XSF logo XSF Discussion - 2019-03-13


  1. rion has left
  2. UsL has left
  3. UsL has joined
  4. rtq3 has left
  5. karoshi has left
  6. waqas has joined
  7. wurstsalat has joined
  8. Alex has joined
  9. kokonoe has left
  10. lumi has left
  11. Alex has left
  12. kokonoe has joined
  13. tux has left
  14. Yagiza has joined
  15. neshtaxmpp has left
  16. neshtaxmpp has joined
  17. rion has joined
  18. alacer has left
  19. alacer has joined
  20. alacer has left
  21. alacer has joined
  22. alacer has left
  23. alacer has joined
  24. lskdjf has left
  25. larma has left
  26. alacer has left
  27. alacer has joined
  28. bowlofeggs has left
  29. bowlofeggs has joined
  30. alacer has left
  31. Nekit has joined
  32. alacer has joined
  33. arc has left
  34. arc has joined
  35. j.r has left
  36. j.r has joined
  37. j.r has left
  38. j.r has joined
  39. blabla has left
  40. oli has joined
  41. Neustradamus has left
  42. Neustradamus has joined
  43. Nekit has left
  44. Nekit has joined
  45. oli has left
  46. oli has joined
  47. karoshi has joined
  48. Tobias has joined
  49. blabla has joined
  50. rtq3 has joined
  51. lnj has joined
  52. oli has left
  53. oli has joined
  54. moparisthebest has left
  55. moparisthebest has joined
  56. wurstsalat has left
  57. wurstsalat has joined
  58. contrapunctus has left
  59. contrapunctus has joined
  60. rtq3 has left
  61. rtq3 has joined
  62. lnj has left
  63. ralphm Ge0rG: well yeah, there's still no reasonable choice for MacOS, I think.
  64. Ge0rG Anu needs another pair of hands
  65. alacer has left
  66. neshtaxmpp has left
  67. oli has left
  68. neshtaxmpp has joined
  69. Steve Kille has joined
  70. andy has joined
  71. goffi has joined
  72. wurstsalat > Anu needs another pair of hands +1
  73. j.r has left
  74. alacer has joined
  75. vaulor has left
  76. contrapunctus has left
  77. 404.city has joined
  78. j.r has joined
  79. Guus Ah, yes. I was talking to people that were interested in providing those
  80. Guus I'll try to revive that effort.
  81. j.r has left
  82. j.r has joined
  83. Guus I've never spoken to Anu, I think. He's not in this MUC, I think. Is he still travelling?
  84. Guus Can anyone introduce me?
  85. vaulor has joined
  86. alacer has left
  87. rtq3 has left
  88. lnj has joined
  89. j.r has left
  90. j.r has joined
  91. contrapunctus has joined
  92. Kev has joined
  93. Seve Guus, he is usually here monal@chat.yax.im (I don't know him personally either)
  94. kokonoe has left
  95. oli has joined
  96. neshtaxmpp has left
  97. andy has left
  98. neshtaxmpp has joined
  99. kokonoe has joined
  100. ThibG has left
  101. ThibG has joined
  102. j.r has left
  103. j.r has joined
  104. j.r has left
  105. j.r has joined
  106. Seve There's a comment of a guy called Mark Nottingham on the comments section of that article, and he says: "I talk to various parts of the IETF Jabber mafia about this, and they can give detailed reasons about why XMPP failed. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have learned; we're still building federation-optional systems like WebRTC." I wonder if anyone here is one of those `IETF Jabber mafia` and knows why XMPP failed
  107. Steve Kille has left
  108. andy has joined
  109. contrapunctus has left
  110. contrapunctus has joined
  111. Steve Kille has joined
  112. j.r has left
  113. j.r has joined
  114. Guus Thanks Seve
  115. intosi has joined
  116. Guus I do not know who Mark Nottingham is. I wonder who he refers to (and chooses to keep talking with people he chooses to characterize as 'mafia')
  117. Dele Olajide has joined
  118. contrapunctus has left
  119. jonas’ because one doesn’t turn ones back to family?
