pep.https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/522 I just pushed this. How should we update the parts for FOSDEM and Summit?
dwdSpeaking 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.
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
Ge0rGI'd love to have more interesting stories on https://xmpp.org/uses/
Ge0rGI'm actually very proud of https://xmpp.org/uses/gaming
dwdYeah, 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.
dwdGe0rG, And also, yes, you should be very proud - that's eally good, positive stuff.
SeveI 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
edhelasdwd "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
Ge0rGdwd: 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
Ge0rGI think our commteam should also add things to that list which come up for the newsletter
dwdHmmm... I didn't realise either of those examples used XMPP.
dwdSo it's more of the "anything that doesn't use a stock IM client", really.
GuusI 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.
Ge0rGGuus: what would be the goal? To appoint somebody to reach out?
GuusThe goal would be to come up with a communication strategy - define exactly what we 'want' from them, and what we can offer in return.
SeveThank you Guus
KevFWIW I'm already in touch with the Eve devs doing XMPP stuff, so I wouldn't bother duplicating that.
GuusThanks 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.
dwdIt'd be nice to have the usual list of companies and projects using XMPP along with some testemonial quotes on the front page.
Ge0rGit would also be awesome to obtain better user numbers and maybe also articles about their use of XMPP.
pep."what we can offer in return." < Fame!
Ge0rGit was really hard to dig those out (also to find out they are users of XMPP in the first place)
KevI didn't reach out on behalf of the XSF, I reached out on behalf of Kev, BTW. But they know who I am.
Ge0rGdwd: you mean like the sponsors, but the other way around?
dwdHmmm. There's a good point there - we need to be careful we're not devaluing our sponsorship thing.
Guusyeah, let's not devaluing the sponsorship that we're not using.
Ge0rGand that needs cleaning up as well.
GuusI think in reality, the sponsorship benefits are more of a donation that someone actually expecting much exposure in return, tbh.
KevI think there's motivation and expectation.
KevPeople may be motivated to do it because it's a donation, but I think they still expect recognition for it.
Ge0rGIt would be really great if the companies that have millions of XMPP users would become sponsors.
Ge0rGIf only we had an ED.
GuusWe don't need an ED for that - just someone willing to do the job.
Ge0rGIf only we had someone willing to do the job.
GuusI'm not sure that we don't have anyone.
Guus(Kev's double negatives are rubbing off)
GuusWe never asked, afaik.
KevWilling and competent.
Ge0rGWhich probably falls under #2
GuusKev iirc, you had feedback on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744 - would you care to share it (there, preferably)?
KevThere 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.
GuusThanks, reading back logs
ralphmYeah, I'm thinking of what the wording should change into.
ralphmProbably 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.
Guuswhat is "real" authorship?
Guusalso, does the individual requesting the LC _replace_ the original author, or is that person added to the list?
ralphmReal authorship means having your name on the document.
SeveIs the author contacted first? To allow/encourage future progress directly from the original
ralphmSeve: have you read the changes?
SeveI guess that answers my question, unfortunately I haven't yet :)
GuusAs I read it, the 'you get to be author automatically' is explicitly scoped to XEPs abandoned by their original author(s).
GuusI don't have an issue with that.
ralphmYes, 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*.
ralphm(and not actually be an author otherwise, unless Council or Editor decides otherwise)
GuusI 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.
Guusopt-out, rather than opt-in, kind-of.
ralphmPeter suggested a care-taker role. I think that's nice.
ralphmBut if you haven't authored a spec, you shouldn't be named as author.
ralphmI think that's a fair point as made by Council.
Guusit's not an unfair point. I'd personally not require such a change, nor oppose it.
Guusnyco 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.
Guusmaybe make up your minds on the listed 'topics for decision' while you're at it 🙂
Ge0rGGuus, 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
Ge0rGI 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
GuusGe0rG I've just forwarded your response to all of board.
Ge0rGGuus: awesome, thanks
Guusas far as I see, there are no points left under discussion. Did I miss anything?
Ge0rGThere was also talk about whitelisting all members to send to board?
Guusunsure about that. Let's not drag that into the issue of your trademark request though.
Ge0rGGuus: yes, that's completely separate. I think Kev said something about this being an easy change, with his iteam hat on
Ge0rGIt 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.
GuusI'm guessing that more bookkeeping is required? or, are we keeping a record of active XSF members in config somewhere already?
Ge0rG(you can't send out minutes if you aren't subscribed to either)
Ge0rGGuus: IIRC it was a mailman config change, no bookkeeping involved
Guusminutes never go to board@ - that's originally intended to be used for internal discussion amongst board members.
Ge0rGAh 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
GuusGe0rG I noticed that the blacklist is pretty empty (has one domain). Is that list already actively maintained?
Ge0rGGuus: yes it is. But it takes significant effort to maintain due process. You are welcome to participate.
Guus(I'm contemplating mirroring it through igniterealtime.org, and hook it into a new plugin that applies the blacklist).
Guuswhat kind of 'proof' do you require that due process has been followed?
Ge0rGGuus: in the process, I've got half a dozen of servers shut down, and a bunch of requests are pending timeout.
jonas’Guus, there is a private issue tracker where the process is documented
Ge0rGGuus: we have an internal issue tracker where all communications with ISPs and server Admins is logged verbatim.
Guusah, that makes sense
Ge0rGGuus: you are welcome to join the effort, otherwise I'd like to get CCs of the abuse report messages with respective timestamps and responses
GuusGe0rG 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 )
Ge0rGIt'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
Ge0rGSo far, I've read many reports of "I've contacted the admins of xyz", but these never were followed up with evidence
GuusIt's important to retain a good trail of evidence, to avoid abuse of the anti-abuse service. 🙂
Ge0rGYes. This is why I'm demanding evidence before adding any domain there.
KevGuus: 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.
KevWhile fulfilling the core aim of the PR, which is to make sure that Deferred stuff can get advanced.
KevI 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.
dwdFWIW, 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.
KevWell, no not quite same.
KevI don't think it's right in the case that the original author is active that someone else gets to shepherd it through.
KevAlthough maybe that's not an issue.
Guusthe suggested change scopes the addition of the author to XEPs that are abandoned by the original author(s).
dwdWell, 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.
ralphmdwd: I didn't touch that part, though. Are you suggesting we remove the current text about the Author needing to process LC comments?
Guusalso, it doesn't explicitly say 'replace' author - I'm assuming that it's an 'add'.
ralphmGe0rG: for what it is worth, from what I understand from Kev and Peter, email@example.com 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.
dwdPersonally, 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.
ralphmdwd: that was what I was going for indeed.
Ge0rGdwd: I like that text
GuusI 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.
Ge0rGralphm: 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.
Guusdwd's wording is fine with me too.
Ge0rGGuus: I think there is some small potential for abuse, and it doesn't feel right to me to auto-make anybody an author
ralphmPeter is still an Officer of the XSF and I'm happy with him doing this.
Guusit's not auto-make, as the Council gets to decide on the move to Last Call (and thus author)
ralphm(he is Treasurer)
Ge0rGGuus: do you imply that there should be two separate votes - first on the LC and then on the extension of authorship?
Guusno. 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
ralphmGe0rG: 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.
Ge0rGLet's move forward with Dave's wording then
ralphmGuus: the bikeshed will be orange
Ge0rGGuus: I was not surprised to see that proposal being made by *you*, though!
Guus'that proposal' ?
GuusI have off-days too.
Guus(I obviously should've gone with "pretty red")
Severalphm, Guus, where can I find what defines a XEP as abandoned or better, how a XEP gets into the state of abandoned?
GuusI don't think that there's a definition for that.
ralphmSeve: it is not defined. In general abandonment is an indeterminable thing.
ralphmSo I'd say this is up to the Editor or Council to concider.
SeveHmm, I see.
KevGuus: 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.
ralphmI.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.
ralphmKev: to be fair, the changed text doesn't say it makes them author, but I will clarify as discussed.
GuusKev 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!
Ge0rGI actually like the ambiguity of requiring the Proposer to be prepared, but no explicit requirement on making them the author.
dwdAmbiguity - it's what we like in standards, right?
Ge0rGdwd: 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.
ralphmgood luck with that
Ge0rGpulls the Common Sense card, then
dwdI think you're not looking for ambiguity, per se, but flexibility, which applies to both.
Ge0rGisn't the ambiguity of the wording giving us flexibility in what to do?
ralphmdwd: Section 8 also mentions the author can retract. I'm thinking of explicitly excluding that for their temporary replacement.
dwdralphm, Good catch. Not considered that myself.
KevOr, 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.
KevThat way we're pretty confident we're not breaking anything, nor preventing sensible things being done.
ralphmKev: that doesn't help
dwdI get what you mean, but I like the notion that anyone proposing needs to be aware they might be seen as volunteering.
ralphmas you need someone during last call, and while Council is concidering the move, to collect and process feedback
Ge0rGI don't like it when anybody can propose, and then Council needs to run searching for volunteers.
KevYes, that's what I said.
KevIf Council (or whoever) approve the proposal to LC it, they need to ensure there's an active Author to see it through.
Ge0rGKev: the Council doesn't have any means to do so.
KevSure they do.
ralphmIt does, though. It could say it isn't ready for last call without an author
Ge0rGSo we reject the LC and make another round until the Proposer either volunteers or disappears?
KevOr find an active person who's willing to Author.
ralphmThe 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.
ralphm(even though they didn't, well, author the document)
ralphmThe only other thing (besides somebody acting as author) is having this role fall to the Editor.
KevMaybe it makes sense to define a Document Shepherd, then?
ralphmThey can already modify documents with final say with Council.
KevAnd say that AB needs to ensure that there is an active Author or DS if it issues the LC.
ralphmSo basically: Romeo proposes XEP-xxxx, Council asks: sure, will you shepherd?, Romeo: eh, well, ok!
Ge0rGCan'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"
KevGe0rG: The issue there was then needing to start excluding things that an Author can currently do.
ralphmI'm now instead whitelisting.
KevThe idea of defining DS is to have the same sentiment, without the confusion of a pseudo-partial-Author.
ralphmCurrent 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.”
ralphmIf you want to name “such an individual” "Document Shephard”, that's ok, I guess.
SeveIt is the first time I hear about "Document Shephard" though :)
KevKinda 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 :)
ralphmSeve: because you didn't read the Council discussion on this, and also not my mention of it earlier here.
KevMaybe we could call such an individual a 'node' :)
KevBut DS is a term from the IETF.
SeveNo no, I read it, I mean I never heard the term before
SeveI see Kev, thank you
ralphmI've updated the PR
ralphmdwd, Kev, Ge0rG, (and others), let me know if this addresses your concerns
Steve Killehas left
Ge0rGralphm: 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
ralphmI think Council can in practice coerce^Wsuggest those two individuals to be the same.
Ge0rGralphm: yes, but that requires a Council RTT
KevI think that's a feature that it doesn't conflate the two people.
Steve Killehas left
ralphmI'm not too worried about the roundtrip.
KevAnd 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?".
ralphmEspecially since suggesting to propose a XEP to move informally already happens during discussions here.
Ge0rGI'd prefer a wording that implies that Proposing Individual needs to propose a Document Shepherd for the LC
ralphm(or the standards list or wherever)
ralphmKev: that "whoever" by definition is the Editor, by the way.
Ge0rGBut as I said, it is sufficiently flexible and formally correct, so we don't need to Shed More Bikes now.
Ge0rGSo you ask Editor to ask Council to do an LC?
Kevralphm: Ah, right.
ralphmGe0rG: you're not taking my bike
Ge0rGralphm: this is not your bike.
ralphmGe0rG: well, you kinda ask the Approving Body, but the Editor processes such requests.
ralphmSince the venue is the standards mailing list, it doesn't matter that much.
ralphmAnd you don't request a LC, you propose a XEP for progressing to Draft.
ralphmDepending on the XEP type, it might not require and LC.
SeveGood job, thank you guys. Thanks to dwd for volunteering as minute taker, really appreciated.
GuusProposal 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."
Ge0rGI'm bored and not board, but LGTM
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
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
SeveGuus: 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.
Steve Killehas joined
ralphmMaybe ask about how their activities relate to XMPP.
Steve Killehas joined
Steve Killehas joined
GuusSeve 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."
SeveGuus: looks awesome, thank you!
jonas’this reads very accusatory to me, but I don’t have any context
Guusaccusatory was not what I was after.
Steve Killehas joined
jonas’then I’d delete everything after the first questionmark
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."
jonas’> from your text […]
and that’s why I said I have no context :)
ralphmGuus: I'm happy with that
Guusjonas` 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.
GuusWe're inclined to reject, unless we're misreading things.