XSF Discussion - 2019-02-07

  1. bowlofeggs has left

  2. rtq3 has left

  3. rtq3 has joined

  4. efrit has joined

  5. alameyo has left

  6. UsL has left

  7. UsL has joined

  8. remko has joined

  9. Guus has left

  10. Guus has joined

  11. Guus has left

  12. Link Mauve has joined

  13. lnj has left

  14. remko has left

  15. Neustradamus has left

  16. Neustradamus has joined

  17. Wiktor has joined

  18. Wiktor has joined

  19. Link Mauve has left

  20. lskdjf has left

  21. Link Mauve has joined

  22. bowlofeggs has left

  23. bowlofeggs has joined

  24. lskdjf has joined

  25. Zash has left

  26. Guus has joined

  27. efrit has left

  28. Link Mauve has left

  29. Guus has left

  30. Guus has joined

  31. Guus has left

  32. Link Mauve has joined

  33. Guus has joined

  34. Link Mauve has left

  35. jmpman has joined

  36. Link Mauve has joined

  37. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  38. rtq3 has left

  39. mrDoctorWho has joined

  40. rtq3 has joined

  41. peter has joined

  42. Guus has left

  43. Guus has joined

  44. Guus has left

  45. Ge0rG has joined

  46. Ge0rG has joined

  47. Guus has joined

  48. remko has joined

  49. j.r has left

  50. j.r has joined

  51. remko has left

  52. waqas has joined

  53. rtq3 has left

  54. rtq3 has joined

  55. peter has left

  56. lumi has left

  57. Guus has left

  58. Guus has joined

  59. Guus has left

  60. Guus has joined

  61. bowlofeggs has left

  62. rtq3 has left

  63. wurstsalat has left

  64. wurstsalat has joined

  65. ta has left

  66. jmpman has joined

  67. Guus has left

  68. Guus has joined

  69. Guus has left

  70. moparisthebest has left

  71. remko has joined

  72. Guus has joined

  73. Guus has left

  74. Guus has joined

  75. Yagiza has joined

  76. Guus has left

  77. lskdjf has left

  78. remko has left

  79. Guus has joined

  80. Nekit has joined

  81. moparisthebest has left

  82. lorddavidiii has joined

  83. Tobias has joined

  84. Tobias has left

  85. Tobias has joined

  86. Guus has left

  87. Guus has joined

  88. Guus has left

  89. Seve has left

  90. vaulor has joined

  91. lskdjf has joined

  92. jmpman has joined

  93. Guus has joined

  94. l has left

  95. vaulor has left

  96. vaulor has joined

  97. goffi has joined

  98. oli has joined

  99. labdsf has left

  100. l has left

  101. Ge0rG has joined

  102. moparisthebest has joined

  103. Guus has left

  104. Guus has joined

  105. Guus has left

  106. Guus has joined

  107. remko has joined

  108. valo has left

  109. valo has joined

  110. ThibG has left

  111. ThibG has joined

  112. remko has left

  113. Maranda has left

  114. Guus has left

  115. Guus has joined

  116. Guus has left

  117. Maranda has left

  118. thorsten has left

  119. ralphm has left

  120. sezuan has left

  121. Steve Kille has left

  122. jmpman has joined

  123. Guus has joined

  124. waqas has left

  125. l has joined

  126. Guus has left

  127. 404.city has joined

  128. lnj has joined

  129. labdsf has joined

  130. sezuan has left

  131. Steve Kille has joined

  132. remko has joined

  133. lnj has left

  134. ThibG has joined

  135. ThibG has joined

  136. lnj has joined

  137. rion has left

  138. lnj has left

  139. lnj has joined

  140. lnj has left

  141. lnj has joined

  142. ThibG has left

  143. ThibG has joined

  144. ThibG has joined

  145. Alex has joined

  146. Guus has left

  147. Yagiza has left

  148. rion has left

  149. mimi89999 has joined

  150. ThibG has joined

  151. ThibG has joined

  152. Daniel has left

  153. ThibG has left

  154. ThibG has joined

  155. Yagiza has joined

  156. frainz has left

  157. frainz has joined

  158. jjrh has left

  159. 404.city has joined

  160. Guus has left

  161. jjrh has joined

  162. ralphm has left

  163. Alex has joined

  164. pep.

