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 Indeed!
  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 Haha
  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 +1
  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 Same.
  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 purple@!
  345. Ge0rG lib-purple?
  346. Guus ok, orange.
  347. ralphm :-D
  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 no
  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 :D
  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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858
  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 an
  465. ralphm a
  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 o/
  478. nyco hey
  479. ralphm 1. Minute taker
  480. ralphm Who?
  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 +1
  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. Sure
  489. Seve I was not aware of it, I guess this happened druing Summit
  490. Guus +1
  491. ralphm He was totally aware
  492. ralphm I confirmed it.
  493. ralphm +1
  494. Seve And I'm +1 if he wants to! He is working hard on this area
  495. ralphm Yay. Thanks pep.!
  496. pep. Thanks!
  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 Opinions?
  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 Indeed.
  507. ralphm As Peter had already suggested to him, I suggest we decline this offer.
  508. MattJ Hey
  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 Right
  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 thx!
  530. ralphm Thanks Guus.
  531. ralphm 3. XEP-0001 PR 744
  532. ralphm https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744
  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. (SCAM)
  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 +1
  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 +1
  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 tx
  578. ralphm flow?
  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 +1W
  638. Guus nyco maybe. At this stage, I was just interested to know if we had made any progress.
  639. Nÿco +1
  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 +1
  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