Zashyou could have a node with items for all other nodes
Zashyou could have an URI/URL in node metadata
edhelasthis requires to set rights on the other node to publish content and restrict them
edhelasonly the publishers can publish the avatar
edhelasand url/uri is possible yes, still in the mood of 0084 afaik
jonas’edhelas, as you mentioned yourself: "the only case it's meh is when a getitems is done on the node, then the base64 of the avatar is delivered"
jonas’item counts will be off, too
jonas’you have to do additional filtering, interactions with RSM and so on
edhelason my implementation, displaying only 9 items and not 10 on one page is "ok"
edhelasbut indeed it's not perfect
edhelasbut RSM with chat message correction can also gives you 28 messages for 30 requested in the end
pep."Seve> @board" < I'm happy it doesn't. That's not something that should be in <body/>
Sevepep., I don't disagree, but give the feature
KevIt should be in body, and then there should be a reference to annotate it.
pep.The "@" is metadata, and is not required in body
ZashYou can use it as UI, but then not send it. Like Converse.js
pep.Although converse still fails in some cases, but that's the spirit
edhelasZash I'll try out the URL in metadata thing and not publish the base64
GuusNyco has a different nickname? (or maybe it renders differently, with this update I had for my client). As we're not verified by MUC membership, anyone could pop in here now under the name 'Mattj' and vote in his name, right?
Nÿcosorry, got a backup client, my default one had the bookmark removed, will investigate
ralphmGuus means: start implementing MIX.
GuusDoesn't matter Nyco - Just wondering out loud
ralphmIn any case, it uses the same real JID, so we're good.
ralphmNo takers (haha!)?
ralphmCall for Editors. jonas’ ?
GuusI've seen the call, but no responses, iirc
ralphmShall I remove the item?
GuusI'm not sure what more that we can do, other than keep doing calls
ralphmAnd since we're not actually doing them, I'm removing the item.
ralphm* Clarify how initiate last call for Exp. XEPs
Guusthat was in your PR, right?
ralphmI put in a Pull Request for this, along with how to actually propose.
ralphmIt would be nice to get reviews on this.
GuusI've read and remember agreeing with it - I'll go over it once more after the meeting and +1 on the PR
Guusdo we need an in-meeting vote on this?
ralphmI put it up for review
ralphmDon't know what MattJ's handle is
Ge0rGon github it's @mwild1
ralphmHe doesn't show up as an option, so I'll look into that.
ralphmIt might also be nice to get opinions from the floor
Guusand council/editors, specifically. They work with this stuff
ralphm* Update Board status on members page
ralphmThis sounds like an 'Alex' item.
Ge0rGralphm: might be useful to bring the PR up for Council then. I kind of missed it
Kev(I've just had a scan of that PR and have issue with it, FWIW, in places)
ralphmGe0rG: the point is that Board is the Approving Body.
ralphmKev: great, all feedback is welcome
KevBoard is the approving body, but I think it'd be irresponsible to make significant changes to the standards process without consulting the body responsible for the standards :)
KevI don't think there's a rush for this, so I suggest getting it put on Council's agenda too.
Guushttps://xmpp.org/about/xsf/members <-- has board members?
ralphmKev: I'm happy for it to be on the Council's agenda.
ralphmGuus: right, I'll archive it
GuusI'm unsure if I read the meaning of "Update Board status on members page" right.
SeveI thought we were talking about the update I did not that long ago
ralphmKev: for what it is worth, I had already mentioned this PR on the standards list a week ago.
Kevralphm: I think it's worth flagging things explicitly on the Council agenda.
ralphmKev: that was the goal already and why we are discussing it. The Council's Chair is invited to Board meetings explicitly for these things.
ralphm(and also on the Board mailing list)
ralphmAnyway, I trust it will be discussed in the next Council meeting now. Meanwhile comments are also welcome on the PR. Moving on.
Guusthere's been an announcement, blogpost, wiki page, and revival of the GSoC that's since silent.
Guusno proposals as of yet, it seems
ralphmThe wiki page still has the default templates indeed
ralphmI sent out a reminder regarding the removal of vending machines at FOSDEM.
Guusthe hotel signup thingy has expired, so if you're still looking for a place, you'll have to make your own arrangements. You can probably still use Thon EU if you want.
ralphmSo far only 16 responses for Dinner. Another reminder to please fill in the form. No response, no food!
GuusI'm happy with the turnup at the summit. It's more than last year.
Guuspeople should write down suggestions for agenda items on the wiki
Guuswho's this "Allergies: everything but filet mignon" <--??
ralphm31 registered people for Summit
ralphmKev of course
KevIt was suggested to me, but I didn't.
GuusI can't stay to long, today
Guusdid we loose ralphm ?
ralphm5. JabberSpam trademark application
GuusGe0rG's response to Peter, did that get a response?
Ge0rGGuus: not from Peter, AFAICT
ralphmThe project v.s. organization thing is a bit of a thing.
ralphmI can see how having another organization with Jabber in its name might complicate the trademark situation.
ralphmAnd hence why Peter said that might not be a good idea.
Ge0rGis "that might not be a good idea" equivalent to the board denying the request?
Ge0rGI'm a bit lost here about how to go on.