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

  165. 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.

  166. 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

  167. 404.city has left

  168. Guus has left

  169. 404.city has joined

  170. labdsf has joined

  171. equil has joined

  172. Ge0rG

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

  173. Ge0rG

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

  174. 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.

  175. dwd

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

  176. vaulor has left

  177. vaulor has joined

  178. karoshi has joined

  179. oli has left

  180. Seve


  181. 404.city has joined

  182. 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

  183. 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

  184. Seve


  185. Daniel has left

  186. 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

  187. Ge0rG

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

  188. dwd

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

  189. dwd

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

  190. wurstsalat has joined

  191. debacle has joined

  192. Daniel has left

  193. Daniel has joined

  194. 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.

  195. Ge0rG

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

  196. 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.

  197. Seve


  198. Seve

    Thank you Guus

  199. Kev

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

  200. 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.

  201. 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.

  202. Ge0rG

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

  203. pep.

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

  204. Ge0rG

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

  205. 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.

  206. Ge0rG

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

  207. frainz has joined

  208. grumpy has left

  209. dwd

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

  210. Guus

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

  211. Ge0rG

    and that needs cleaning up as well.

  212. Guus

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

  213. Kev

    I think there's motivation and expectation.

  214. Kev

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

  215. Ge0rG

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

  216. Ge0rG

    If only we had an ED.

  217. Guus

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

  218. Ge0rG

    If only we had someone willing to do the job.

  219. Guus

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

  220. Guus

    (Kev's double negatives are rubbing off)

  221. Kev


  222. Guus

    We never asked, afaik.

  223. Kev

    Willing and competent.

  224. Ge0rG

    and empathical.

  225. Ge0rG

    Which probably falls under #2

  226. lskdjf has joined

  227. Daniel has left

  228. Daniel has joined

  229. lumi has joined

  230. Guus

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

  231. 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.

  232. Guus

    Thanks, reading back logs

  233. Daniel has left

  234. Daniel has joined

  235. ralphm

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

  236. 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.

  237. architekt has joined

  238. architekt has left

  239. Guus

    what is "real" authorship?

  240. Guus

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

  241. ralphm

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

  242. ralphm

    Real authorship means having your name on the document.

  243. Seve

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

  244. ralphm

    Seve: have you read the changes?

  245. Seve

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

  246. Guus

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

  247. Guus

    I don't have an issue with that.

  248. 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*.

  249. jmpman has joined

  250. ralphm

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

  251. Alex has left

  252. 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.

  253. Guus

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

  254. ralphm

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

  255. ralphm

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

  256. ralphm

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

  257. Guus

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

  258. karoshi has left

  259. karoshi has joined

  260. 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.

  261. Guus has left

  262. Guus

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

  263. Guus has left

  264. Daniel has left

  265. Daniel has joined

  266. 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

  267. 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

  268. Guus

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

  269. Ge0rG

    Guus: awesome, thanks

  270. Guus

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

  271. Ge0rG

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

  272. Guus

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

  273. Ge0rG

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

  274. 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.

  275. Guus

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

  276. Ge0rG

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

  277. Ge0rG

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

  278. Guus

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

  279. Daniel has left

  280. Daniel has joined

  281. 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

  282. Daniel has left

  283. Daniel has joined

  284. Guus

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

  285. Ge0rG

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

  286. Guus

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

  287. moparisthebest has joined

  288. Guus

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

  289. Ge0rG

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

  290. moparisthebest has joined

  291. jonas’

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

  292. Ge0rG

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

  293. Guus

    ah, that makes sense

  294. 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

  295. 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 )

  296. Daniel has left

  297. Daniel has joined

  298. 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

  299. Ge0rG

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

  300. Guus

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

  301. bowlofeggs has joined

  302. Daniel has left

  303. Daniel has joined

  304. Ge0rG

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

  305. jjrh has left

  306. jjrh has joined

  307. marc_ has joined

  308. jjrh has left

  309. Daniel has left

  310. Daniel has joined

  311. 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.

  312. Kev

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

  313. 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.

  314. 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.

  315. Kev


  316. Kev

    Well, no not quite same.

  317. Daniel has left

  318. Daniel has joined

  319. 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.

  320. Kev

    Although maybe that's not an issue.

  321. Guus

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

  322. 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.

  323. 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?

  324. Guus

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

  325. Guus has left

  326. 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.

  327. 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.

  328. ralphm

    dwd: that was what I was going for indeed.

  329. Ge0rG

    dwd: I like that text

  330. 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.

  331. 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.

  332. Guus

    dwd's wording is fine with me too.

  333. 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

  334. ralphm

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

  335. Ge0rG

    ralphm: great!

  336. Guus

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

  337. ralphm

    (he is Treasurer)

  338. Ge0rG

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

  339. 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

  340. 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.

  341. Ge0rG

    Let's move forward with Dave's wording then

  342. ralphm

    Guus: the bikeshed will be orange

  343. Guus has left

  344. Guus


  345. Ge0rG


  346. Guus

    ok, orange.

  347. ralphm


  348. Ge0rG

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

  349. Daniel has left

  350. Daniel has joined

  351. Guus

    'that proposal' ?

  352. Ge0rG

    > purple@!

  353. Guus

    I have off-days too.

  354. rtq3 has joined

  355. Daniel has left

  356. Daniel has joined

  357. Guus

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

  358. Seve

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

  359. Guus

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

  360. ralphm

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

  361. ralphm

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

  362. Seve

    Hmm, I see.

  363. 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.

  364. 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.

  365. ralphm

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

  366. 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!

  367. Ge0rG

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

  368. kokonoe has joined

  369. dwd

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

  370. grumpy has joined

  371. 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.

  372. ralphm

    good luck with that

  373. waqas has joined

  374. Ge0rG pulls the Common Sense card, then

  375. dwd

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

  376. frainz has left

  377. Ge0rG

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

  378. ralphm

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

  379. dwd

    ralphm, Good catch. Not considered that myself.

  380. l has joined

  381. 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.

  382. Kev


  383. Kev

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

  384. ralphm

    Kev: that doesn't help

  385. dwd

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

  386. ralphm

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

  387. Ge0rG

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

  388. Kev

    Yes, that's what I said.

  389. ralphm


  390. Kev

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

  391. Ge0rG

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

  392. Kev

    Sure they do.

  393. ralphm

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

  394. Ge0rG

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

  395. Kev

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

  396. 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.

  397. ralphm

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

  398. ralphm

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

  399. Kev

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

  400. ralphm

    They can already modify documents with final say with Council.

  401. Kev

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

  402. ralphm

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

  403. 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"

  404. Kev

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

  405. ralphm

    I'm now instead whitelisting.

  406. oli has joined

  407. Kev

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

  408. 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.”

  409. ralphm

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

  410. Daniel has left

  411. Seve

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

  412. 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 :)

  413. ralphm

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

  414. Seve


  415. Kev

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

  416. Kev

    But DS is a term from the IETF.

  417. Seve

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

  418. Seve

    I see Kev, thank you

  419. jmpman has joined

  420. ralphm


  421. jmpman has joined

  422. moparisthebest has joined

  423. moparisthebest has joined

  424. Zash has left

  425. ralphm

    I've updated the PR

  426. Kev

    Thanks Ralph.

  427. ralphm

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

  428. rtq3 has left

  429. rtq3 has joined

  430. karoshi has left

  431. Steve Kille has left

  432. karoshi has joined

  433. moparisthebest has joined

  434. moparisthebest has joined

  435. vaulor has joined

  436. vaulor has joined

  437. moparisthebest has left

  438. lskdjf has joined

  439. 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

  440. Nÿco has joined

  441. ralphm

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

  442. Ge0rG

    ralphm: yes, but that requires a Council RTT

  443. jmpman has joined

  444. Kev

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

  445. Steve Kille has left

  446. ralphm

    I'm not too worried about the roundtrip.

  447. 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?".

  448. ralphm

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

  449. Ge0rG

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

  450. ralphm

    (or the standards list or wherever)

  451. ralphm

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

  452. Ge0rG

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

  453. Ge0rG

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

  454. Kev

    ralphm: Ah, right.

  455. ralphm

    Ge0rG: you're not taking my bike

  456. Ge0rG

    ralphm: this is not your bike.

  457. Nÿco has left

  458. Nÿco has joined

  459. ralphm

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

  460. l has joined

  461. ralphm

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

  462. ralphm

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

  463. ralphm

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

  464. ralphm


  465. ralphm


  466. Nÿco has left

  467. Maranda has joined

  468. Nÿco has joined

  469. Nÿco has left

  470. Nÿco has joined

  471. ralphm set the topic to

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

  472. ralphm bangs gavel

  473. ralphm

    0. Welcome + Agenda

  474. ralphm

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

  475. Seve waves

  476. ralphm

    nyco, Guus, MattJ?

  477. Guus


  478. nyco


  479. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  480. ralphm


  481. Seve

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

  482. ralphm

    Seve: thanks

  483. ralphm

    2. Adding Maxime Buquet to SCAM

  484. nyco


  485. Guus

    does pep. _want_ to be in SCAM? 🙂

  486. Guus

    I feel that he's being volunteered 🙂

  487. 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.

  488. pep.


  489. Seve

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

  490. Guus


  491. ralphm

    He was totally aware

  492. ralphm

    I confirmed it.

  493. ralphm


  494. Seve

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

  495. ralphm

    Yay. Thanks pep.!

  496. pep.


  497. ralphm

    3. Sponsoring offer by Petko Yanev

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

  499. ralphm

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

  500. ralphm

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

  501. ralphm


  502. Nÿco

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

  503. Nÿco is reading about Petko

  504. ralphm

    (Nyco PRs welcome)

  505. 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."

  506. ralphm


  507. ralphm

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

  508. MattJ


  509. 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.

  510. ralphm


  511. MattJ

    +1 on adding Max to SCAM

  512. Guus

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

  513. 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.

  514. ralphm

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

  515. 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?

  516. dwd

    Seve, Want me to do minutes instead?

  517. MattJ

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

  518. Seve

    dwd, would be pleased!

  519. Nÿco

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

  520. ralphm

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

  521. Nÿco

    agree with Seve what are his motivations?

  522. 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.

  523. Guus

    that gives him the chance to prove him wrong.

  524. ralphm

    Who's taking this up?

  525. Nÿco

    prove **us** wrong 😉

  526. ThibG has joined

  527. Guus

    right 🙂

  528. Guus

    I'll do it

  529. Nÿco


  530. ralphm

    Thanks Guus.

  531. ralphm

    3. XEP-0001 PR 744

  532. ralphm


  533. Nÿco

    so why "shepherd"? 😉

  534. ralphm

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

  535. ralphm

    Nÿco: as this was suggested by Peter

  536. krauq has joined

  537. ralphm

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

  538. Guus

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

  539. ralphm

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

  540. Guus

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

  541. MattJ

    +1 also

  542. Seve

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

  543. Nÿco

    ok, clear, then +1

  544. kokonoe has joined

  545. ralphm

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

  546. ralphm

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

  547. ralphm

    4. Trademark Request by Georg Lukas

  548. pep.

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

  549. pep.


  550. Guus

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

  551. Guus

    (earlier today)

  552. 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.

  553. Guus

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

  554. MattJ


  555. Nÿco

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

  556. ralphm

    Guus is that a +1?

  557. Guus


  558. Seve

    +1 to Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management

  559. Nÿco

    sorry, I haven't been able to process it

  560. Nÿco

    I can vote later if necessary

  561. ralphm

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

  562. ralphm

    So the motion carries.

  563. Nÿco

    that's cool then

  564. ralphm

    Cheers, Ge0rG.

  565. Guus

    thanks for bearing with us.

  566. Nÿco

    now, JabberBACON

  567. ralphm

    dwd says I should explicitly write +1

  568. ralphm

    so: +1

  569. Guus

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

  570. dwd


  571. Guus

    we have one that lists accepted trademark licence requests.

  572. pep.

    Nÿco, thanks for the wiki

  573. Seve

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

  574. Guus

    Seve yes

  575. Seve

    I can take care of it after this meeting.

  576. ralphm

    5. GSoC

  577. Guus


  578. ralphm


  579. ralphm

    Or Guus

  580. ralphm

    Where are we?

  581. Guus

    The GSoC application has been finalized

  582. Guus

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

  583. Guus

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

  584. Nÿco

    we should promote the call for ideas?

  585. Guus

    deadline is ... today, I think.

  586. pep.

    Wasn't that yesterday?

  587. Zash

    Wasn't it yesterday?

  588. MattJ

    It was yesterday actually, I believe

  589. pep.

    I was told 18 UTC

  590. Zash

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

  591. ralphm

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

  592. dwd

    Do we know if the application went in?

  593. pep.

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

  594. Guus

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

  595. pep.

    dwd, dunno, I would hope so

  596. dwd

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

  597. 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.

  598. Guus

    dwd yes

  599. neshtaxmpp has left

  600. ralphm

    Anything to be done by Board on this?

  601. waqas has left

  602. Guus

    I don't think so, at this stage.

  603. waqas has joined

  604. ralphm

    Thanks Guus (and flow).

  605. neshtaxmpp has joined

  606. ralphm

    6. XMPP Summit / FOSDEM

  607. ralphm

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

  608. 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.

  609. ralphm

    SCAM will do a evaluation.

  610. Nÿco has left

  611. Nÿco

    blog post, +1, mentionning some tweets with photos

  612. Seve

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

  613. ralphm

    I'm still selling hoodies (to colleagues).

  614. Nÿco

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

  615. Guus

    I took the hoodie out to dinner last night! 😉

  616. dwd

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

  617. Guus

    right, this is getting silly.

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

  619. ralphm

    7. Clarify process for typos in XEPs

  620. ralphm

    Seve was putting in a PR for this

  621. ralphm

    I don't think that's happened yet.

  622. MattJ

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

  623. ralphm

    8. AOB

  624. ralphm


  625. Guus

    nyco: news on the badges?

  626. Guus

    (compliance suite stuff)

  627. Nÿco

    the graphic designer would prefer to get paid

  628. 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.

  629. 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.

  630. ralphm

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

  631. Guus

    (regarding Seve: I don't remember)

  632. Nÿco

    https://mybrandnewlogo.com/ 😉

  633. ralphm

    It might actually be jonas’

  634. Nÿco

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

  635. ralphm

    Ok, we can pick this up next week.

  636. ralphm

    9. Date of Next

  637. ralphm


  638. Guus

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

  639. Nÿco


  640. ralphm

    10. Close

  641. Guus

    +1w works for me

  642. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  643. Guus

    Thank you

  644. ralphm bangs gavel

  645. Nÿco

    thx! 😉

  646. ralphm set the topic to

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

  647. Seve

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

  648. ralphm


  649. Nÿco has left

  650. 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."

  651. Guus

    feedback please?

  652. Maranda has joined

  653. waqas has left

  654. waqas has joined

  655. Ge0rG

    I'm bored and not board, but LGTM

  656. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  657. waqas has left

  658. Guus has left

  659. Guus has left

  660. ralphm has left

  661. 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

  662. vaulor has left

  663. vaulor has joined

  664. rtq3 has left

  665. mightyBroccoli has left

  666. rion has left

  667. rion has joined

  668. kokonoe has joined

  669. rtq3 has joined

  670. 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.

  671. jonas’ has left

  672. jonas’ has joined

  673. mightyBroccoli has joined

  674. Kev has joined

  675. Steve Kille has joined

  676. ralphm

    Maybe ask about how their activities relate to XMPP.

  677. Steve Kille has joined

  678. Kev has joined

  679. mati has left

  680. Steve Kille has joined

  681. Kev has joined

  682. 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."

  683. oli has left

  684. Seve

    Guus: looks awesome, thank you!

  685. Zash


  686. mati has joined

  687. jonas’

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

  688. vaulor has left

  689. vaulor has joined

  690. Guus

    accusatory was not what I was after.

  691. Kev has joined

  692. Steve Kille has joined

  693. jonas’

    then I’d delete everything after the first questionmark

  694. 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."

  695. jonas’

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

  696. ralphm

    Guus: I'm happy with that

  697. 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.

  698. Guus

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

  699. jonas’

    oh, yeah, that totally makes sense

  700. jonas’

    I like your wording then :)

  701. jonas’

    (either version)

  702. Guus

    the last one was just sent out.

  703. mightyBroccoli has left

  704. Guus has left

  705. rtq3 has left

  706. Guus has left

  707. rtq3 has joined

  708. efrit has joined

  709. mightyBroccoli has joined

  710. Maranda has left

  711. labdsf has joined

  712. Nekit has left

  713. Nekit has joined

  714. Guus has left

  715. j.r has joined

  716. j.r has joined

  717. rtq3 has left

  718. rtq3 has joined

  719. pep. has joined

  720. wurstsalat has joined

  721. mightyBroccoli has left

  722. mightyBroccoli has joined

  723. efrit has left

  724. nyco has left

  725. labdsf has left

  726. ralphm


  727. rtq3 has left

  728. rtq3 has joined

  729. Steve Kille has left

  730. Steve Kille has left

  731. lovetox has joined

  732. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  733. sezuan has left

  734. Tobias has joined

  735. lumi has joined

  736. ta has joined

  737. Zash has left

  738. Nekit has left

  739. Nekit has joined

  740. ralphm has joined

  741. Guus has joined

  742. rtq3 has left

  743. frainz has left

  744. frainz has left

  745. frainz has joined

  746. Guus has left

  747. Guus has joined

  748. moparisthebest has joined

  749. kokonoe has left

  750. kokonoe has joined

  751. kokonoe has left

  752. Ge0rG has joined

  753. kokonoe has joined

  754. labdsf has joined

  755. kokonoe has left

  756. kokonoe has joined

  757. Steve Kille has joined

  758. Nekit has joined

  759. marc_ has joined

  760. ThibG has joined

  761. kokonoe has joined

  762. equil has joined

  763. kokonoe has left

  764. kokonoe has joined

  765. Yagiza has left

  766. tux has joined

  767. lumi has joined

  768. labdsf has left

  769. labdsf has joined

  770. Maranda has joined

  771. Maranda has joined

  772. tux has joined

  773. tux has joined

  774. lskdjf has left

  775. kokonoe has left

  776. lskdjf has joined

  777. vaulor has left

  778. vaulor has joined

  779. Tobias has joined

  780. l has joined

  781. Kev has left

  782. labdsf has left

  783. moparisthebest has joined

  784. labdsf has joined

  785. 404.city has left

  786. equil has left

  787. equil has joined

  788. !xsf_Martin has joined

  789. wurstsalat has joined

  790. Tobias has joined

  791. lskdjf has left

  792. rion has left

  793. mimi89999 has joined

  794. tux has joined

  795. equil has left

  796. equil has joined

  797. tux has joined

  798. jjrh has joined

  799. tux has joined

  800. tux has joined

  801. kokonoe has joined

  802. ThibG has left

  803. ThibG has joined

  804. l has left

  805. valo has joined

  806. kokonoe has left

  807. rion has left

  808. kokonoe has joined

  809. vanitasvitae has left

  810. ThibG has left

  811. ThibG has joined

  812. vanitasvitae has joined

  813. debacle has left

  814. lorddavidiii has left

  815. jjrh has left

  816. jjrh has joined

  817. pep. has left

  818. sezuan has left

  819. Tobias has joined

  820. goffi has joined

  821. Nekit has joined

  822. 404.city has joined

  823. remko has left

  824. UsL has left

  825. UsL has joined

  826. valo has joined

  827. Nekit has joined

  828. efrit has joined

  829. rtq3 has joined

  830. sezuan has left

  831. lnj has left

  832. Tobias has joined

  833. vaulor has left

  834. moparisthebest has joined

  835. rtq3 has left

  836. rtq3 has joined

  837. 404.city has left

  838. !xsf_Martin has joined

  839. Seve has left

  840. vaulor has joined

  841. oli has joined

  842. lnj has left

  843. frainz has left

  844. kokonoe has left

  845. vaulor has left

  846. kokonoe has joined

  847. sezuan has left

  848. rtq3 has left

  849. rtq3 has joined

  850. lovetox has left

  851. bowlofeggs has left

  852. remko has joined

  853. oli has joined

  854. bowlofeggs has left

  855. oli has left

  856. oli has joined

  857. mimi89999 has joined

  858. oli has left

  859. oli has joined

  860. oli has left

  861. oli has joined

  862. andrey.g has joined

  863. oli has left

  864. oli has joined

  865. remko has left

  866. karoshi has left

  867. efrit has left

  868. efrit has joined