XSF Discussion - 2019-02-07


  1. pep.

    https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/522 I just pushed this. How should we update the parts for FOSDEM and Summit?

  2. dwd

    Speaking of the Summit, I've been hunting down evidence for the various claims I was making at FOSDEM of how XMPP is used. Amazingly, I wasn't actually lying.

  3. pep.

    I'd be great to put more of these somewhere on the website as well, and possibly ask these projects to add an XMPP logo or something, somewhere, so that people know

  4. Ge0rG

    I'd love to have more interesting stories on https://xmpp.org/uses/

  5. Ge0rG

    I'm actually very proud of https://xmpp.org/uses/gaming

  6. dwd

    Yeah, it'd be pretty cool if we could get a phrase off each of them. The Epic stuff they say about XMPP is pretty amazingly positive, and the Eve Online stuff was good, too.

  7. dwd

    Ge0rG, And also, yes, you should be very proud - that's eally good, positive stuff.

  8. Seve

    Indeed!

  9. Seve

    I was hoping for something like that dwd, to try to get more support from companies/projects using XMPP that do not really tell the world they use XMPP currently

  10. edhelas

    dwd "Since I'm using XMPP on my network, all my users are happy, I even got a promotion and I'm talking with my brother again, Thanks XMPP" Click HERE to discover how this amazing things can happen to your life

  11. Seve

    Haha

  12. Ge0rG

    dwd: I'd love to pull off the same thing for IoT, because our IoT pages are really sucky. Did you gather anything for https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/490

  13. Ge0rG

    I think our commteam should also add things to that list which come up for the newsletter

  14. dwd

    Hmmm... I didn't realise either of those examples used XMPP.

  15. dwd

    So it's more of the "anything that doesn't use a stock IM client", really.

  16. Guus

    I quite like the effort to improve that page. I'd also like a more formal reach-out from XMPP to those companies. I'll add that to Boards agenda.

  17. Ge0rG

    Guus: what would be the goal? To appoint somebody to reach out?

  18. Guus

    The goal would be to come up with a communication strategy - define exactly what we 'want' from them, and what we can offer in return.

  19. Seve

    +1

  20. Seve

    Thank you Guus

  21. Kev

    FWIW I'm already in touch with the Eve devs doing XMPP stuff, so I wouldn't bother duplicating that.

  22. Guus

    Thanks Kev. I'd first like to see if we can come up with some kind of strategy that defines what exactly we want to ask/tell them, before doing actual reaching-out.

  23. dwd

    It'd be nice to have the usual list of companies and projects using XMPP along with some testemonial quotes on the front page.

  24. Ge0rG

    it would also be awesome to obtain better user numbers and maybe also articles about their use of XMPP.

  25. pep.

    "what we can offer in return." < Fame!

  26. Ge0rG

    it was really hard to dig those out (also to find out they are users of XMPP in the first place)

  27. Kev

    I didn't reach out on behalf of the XSF, I reached out on behalf of Kev, BTW. But they know who I am.

  28. Ge0rG

    dwd: you mean like the sponsors, but the other way around?

  29. dwd

    Hmmm. There's a good point there - we need to be careful we're not devaluing our sponsorship thing.

  30. Guus

    yeah, let's not devaluing the sponsorship that we're not using.

  31. Ge0rG

    and that needs cleaning up as well.

  32. Guus

    I think in reality, the sponsorship benefits are more of a donation that someone actually expecting much exposure in return, tbh.

  33. Kev

    I think there's motivation and expectation.

  34. Kev

    People may be motivated to do it because it's a donation, but I think they still expect recognition for it.

  35. Ge0rG

    It would be really great if the companies that have millions of XMPP users would become sponsors.

  36. Ge0rG

    If only we had an ED.

  37. Guus

    We don't need an ED for that - just someone willing to do the job.

  38. Ge0rG

    If only we had someone willing to do the job.

  39. Guus

    I'm not sure that we don't have anyone.

  40. Guus

    (Kev's double negatives are rubbing off)

  41. Kev

    👍

  42. Guus

    We never asked, afaik.

  43. Kev

    Willing and competent.

  44. Ge0rG

    and empathical.