  120. contrapunctus has joined
  121. zinid yeah, the naming is very important to discuss
  122. zinid when in fact his conclusion is correct
  123. contrapunctus has left
  124. contrapunctus has joined
  125. alacer has joined
  126. zinid federation leads to a marginal network in the worst case and to a power-law network with too-big-to-fail supernodes in the best case
  127. zinid and nothing in between
  128. contrapunctus has left
  129. contrapunctus has joined
  130. Guus 👍
  131. zinid and yeah, regarding wtf is Mark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Mark%20Nottingham
  132. Guus Thanks
  133. Seve Oh, he even appears as one of the contacts on that article :)
  134. waqas has left
  135. waqas has joined
  136. waqas has left
  137. waqas has joined
  138. waqas has left
  139. ralphm Grr, dwd, now I have to spend most of the day writing a response to your MIX braindump
  140. waqas has joined
  141. MattJ It was a good braindump
  142. ralphm It was, but there's so much there. I am probably going to do a separate response on the PubSub/MAM thing.
  143. ralphm Because that's a whole discussion just by itself.
  144. Guus I'd say that any braindump that makes Ralphm spend an entire day is pretty successful 🙂
  145. contrapunctus has left
  146. contrapunctus has joined
  147. alacer has left
  148. dwd I know Mark slightly. In as much as I've had a beer with him before. The mafia is probably Peter and Joe.
  149. Guus if he continues to engage them, then 'mafia' was more sarcastic than an indication of discontent, then?
  150. dwd ralphm, To make it clear, I don't know which parts of that brain dump are hills I wish to die on yet.
  151. dwd Guus, Remember that nobody uses XMPP, except for the people that do. Mark, on the other hand, works in the web, so has a different view of what constitutes success.
  152. Wiktor Mark is the guy that oversees .well-known URI registry, also link relation registry. Not some random guy :)
  153. dwd Also HTTP 2, etc.
  154. Wiktor Also depreciating X- http headers
  155. Wiktor Yep.
  156. Wiktor Maybe he thinks that xmpp should be managed by ietf, not separate organization (just a guess)
  157. Seve That's the reason XMPP failed?
  158. Wiktor No, lack of good clients is a reason xmpp failed. Why this question now?
  159. Guus I'd argue that XMPP didn't fail.
  160. Guus Maybe it fails on certain aspects
  161. Seve Wiktor, well, you seem to know him very much, and my question was about he says XMPP failed.
  162. Wiktor I was referring to "jabber mafia" previously.
  163. Guus but it certainly does not fail as a whole,.
  164. Wiktor I know him because I've seen his name here and there. I don't know him personally.
  165. Guus The only reason why I asked about his wording was to figure out if he holds a grudge, or was semi-jokingly referring to people.
  166. waqas has left
  167. Zash What's the relationship between the XMPP mafia and the xmpp memorial society ?
  168. Wiktor I don't know in case you're asking me. That's why I used "just a guess".
  169. zinid Guus, I think Peter and Joe are his friends, so he can afford those words
  170. Guus zinid good, thanks.
  171. zinid like calling another WG is mafia, I think it's pretty much normal in those circles
  172. Seve I understood mafia as just the people that care about that, nothing else. But I was quite interested in knowing the detailed reasons about XMPP as he says. Sad that we don't have members of that mafia here
  173. Guus zinid that makes sense, yes.
  174. zinid Seve, because XMPP didn't attract as much attention as HTTP?
  175. Guus Seve I think you should become part of the mafia 😉
  176. zinid Seve, Mark is from HTTP mafia btw
  177. Guus be our wiseguy! 😉
  178. Seve I will get in there and take all their secrets!
  179. Seve zinid, yes, I realize that now, reading a bit :D
  180. Seve (Although I don't see why they should be compared)
  181. Wiktor Oh, now I found and read the actual comment by Mark: > I currently use Monal and am not terribly happy with that, which is probably why I don't log in much these days. So it's a "lack of good client" problem after all...
  182. intosi has left
  183. intosi has joined
  184. Zash The iOS situation is sad.
  185. dele has joined
  186. ralphm I can totally see why people feel XMPP failed. There was a lot of excitement, mind-share if you will, for having XMPP succeed as the SMTP of chat, as well as the use cases for non-chat. Google got on board, several of the other large companies did XMPP (Google, Microsoft Lync, Nokia, Orange, Facebook). Some federated, others not so much. All of the big IM systems around 2008 were ready to federate, but no-one wanted to go first. And then business decisions, not technical issues, undid most of that.
  187. dele has left
  188. Wiktor Zash, It's interesting because I thought it's iOS where people pay for apps.
  189. ralphm Like Sam, having a full roster of people that then diminishes because of that really sucks and contributes to your view on the technology.
  190. ralphm And the client situation on MacOS has always been a problem, but I cannot oversee how much of that impacted the success of XMPP in general.
  191. Zash Wiktor: Huh. Monal is free?
  192. Wiktor Zash: yes, that's a problem. It should be paid and developed like a normal app (just a random advice)
  193. Zash Tell the dev. "If Conversations can be $5, so can Monal!"
  194. ralphm I want to note that the years around 2008 was a time where *many* interesting new protocols around social popped up (webfinger, activity streams, oauth, openid, etc.) and then 'something' happened that destroyed momentum.
  195. Wiktor ralphm: xmpp problem stems from years of slumber. It's slowly getting better with new XEPs, new client features, etc.
  196. Wiktor ralphm: all of them work over http:)
  197. Zash Well in 2008, XMPP was a solved problem. Why do anything when it was perfect! :)
  198. Wiktor Zash: 👍
  199. Zash Then smartphones came along and ruined everything
  200. Wiktor Exactly. For some definition of "ruined".
  201. ralphm Zash: I definitely think that smartphones is related to the 'something'
  202. Holger Wasn't our multi-device support always horrible and the problem just hidden by nobody having multiple devices?
  203. Wiktor On Android it got better, no need to ditch xml or rework the protocol. Clients are working fine, low battery usage, useful features.
  204. Guus That's basically the same thing, I think 🙂
  205. Zash It was fine.. if you managed it correctly.
  206. ralphm The n900 had it all though, XMPP fully integrated in the calling and messaging infrastructure. Jingle calls with GTalk/Hangouts.
  207. ralphm Holger: totally
  208. Guus But I'm with @Wiktors train of thought, I think. To be more successful, it helps (or maybe even is required) that people start making money from their efforts.
  209. Guus But I'm with Wiktor 's train of thought, I think. To be more successful, it helps (or maybe even is required) that people start making money from their efforts.
  210. Guus I can at least not see how you can give enough attention to things while also being able to earn enough money to feed your family.
  211. ralphm Wiktor: the problem, though, is that if Linux and Android are the primary places where things do work properly, but not on MacOS and iOS, this affects a particular influencial set of people.
  212. Seve Indeed
  213. Zash The FOSS community has a complicated relationship with Apple
  214. ralphm No kidding. I had a look at the laptops at the XMPP Summit. The percentage of ThinkPads was very high.
  215. Guus Yeah, it amused me that you mentioned that.
  216. alacer has joined
  217. Seve It's normal.
  218. kokonoe has left
  219. Seve But that does not stop anyone from not-the-FOSS-community to build XMPP for Apple :(
  220. zinid > The FOSS community has a complicated relationship with Apple Yet, a lot of developers use MacOS for development
  221. Wiktor ralphm, I didn't get it, you mean Apple don't want good XMPP clients on iOS?
  222. ralphm Wiktor: well, it is not that easy
  223. Guus zinid I wonder if that's true for the FOSS community, to be honest.
  224. zinid Guus, XMPP is not FOSS
  225. ralphm Wiktor: I think that iOS actively hampered efforts to write good clients in the past, with its restrictions.
  226. zinid so there should be no difference
  227. Wiktor I don't see any technical reasons why it shouldn't work, especially with all these "mobile friendly XEPs"
  228. Wiktor ralphm, you mean need for push notifications?
  229. zinid I'm not sure why XMPP is positioned or percepted as FOSS, that's a strategic mistake
  230. ralphm Wiktor: there were no good solutions for this initially
  231. Wiktor agreed. but there is now, and I see proofs that good mobile clients can be done
  232. ralphm Wiktor: I agree it can be done now, but this history made it more difficult
  233. ralphm When my company started XMPP development on mobile, they could easily use Smack on Android, but mostly had to start from scratch on iOS.
  234. kokonoe has joined
  235. contrapunctus has left
  236. Wiktor I see
  237. ralphm I.e. the ecosystem is much less developed there.
  238. contrapunctus has joined
  239. Guus (and/or we lucked out with Google using Java for Android)
  240. Guus (and/or we were lucky with Google using Java for Android)
  241. ralphm Guus: and because of its opener nature, devices are cheaper etc.
  242. Guus unsure if that makes much difference. As zinid pointed out - many developers use Macs.
  243. Guus but that's besides the point.
  244. Wiktor Adium was nice... years and years go :)
  245. ralphm Guus: yeah, it baffles me that there's still no decent XMPP client for MacOS, as far as I know.
  246. ralphm Adium was always a pain, but there wasn't anything better.
  247. Guus (mac and google app stores hold approximately as many apps - so the ecosystem for regular developers apparently is not absent enough to make a difference)
  248. Guus ralphm, maybe it's a kind of echo chamber that we're in
  249. Guus regardless, I think we all agree that better ios/mac support is something we want.
  250. Seve agrees.
  251. Guus so maybe we should stop agreeing with eachother and move on 🙂
  252. Guus how do we get there?
  253. Seve Would crowdfunding be an option, I wonder
  254. Guus As I wrote earlier - I think sharing ideas on how to 'make money' could be a good start.
  255. yon has left
  256. Guus and, although I don't want to rule out options like crowdfunding, we maybe should focus on those options that already have been proven to be at least somewhat successful.
  257. Guus Identify those options, and spread knowledge.
  258. alacer has left
  259. Guus I've given a couple of examples a few weeks ago - but I think that coudl be done more structurally, somehow.
  260. Seve Is there something about that on a Wiki page or somewhere specific to look at it?
  261. Guus not that I know of (but might be a good start)
  262. Guus I am trying to find the logs of what I talked about here, but am unsuccessful so far
  263. Guus aside: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/ seems to have had an update, and no longer allow for join/part messages to be filtered. I kind of liked that feature.
  264. alacer has joined
  265. contrapunctus has left
  266. contrapunctus has joined
  267. yon has joined
  268. waqas has joined
  269. Guus This is what I referred to: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2019-02-20#2019-02-20-5f32e6fa28106cba
  270. Zash Guus: Shouldn't be difficult to add. *hint*
  271. rtq3 has joined
  272. Seve I can't read it right now, but let's start with a page on the wiki and see where it goes from there, Guus?
  273. Guus I've created this placeholdeR: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Fostering_success
  274. Guus I can't immediately spend more time on that, without disappointing customers
  275. rtq3 has left
  276. Seve :D
  277. Seve Guus, thank you very much :)
  278. tux has joined
  279. alacer has left
  280. alacer has joined
  281. waqas has left
  282. larma has joined
  283. contrapunctus has left
  284. contrapunctus has joined
  285. kokonoe has left
  286. kokonoe has joined
  287. alacer has left
  288. Dele Olajide has left
  289. neshtaxmpp has left
  290. debacle has joined
  291. alacer has joined
  292. dwd I think that the lack of good clients - generally, as well as in particular on Apple - is because the bulk of inward investment into the community is for servers. If you look at all the major deployers of XMPP - ganmes, military etc - tehy all develop their own clients, and do not create generalized user-level clients.
  293. dwd IOW, this is a matter of straightforward economics. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm very confident that the aversion in the community toward saying any particular client is good in any particular way isn't helping, since it removes incentive.
  294. kokonoe has left
  295. contrapunctus has left
  296. contrapunctus has joined
  297. kokonoe has joined
  298. krauq has joined
  299. zinid dwd, however, a lot of them fail to write a client, like 9/10 among our customers, which is quite bad
  300. zinid and raises the question: why do they fail?
  301. MattJ dwd: to be clear I don't think the latter point is entirely true. Many of us believe in promoting good clients, just not using the XSF as a vehicle for that
  302. dwd zinid, In part, because writing clients is just hard.
  303. zinid dwd, true
  304. Guus dwd I don't think the community has an aversion towards saying any particular client is good. It's the XSF that doesn't do that, but it's fairly well known what clients are good.
  305. Guus (which, sadly, includes just a handful)
  306. kokonoe has left
  307. dwd Guus, MattJ - insert "officially" anywhere you like.
  308. Guus I officially need more coffe.
  309. Guus I officially need more coffee.
  310. dwd "coffee", but that just proves your point.
  311. ralphm part of what dwd says points out what I said about the perceived failure for some people. I.e. people working outside of games, military, have seen a degradation of the XMPP ecosystem.
  312. waqas has joined
  313. Guus I don't think that the incentive that's lost/gained by the XSF promoting individual implementations compares to those projects being able to make money from their project, to be honest.
  314. zinid well, the federated xmpp (aka jabber) has failed apparently
  315. zinid we will hardly count a million of federated users, most probably
  316. