XSF Discussion - 2019-02-07

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Indeed!

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

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

Haha

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

+1

Thank you Guus

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that needs cleaning up as well.

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

I think there's motivation and expectation.

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

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

If only we had an ED.

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

If only we had someone willing to do the job.

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

(Kev's double negatives are rubbing off)

👍

We never asked, afaik.

Willing and competent.

and empathical.

Which probably falls under #2

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

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.

Thanks, reading back logs

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

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.

what is "real" authorship?

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

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

Real authorship means having your name on the document.

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

Seve: have you read the changes?

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

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

I don't have an issue with that.

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*.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Guus: awesome, thanks

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ah, that makes sense

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

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 )

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Same.

Well, no not quite same.

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

Although maybe that's not an issue.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

dwd: that was what I was going for indeed.

dwd: I like that text

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.

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.

dwd's wording is fine with me too.

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

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

ralphm: great!

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

(he is Treasurer)

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

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

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.

Let's move forward with Dave's wording then

Guus: the bikeshed will be orange

purple@!

lib-purple?

ok, orange.

:-D

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

'that proposal' ?

> purple@!

I have off-days too.

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, I see.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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

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.

good luck with that

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

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

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

ralphm, Good catch. Not considered that myself.

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.

;)

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

Kev: that doesn't help

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

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

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

Yes, that's what I said.

no

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

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

Sure they do.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

They can already modify documents with final say with Council.

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

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

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"

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

I'm now instead whitelisting.

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

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.”

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

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

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 :)

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

:D

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

But DS is a term from the IETF.

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

I see Kev, thank you

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

I've updated the PR

Thanks Ralph.

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

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

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

ralphm: yes, but that requires a Council RTT

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

I'm not too worried about the roundtrip.

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?".

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

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

(or the standards list or wherever)

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

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

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

ralphm: Ah, right.

Ge0rG: you're not taking my bike

ralphm: this is not your bike.

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

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

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

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

an

a

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

0. Welcome + Agenda

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

nyco, Guus, MattJ?

o/

hey

1. Minute taker

Who?

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

Seve: thanks

2. Adding Maxime Buquet to SCAM

+1

does pep. _want_ to be in SCAM? 🙂

I feel that he's being volunteered 🙂

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.

Sure

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

+1

He was totally aware

I confirmed it.

+1

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

Yay. Thanks pep.!

Thanks!

3. Sponsoring offer by Petko Yanev

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

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

Opinions?

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

(Nyco PRs welcome)

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."

Indeed.

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

Hey

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.

Right

+1 on adding Max to SCAM

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

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.

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

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?

Seve, Want me to do minutes instead?

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

dwd, would be pleased!

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

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

agree with Seve what are his motivations?

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.

that gives him the chance to prove him wrong.

Who's taking this up?

prove **us** wrong 😉

right 🙂

I'll do it

thx!

Thanks Guus.

3. XEP-0001 PR 744

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

so why "shepherd"? 😉

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

Nÿco: as this was suggested by Peter

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

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

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

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

+1 also

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

ok, clear, then +1

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

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

4. Trademark Request by Georg Lukas

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

(SCAM)

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

(earlier today)

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.

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

+1

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

Guus is that a +1?

+1

+1 to Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management

sorry, I haven't been able to process it

I can vote later if necessary

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

So the motion carries.

that's cool then

Cheers, Ge0rG.

thanks for bearing with us.

now, JabberBACON

dwd says I should explicitly write +1

so: +1

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

:-)

we have one that lists accepted trademark licence requests.

Nÿco, thanks for the wiki

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

Seve yes

I can take care of it after this meeting.

5. GSoC

tx

flow?

Or Guus

Where are we?

The GSoC application has been finalized

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

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

we should promote the call for ideas?

deadline is ... today, I think.

Wasn't that yesterday?

Wasn't it yesterday?

It was yesterday actually, I believe

I was told 18 UTC

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

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

Do we know if the application went in?

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

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

dwd, dunno, I would hope so

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

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.

dwd yes

Anything to be done by Board on this?

I don't think so, at this stage.

Thanks Guus (and flow).

6. XMPP Summit / FOSDEM

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

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.

SCAM will do a evaluation.

blog post, +1, mentionning some tweets with photos

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

I'm still selling hoodies (to colleagues).

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

I took the hoodie out to dinner last night! 😉

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

right, this is getting silly.

7. Clarify process for typos in XEPs

Seve was putting in a PR for this

I don't think that's happened yet.

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

8. AOB

?

nyco: news on the badges?

(compliance suite stuff)

the graphic designer would prefer to get paid

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.

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.

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

(regarding Seve: I don't remember)

https://mybrandnewlogo.com/ 😉

It might actually be jonas’

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

Ok, we can pick this up next week.

9. Date of Next

+1W

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

+1

10. Close

+1w works for me

Thanks all!

Thank you

thx! 😉

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

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

+1

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."

feedback please?

I'm bored and not board, but LGTM

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

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.

Maybe ask about how their activities relate to XMPP.

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."

Guus: looks awesome, thank you!

👍

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

accusatory was not what I was after.

then I’d delete everything after the first questionmark

"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."

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

Guus: I'm happy with that

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.

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

oh, yeah, that totally makes sense

I like your wording then :)

(either version)

the last one was just sent out.

👍