  45. Ge0rG

    Which probably falls under #2

  46. Guus

    Kev iirc, you had feedback on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744 - would you care to share it (there, preferably)?

  47. Kev

    There was a long discussion about it in Council yesterday. Summary: automatically making people an author because they propose advancement of a deferred XEP seems bad. I'm fine with it other than that.

  48. Guus

    Thanks, reading back logs

  49. ralphm

    Yeah, I'm thinking of what the wording should change into.

  50. ralphm

    Probably something like the requestor to be considered author for the purposes of moving it to draft, and explicitly mentioning that Council or the Editor could assign 'real' authorship to said person at their request.

  51. Guus

    what is "real" authorship?

  52. Guus

    also, does the individual requesting the LC _replace_ the original author, or is that person added to the list?

  53. ralphm

    I don't think we've ever removed authors, except maybe on request.

  54. ralphm

    Real authorship means having your name on the document.

  55. Seve

    Is the author contacted first? To allow/encourage future progress directly from the original

  56. ralphm

    Seve: have you read the changes?

  57. Seve

    I guess that answers my question, unfortunately I haven't yet :)

  58. Guus

    As I read it, the 'you get to be author automatically' is explicitly scoped to XEPs abandoned by their original author(s).

  59. Guus

    I don't have an issue with that.

  60. ralphm

    Yes, but Council discussion revealed that they think this is not desirable. Unfortunately, the rest of the described process requires an XEP Author, e.g. to process LC feedback, so they suggest appointing the requestor to take on that role *for the purpose of moving the document*.

  61. ralphm

    (and not actually be an author otherwise, unless Council or Editor decides otherwise)

  62. Guus

    I don't think I agree. If a XEP moves towards Final, it is desirable to have a permanent author. The person issuing the last call is a logical default choice. That can be changed in those cases where it's undesirable.

  63. Guus

    opt-out, rather than opt-in, kind-of.

  64. ralphm

    Peter suggested a care-taker role. I think that's nice.

  65. ralphm

    But if you haven't authored a spec, you shouldn't be named as author.

  66. ralphm

    I think that's a fair point as made by Council.

  67. Guus

    it's not an unfair point. I'd personally not require such a change, nor oppose it.

  68. Guus

    nyco Seve MattJ - It'd be good to have your recorded reviews on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744 before we start todays board meeting.

  69. Guus

    maybe make up your minds on the listed 'topics for decision' while you're at it 🙂

  70. Ge0rG

    Guus, ralphm: I also responded to the Trademark suggestions by Peter, but as always I'm not allowed to contact the other Board members, so I only approached the two of you

  71. Ge0rG

    I have a video conference scheduled short before Board Meeting, of which I hope it will terminate on time. If you have questions in advance, I'd love to provide answers now

  72. Guus

    Ge0rG I've just forwarded your response to all of board.

  73. Ge0rG

    Guus: awesome, thanks

  74. Guus

    as far as I see, there are no points left under discussion. Did I miss anything?

  75. Ge0rG

    There was also talk about whitelisting all members to send to board?

  76. Guus

    unsure about that. Let's not drag that into the issue of your trademark request though.

  77. Ge0rG

    Guus: yes, that's completely separate. I think Kev said something about this being an easy change, with his iteam hat on

  78. Ge0rG

    It would also make delivery of board meeting minutes easier, assumed that those are written by a member. Or maybe we could whitelist standards@ subscribers as well.

  79. Guus

    I'm guessing that more bookkeeping is required? or, are we keeping a record of active XSF members in config somewhere already?

  80. Ge0rG

    (you can't send out minutes if you aren't subscribed to either)

  81. Ge0rG

    Guus: IIRC it was a mailman config change, no bookkeeping involved

  82. Guus

    minutes never go to board@ - that's originally intended to be used for internal discussion amongst board members.

  83. Ge0rG

    Ah well, as long as you document the correct way to contact board, I'm okay with whatever works for you. If it is "send to Guus Gmail and kindly ping him on xsf@ to bounce", so be it

  84. Guus

    Ge0rG I noticed that the blacklist is pretty empty (has one domain). Is that list already actively maintained?

  85. Ge0rG

    Guus: yes it is. But it takes significant effort to maintain due process. You are welcome to participate.

  86. Guus

    (I'm contemplating mirroring it through igniterealtime.org, and hook it into a new plugin that applies the blacklist).

  87. Guus

    what kind of 'proof' do you require that due process has been followed?

  88. Ge0rG

    Guus: in the process, I've got half a dozen of servers shut down, and a bunch of requests are pending timeout.

  89. jonas’

    Guus, there is a private issue tracker where the process is documented

  90. Ge0rG

    Guus: we have an internal issue tracker where all communications with ISPs and server Admins is logged verbatim.

  91. Guus

    ah, that makes sense

  92. Ge0rG

    Guus: you are welcome to join the effort, otherwise I'd like to get CCs of the abuse report messages with respective timestamps and responses

  93. Guus

    Ge0rG I don't have a specific issue in mind. As I'm already facing to many possibilities to procrastinate, I'll not add yours as yet another to that list for now )

  94. Ge0rG

    It's probably sufficient to document the date, contact address and type of request, like in the commit message of the first addition, but then I need to trust you not to game the system

  95. Ge0rG

    So far, I've read many reports of "I've contacted the admins of xyz", but these never were followed up with evidence

  96. Guus

    It's important to retain a good trail of evidence, to avoid abuse of the anti-abuse service. 🙂

  97. Ge0rG

    Yes. This is why I'm demanding evidence before adding any domain there.

  98. Kev

    Guus: We're already in a situation where we can add new Authors to a document as-needed. So I think simply removing that bit of text from the PR leaves what we already have in place and Council can do sensible things.

  99. Kev

    While fulfilling the core aim of the PR, which is to make sure that Deferred stuff can get advanced.

  100. Kev

    I think the automatic stuff is actively harmful, because we do have people from time to time in the community with a high noise to signal ratio, and having them automatically responsible for XEPs because they make noise would be heavily undesirable.

  101. dwd

    FWIW, I don't particularly mind whoever requests the Last Call being then held responsible for progressing to draft by default. I don't think enforcing this as a XEP Author change is quite right though.

  102. Kev

    Same.

  103. Kev

    Well, no not quite same.

  104. Kev

    I don't think it's right in the case that the original author is active that someone else gets to shepherd it through.

  105. Kev

    Although maybe that's not an issue.

  106. Guus

    the suggested change scopes the addition of the author to XEPs that are abandoned by the original author(s).

  107. dwd

    Well, I imagine that can be taken care of either with the "by default", or indeed by COuncil rejecting the Last Call if an active author thinks it's not yet ready.

  108. ralphm

    dwd: I didn't touch that part, though. Are you suggesting we remove the current text about the Author needing to process LC comments?

  109. Guus

    also, it doesn't explicitly say 'replace' author - I'm assuming that it's an 'add'.

  110. ralphm

    Ge0rG: for what it is worth, from what I understand from Kev and Peter, board@xmpp.org is not dropping messages from non-subscribers. They get to a moderation queue, which wasn't processed properly. Peter is now actively monitoring that again.

  111. dwd

    Personally, I'd be happy with "must be prepared to act as Author for the purposes and duration of the advancement to Draft" or some such wording.

  112. ralphm

    dwd: that was what I was going for indeed.

  113. Ge0rG

    dwd: I like that text

  114. Guus

    I don't have an issue with the person trying to revive a XEP to be added to the XEP as an additional author, not even for high signal-to-noise persons.

  115. Ge0rG

    ralphm: Ah, that might work as well. It makes me wonder, however, what is the current formal agreement underlying that - last time there was a discussion about Peter not being the ED any more.

  116. Guus

    dwd's wording is fine with me too.

  117. Ge0rG

    Guus: I think there is some small potential for abuse, and it doesn't feel right to me to auto-make anybody an author

  118. ralphm

    Peter is still an Officer of the XSF and I'm happy with him doing this.

  119. Ge0rG

    ralphm: great!

  120. Guus

    it's not auto-make, as the Council gets to decide on the move to Last Call (and thus author)

  121. ralphm

    (he is Treasurer)

  122. Ge0rG

    Guus: do you imply that there should be two separate votes - first on the LC and then on the extension of authorship?

  123. Guus

    no. As everyone, including me, is happy with a change in wording to the extend to what Dave just suggested, this is quickly starting to turn into bikeshedding htough

  124. ralphm

    Ge0rG: the idea is that we change the wording such that only the first is needed. Extension of authorship should be a separate thing, and my original wording was supposed to reflect this, but didn't.

  125. Ge0rG

    Let's move forward with Dave's wording then

  126. ralphm

    Guus: the bikeshed will be orange

  127. Guus

    purple@!

  128. Ge0rG

    lib-purple?

  129. Guus

    ok, orange.

  130. ralphm

    :-D

  131. Ge0rG

    Guus: I was not surprised to see that proposal being made by *you*, though!

  132. Guus

    'that proposal' ?

  133. Ge0rG

    > purple@!

  134. Guus

    I have off-days too.

  135. Guus

    (I obviously should've gone with "pretty red")

  136. Seve

    ralphm, Guus, where can I find what defines a XEP as abandoned or better, how a XEP gets into the state of abandoned?

  137. Guus

    I don't think that there's a definition for that.

  138. ralphm

    Seve: it is not defined. In general abandonment is an indeterminable thing.

  139. ralphm

    So I'd say this is up to the Editor or Council to concider.

  140. Seve

    Hmm, I see.

  141. Kev

    Guus: Your assertion that, under the current text, the approving body can reject the LC, thereby preventing the authorship isn't consistent with the PR, which says that it's the requesting that makes them author, not the LC.

  142. ralphm

    I.e. say you think a XEP is abandoned, you make an effort to contact the author. If he doesn't respond, you propose advancement and then Editor or Council can make a judgement call.

  143. ralphm

    Kev: to be fair, the changed text doesn't say it makes them author, but I will clarify as discussed.

  144. Guus

    Kev that'd be wrong in so many ways that I think it's implicit that authorship is granted only after Approving Body approval. But: pretty red pretty pretty bikeshed!

  145. Ge0rG

    I actually like the ambiguity of requiring the Proposer to be prepared, but no explicit requirement on making them the author.

  146. dwd

    Ambiguity - it's what we like in standards, right?

  147. Ge0rG

    dwd: to not make me look like having cognitive dissonance, I'm going to claim different levels of ambiguity demand for standards-for-people vs standards-for-machines.

  148. ralphm

    good luck with that

  149. Ge0rG pulls the Common Sense card, then

  150. dwd

    I think you're not looking for ambiguity, per se, but flexibility, which applies to both.

  151. Ge0rG

    isn't the ambiguity of the wording giving us flexibility in what to do?

  152. ralphm

    dwd: Section 8 also mentions the author can retract. I'm thinking of explicitly excluding that for their temporary replacement.

  153. dwd

    ralphm, Good catch. Not considered that myself.

  154. Kev

    Or, and it's just a crazy thought, leave Authorship out of it and just note that the approving body will need to ensure there's an active author if they approve the proposal.

  155. Kev

    ;)

  156. Kev

    That way we're pretty confident we're not breaking anything, nor preventing sensible things being done.

  157. ralphm

    Kev: that doesn't help

  158. dwd

    I get what you mean, but I like the notion that anyone proposing needs to be aware they might be seen as volunteering.

  159. ralphm

    as you need someone during last call, and while Council is concidering the move, to collect and process feedback

  160. Ge0rG

    I don't like it when anybody can propose, and then Council needs to run searching for volunteers.

  161. Kev

    Yes, that's what I said.

  162. ralphm

    no

  163. Kev

    If Council (or whoever) approve the proposal to LC it, they need to ensure there's an active Author to see it through.

  164. Ge0rG

    Kev: the Council doesn't have any means to do so.

  165. Kev

    Sure they do.

  166. ralphm

    It does, though. It could say it isn't ready for last call without an author

  167. Ge0rG

    So we reject the LC and make another round until the Proposer either volunteers or disappears?

  168. Kev

    Or find an active person who's willing to Author.

  169. ralphm

    The problem I have with that, though, is that a document might not actually require significant changes to progress, and ensuring an active author would mean that whoever is that new author, would have to be named on the document.

  170. ralphm

    (even though they didn't, well, author the document)

  171. ralphm

    The only other thing (besides somebody acting as author) is having this role fall to the Editor.

  172. Kev

    Maybe it makes sense to define a Document Shepherd, then?

  173. ralphm

    They can already modify documents with final say with Council.

  174. Kev

    And say that AB needs to ensure that there is an active Author or DS if it issues the LC.

  175. ralphm

    So basically: Romeo proposes XEP-xxxx, Council asks: sure, will you shepherd?, Romeo: eh, well, ok!

  176. Ge0rG

    Can't we just go on with dwd's > "must be prepared to act as Author for the purposes and duration of the advancement to Draft"

  177. Kev

    Ge0rG: The issue there was then needing to start excluding things that an Author can currently do.

  178. ralphm

    I'm now instead whitelisting.

  179. Kev

    The idea of defining DS is to have the same sentiment, without the confusion of a pseudo-partial-Author.

  180. ralphm

    Current text in my editor: “Such an individual must be prepared to act as XEP author for the purposes of collecting and processing feedback, during the proposal and approval processes, as described below.”

  181. ralphm

    If you want to name “such an individual” "Document Shephard”, that's ok, I guess.

  182. Seve

    It is the first time I hear about "Document Shephard" though :)

  183. Kev

    Kinda the point. If we're inventing a new role, it might be less confusing to use a new name, rather than overloading an existing term :)

  184. ralphm

    Seve: because you didn't read the Council discussion on this, and also not my mention of it earlier here.

  185. Seve

    :D

  186. Kev

    Maybe we could call such an individual a 'node' :)

  187. Kev

    But DS is a term from the IETF.

  188. Seve

    No no, I read it, I mean I never heard the term before

  189. Seve

    I see Kev, thank you

  190. ralphm

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858

  191. ralphm

    I've updated the PR

  192. Kev

    Thanks Ralph.

  193. ralphm

    dwd, Kev, Ge0rG, (and others), let me know if this addresses your concerns

  194. Ge0rG

    ralphm: I'm not particularly lucky with the new wording as it doesn't imply any relationship between the Proposing Individual and the Document Shepherd, but it is sufficiently flexible and formally correct to be used, IMO

  195. ralphm

    I think Council can in practice coerce^Wsuggest those two individuals to be the same.

  196. Ge0rG

    ralphm: yes, but that requires a Council RTT

  197. Kev

    I think that's a feature that it doesn't conflate the two people.

  198. ralphm

    I'm not too worried about the roundtrip.

  199. Kev

    And it's not really a "Council" roundtrip. It just means when someone requests an LC, whoever they request it of says "Will you shepherd if Council ask you to?".

  200. ralphm

    Especially since suggesting to propose a XEP to move informally already happens during discussions here.

  201. Ge0rG

    I'd prefer a wording that implies that Proposing Individual needs to propose a Document Shepherd for the LC

  202. ralphm

    (or the standards list or wherever)

  203. ralphm

    Kev: that "whoever" by definition is the Editor, by the way.

  204. Ge0rG

    But as I said, it is sufficiently flexible and formally correct, so we don't need to Shed More Bikes now.

  205. Ge0rG

    So you ask Editor to ask Council to do an LC?

  206. Kev

    ralphm: Ah, right.

  207. ralphm

    Ge0rG: you're not taking my bike

  208. Ge0rG

    ralphm: this is not your bike.

  209. ralphm

    Ge0rG: well, you kinda ask the Approving Body, but the Editor processes such requests.

  210. ralphm

    Since the venue is the standards mailing list, it doesn't matter that much.

  211. ralphm

    And you don't request a LC, you propose a XEP for progressing to Draft.

  212. ralphm

    Depending on the XEP type, it might not require and LC.

  213. ralphm

    an

  214. ralphm

    a

  215. ralphm set the topic to

    XSF Board Meeting | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

  216. ralphm bangs gavel

  217. ralphm

    0. Welcome + Agenda

  218. ralphm

    Who do we have and any items beyond what's in Trello?

  219. Seve waves

  220. ralphm

    nyco, Guus, MattJ?

  221. Guus

    o/

  222. nyco

    hey

  223. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  224. ralphm

    Who?

  225. Seve

    I can do it, although after the meeting, most probably

  226. ralphm

    Seve: thanks

  227. ralphm

    2. Adding Maxime Buquet to SCAM

  228. nyco

    +1

  229. Guus

    does pep. _want_ to be in SCAM? 🙂

  230. Guus

    I feel that he's being volunteered 🙂

  231. ralphm

    During the Summit, the work team for Summits, Conferences and Meetups was discussed. With pep. organizing events, it was concidered proper to add him to scam.

  232. pep.

    Sure

  233. Seve

    I was not aware of it, I guess this happened druing Summit

  234. Guus

    +1

  235. ralphm

    He was totally aware

  236. ralphm

    I confirmed it.

  237. ralphm

    +1

  238. Seve

    And I'm +1 if he wants to! He is working hard on this area

  239. ralphm

    Yay. Thanks pep.!

  240. pep.

    Thanks!

  241. ralphm

    3. Sponsoring offer by Petko Yanev

  242. pep. checks SCAM off the list, one less thing to take over the world

  243. ralphm

    As seen on the Board list, there was a request for sponsorship by this individual and/or his company.

  244. ralphm

    I feel that the nature of his request doesn't align with our goals.

  245. ralphm

    Opinions?

  246. Nÿco

    ( https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/scam-team to be updated! 😉 )

  247. Nÿco is reading about Petko

  248. ralphm

    (Nyco PRs welcome)

  249. Guus

    The offer to sponsoring feels dodgy, from the text of the email. "I am managing the marketing of few sports betting and casino review websites."

  250. ralphm

    Indeed.

  251. ralphm

    As Peter had already suggested to him, I suggest we decline this offer.

  252. MattJ

    Hey

  253. Guus

    it's be cool if the sports betting / casino thingies were to utilize XMPP, but my feeling is that this is simple link-generation stuff.

  254. ralphm

    Right

  255. MattJ

    +1 on adding Max to SCAM

  256. Guus

    Unsure if we should dismiss it immediately. What is the chance that there's a language barrier here?

  257. Seve

    I expected to know maybe... a bit more? Like why is he interested in sponsorship and so on. Would be my first case on this topic though.

  258. ralphm

    If someone would like to interact with him to find this out, please do.

  259. Seve

    I don't know what is our process as well, do we have any requirement for sponsors? Like use XMPP or something along the lines?

  260. dwd

    Seve, Want me to do minutes instead?

  261. MattJ

    I read the email as 100% about SEO for them (hence asking about whether we use nofollow on links)

  262. Seve

    dwd, would be pleased!

  263. Nÿco

    does Petko want to contribute SEO to the XSF and XMPP? that would be cool

  264. ralphm

    Seve: https://xmpp.org/community/sponsorship.html

  265. Nÿco

    agree with Seve what are his motivations?

  266. Guus

    I'm fine with rejecting the offer, as long as we write to him that we're not interested as we understand the proposal for sponsoring to be solely to boost his SEO.

  267. Guus

    that gives him the chance to prove him wrong.

  268. ralphm

    Who's taking this up?

  269. Nÿco

    prove **us** wrong 😉

  270. Guus

    right 🙂

  271. Guus

    I'll do it

  272. Nÿco

    thx!

  273. ralphm

    Thanks Guus.

  274. ralphm

    3. XEP-0001 PR 744

  275. ralphm

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744

  276. Nÿco

    so why "shepherd"? 😉

  277. ralphm

    This has been discussed in Council yesterday, and earlier today in xsf@muc.xmpp.org.

  278. ralphm

    Nÿco: as this was suggested by Peter

  279. ralphm

    The IETF has a similar, but more involved, role.

  280. Guus

    nyco to distinguish from 'author' - someone who takes up the task of maintaining it, is not necessarily its author.

  281. ralphm

    Shepherd seems an appropriate name for someone guiding a document through a process.

  282. Guus

    I'm +1 with the change to XEP-0001 as proposed in that PR.

  283. MattJ

    +1 also

  284. Seve

    Very happy with the last one I might say, ralphm. I'm +1

  285. Nÿco

    ok, clear, then +1

  286. ralphm

    Yay. Please adjust the review status on GitHub to match.

  287. ralphm

    And then I'll be able to have it merged.

  288. ralphm

    4. Trademark Request by Georg Lukas

  289. pep.

    https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/524 fwiw

  290. pep.