Guusthere's precedent for having an org with 'jabber' in it's name, trademarked: https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/approved-applications.html
Ge0rGI wonder if they paid the 500$ fee.
Ge0rGI actually heard once that the fee was never imposed.
GuusI can only assume it was, but don't know.
Guusas on how to go on: I'd like to get Peters feedback, as he's most knowledgable on this
ralphmWell, as Ge0rG said, it might not fit the description of project either. I am struggling with this myself, and have started reading all the documentation linked from https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background.html
Ge0rGfrom a process point of view, it would be great to have this process terminate eventually with an official board response.
GuusI've read that - there's nothing conclusive in there that I could find.
Guusbest I could reason is that George is putting forward two projects, sharing (part of) a name.
Guus(the manifesto and the blacklist)
Ge0rGGuus: this is a question similar to "does a github organization count as an organization in terms of the trademark licensing agreement"
GuusGe0rG you're right.
ralphmhttps://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/license-decision-process.html lists the options
GuusAs long as there's no legal representation of the github org ...
Guusa github organization is not a legal entity, I think.
ralphmIt also says that the XSF Trademark Committee makes this decision.
Ge0rGthe XSF Trademark Committee is Board + Peter?
ralphmIt is comprised of: “a XSF Director and XSF Members who have been authorized by the XSF Board of Directors to manage the trademark licensing program”
ralphmThe former we don't have
Ge0rGAnd the latter we don't have either
ralphmand the latter we may not have explicitly appointed
Guusso it's up to board to pick up the slack there.
ralphmI think so to.
Guuslet's not complicate things furhter.
Ge0rGIf I volunteer to the XSF Trademark Committee, will I be put into a position to decide upon my own request?
ralphmI tend to have opinions other than Guus and mine.
ralphm(on anything in this meeting, really)
ralphmwant to have, I meant
Guusyou have other opinions that you? 🙂
ralphmFWIW, I tend to approve, if we get the details correct.
SeveCould that be changed for just Board for example? So we do not have to go though that process
Ge0rGI would assume that the XSF Trademark Committee implicitly is the XSF Board.
ralphmSeve: I suppose Board could appoint Board to be on the Committee.
GuusSeve, I don't think we have to go to that process to begin with.
ralphmBut I think Board is clearly authorized if it votes on the matter.
Ge0rGI am fully OK with the Board voting on trademark applications.
Ge0rGAlso deciding on whether to ask for one of the fees.
Ge0rG(personally, I'd love to change the process to not demand any fees from non-commercial entities)
ralphmI'm not considering any changes to the process before understanding how it is currently supposed to work.
GuusGe0rG working on the assumption that Peter does not bring up new issues, you change the name on the trademark application to the non-abbreviated name (as you already suggested), and we're licensing to two projects, instead of an organization, I tend to be OK with issuing the trademark. Let's ping Peter, and find out more.
Ge0rGGuus: I'm not sure whether my mail counts as "pinging Peter"
GuusI'll ask Peter for an update
Ge0rGGuus: also one of the open questions was whether the long-name trademark will allow me to use the shortname in URLs
Ge0rGand that question is kind of blocking for me
Ge0rGbecause if the answer is "no", the whole application stops making much sense.
GuusI assume it is OK, but would like Peter's feedback on that.
ralphmLet's try and get more answers for/during next week at the Summit.
ralphm6. Executive Director (bis)
ralphmI know we have discussed this at length already, but I've been reading our bylaws, and I'm not too comfortable about the vacancy for this officer.
Guuswhat are your concerns?
ralphmThe point is that the bylaws (and e.g. the trademark policy) explicitly mention this role.
ralphmAnd it is unclear how things should work in the absence of an ED.
Ge0rGfrom the floor, I'd assume that All Of Board needs to make any decisions then.
ralphmRight, but I wonder if that should be made explicit. Unfortunately, we didn't really get much feedback on our previous meeting on this topic, either.
ralphmThe minutes now state: “As of now, Board is executing their decisions themselves. The consensus seems
to be that this mode of operation is fine for now, and there is no extreme
pressure to find a replacement.”
ralphmI think that is aligned with Ge0rG's comment.
GuusI'm not to worried about not filling the position, and not change the bylaws either.
Guusif a problem does occur, we'll have to resort to appointing another ED.
Guuswhich will then be problematic, probably.
Guusbut in effect, the ED has been absent for years.
Guusand/or done nothing in that role
SeveWhat problems could be encounter because of that?
Guusit's way past time for me
ralphmI cannot currently think of one. So maybe we should leave at this for now.
SeveOk, no problem.
GuusI'd like to vote on the ED thing asap
Guusit's been dragging
GuusAOB: nyco, did you get in touch with that designer friend for the badges?
Ge0rGGuus: what exactly would you like to vote on?
GuusGe0rG to keep the position, but vacant.
Ge0rGAh, yeah. The badges. Would be great to have them.
ralphmGuus: I'll put the vote on for next meeting.
ralphmGe0rG: Postponing that item.
ralphm8. Date of Next
Guuslets do +2w
ralphmNext week is the Summit. We may meet in person, but I'm not scheduling a meeting.
Ge0rG(also better for Minutes and following in here)
ralphmGe0rG: any formal meeting would also be in here
SeveUnfortunately I will not attend Summit nor Fosdem this year, so I'm okay with what you suggest