    (SCAM)

  291. Guus

    I've forwarded the last round of discussion between Ge0rG and Peter to the board list

  292. Guus

    (earlier today)

  293. ralphm

    With the changes suggested by Peter, and accepted by Ge0rG, I propose we approve the application for the use of Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management.

  294. Guus

    I'm inclined to grant a license based on his updated request.

  295. MattJ

    +1

  296. Nÿco

    ( and https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/index.php?title=Summits_Conferences_And_Meetups_team&type=revision&diff=10905&oldid=9658 )

  297. ralphm

    Guus is that a +1?

  298. Guus

    +1

  299. Seve

    +1 to Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management

  300. Nÿco

    sorry, I haven't been able to process it

  301. Nÿco

    I can vote later if necessary

  302. ralphm

    Nÿco: you can vote on list, but we have a majority in favor.

  303. ralphm

    So the motion carries.

  304. Nÿco

    that's cool then

  305. ralphm

    Cheers, Ge0rG.

  306. Guus

    thanks for bearing with us.

  307. Nÿco

    now, JabberBACON

  308. ralphm

    dwd says I should explicitly write +1

  309. ralphm

    so: +1

  310. Guus

    would someone be so kind as to issue a PR to the relevant page on our website?

  311. dwd

    :-)

  312. Guus

    we have one that lists accepted trademark licence requests.

  313. pep.

    Nÿco, thanks for the wiki

  314. Seve

    Guus, https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/approved-applications.html ?

  315. Guus

    Seve yes

  316. Seve

    I can take care of it after this meeting.

  317. ralphm

    5. GSoC

  318. Guus

    tx

  319. ralphm

    flow?

  320. ralphm

    Or Guus

  321. ralphm

    Where are we?

  322. Guus

    The GSoC application has been finalized

  323. Guus

    I'm noticing more project ideas on https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/GSoC/2019/Project_Ideas

  324. Guus

    I think we're good to give it a try (but have not been driving this effort, so no confident)

  325. Nÿco

    we should promote the call for ideas?

  326. Guus

    deadline is ... today, I think.

  327. pep.

    Wasn't that yesterday?

  328. Zash

    Wasn't it yesterday?

  329. MattJ

    It was yesterday actually, I believe

  330. pep.

    I was told 18 UTC

  331. Zash

    https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/timeline February 6 20:00 UTC Mentoring organization application deadline

  332. ralphm

    Does the deadline mean we can't add more ideas?

  333. dwd

    Do we know if the application went in?

  334. pep.

    The ideas are only suggestions anyway right. Students are supposed to rework them a bit, and make a proposition

  335. Guus

    As far as I can see, we have a 'complete' application

  336. pep.

    dwd, dunno, I would hope so

  337. dwd

    Guus, Ah, do you have access to the forms on the GSoC website?

  338. Guus

    there's a big round circle that says '100%'. Unsure if there was an explicit need to submit something else, and if flow did or didn't do that.

  339. Guus

    dwd yes

  340. ralphm

    Anything to be done by Board on this?

  341. Guus

    I don't think so, at this stage.

  342. ralphm

    Thanks Guus (and flow).

  343. ralphm

    6. XMPP Summit / FOSDEM

  344. ralphm

    I'd just to thank everyone again for their efforts. Particularly Guus, Kev, as well as Isode and Alex for sponsoring.

  345. Guus

    I think we had a good weekend. I feel that we can close this topic - although I'd love for someone to write a blogpost.

  346. ralphm

    SCAM will do a evaluation.

  347. Nÿco

    blog post, +1, mentionning some tweets with photos

  348. Seve

    I couldn't attend this year but it felt really great, could feel the excitement from far away :)

  349. ralphm

    I'm still selling hoodies (to colleagues).

  350. Nÿco

    I'm wearing the hoodie! 😉 (not the orange one)

  351. Guus

    I took the hoodie out to dinner last night! 😉

  352. dwd

    I'd note that my wife thinks my design is better. That may just be loyalty though.

  353. Guus

    right, this is getting silly.

  354. dwd is, however, wearing the blue one today.

  355. ralphm

    7. Clarify process for typos in XEPs

  356. ralphm

    Seve was putting in a PR for this

  357. ralphm

    I don't think that's happened yet.

  358. MattJ

    Note: I have another meeting starting now, I'll try to continue to pay attention to this one as much as I can

  359. ralphm

    8. AOB

  360. ralphm

    ?

  361. Guus

    nyco: news on the badges?

  362. Guus

    (compliance suite stuff)

  363. Nÿco

    the graphic designer would prefer to get paid

  364. Seve

    I can't recall about me agreeing on working on that, I'm sorry if I forgot something. I will have to check it afterwards. I apologise in advance.

  365. Guus

    understandable. I'm not sure if I'm interested enough in this to pay for it though. We can put that up for discussion later, if needed.

  366. ralphm

    Seve: maybe I am wrong. I thought it was you.

  367. Guus

    (regarding Seve: I don't remember)

  368. Nÿco

    https://mybrandnewlogo.com/ 😉

  369. ralphm

    It might actually be jonas’

  370. Nÿco

    can be used for badges, maybe... or not

  371. ralphm

    Ok, we can pick this up next week.

  372. ralphm

    9. Date of Next

  373. ralphm

    +1W

  374. Guus

    nyco maybe. At this stage, I was just interested to know if we had made any progress.

  375. Nÿco

    +1

  376. ralphm

    10. Close

  377. Guus

    +1w works for me

  378. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  379. Guus

    Thank you

  380. ralphm bangs gavel

  381. Nÿco

    thx! 😉

  382. ralphm set the topic to

    XSF Discussion | Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ | Agenda https://trello.com/b/Dn6IQOu0/board-meetings

  383. Seve

    Good job, thank you guys. Thanks to dwd for volunteering as minute taker, really appreciated.

  384. ralphm

    +1

  385. Guus

    Proposal for response to sponsor offer: "Thank you for your kind offer to sponsor the XMPP Standards Foundation. If we read your email correctly, then your primary reason for sponsoring is SEO optimization. If that is indeed the case, then we feel that the nature of your offer does not align with the sponsorship program goals, and we respectfully decline your offer."

  386. Guus

    feedback please?

  387. Ge0rG

    I'm bored and not board, but LGTM

  388. jonas’

    ralphm, yes, that was me, I wasn’t able to work on it, and I probably won’t be in the next week as I don’t have a weekend this time

  389. Seve

    Guus: I personally would ask to elaborate a bit more on the topic if he is actually interested. If I got this reply back I would think I do not have any more chances to "defense" myself. If you already sent this out, not bit of a problem anyway.

  390. ralphm

    Maybe ask about how their activities relate to XMPP.

  391. Guus

    Seve ralphm what about: "Thank you for your kind offer to sponsor the XMPP Standards Foundation. Can you please elaborate on how your activities relate to XMPP? If you're not applying XMPP, and your primary reason for sponsoring is SEO optimization, then the nature of your offer does not align with the sponsorship program goals, and we respectfully decline your offer. However, if we misread your offer, then please elaborate."

  392. Seve

    Guus: looks awesome, thank you!

  393. Zash

    👍

  394. jonas’

    this reads very accusatory to me, but I don’t have any context

  395. Guus

    accusatory was not what I was after.

  396. jonas’

    then I’d delete everything after the first questionmark

  397. Guus

    "Thank you for your kind offer to sponsor the XMPP Standards Foundation. Can you please elaborate on how your activities relate to XMPP? From your text, it appears that you're not applying XMPP, and your primary reason for sponsoring is SEO optimization. If that is indeed the case, then the nature of your offer does not align with the sponsorship program goals, and we respectfully decline your offer. However, if we misread your offer, then please elaborate."

  398. jonas’

    > from your text […] and that’s why I said I have no context :)

  399. ralphm

    Guus: I'm happy with that

  400. Guus

    jonas` the context is that this guy mentions that he is a marketing person for sports and casino review guys, offers to sponsor, and ask if sponsoring comes with do-follow links.

  401. Guus

    We're inclined to reject, unless we're misreading things.

  402. jonas’

    oh, yeah, that totally makes sense

  403. jonas’

    I like your wording then :)

  404. jonas’

    (either version)

  405. Guus

    the last one was just sent out.

  406. ralphm

    👍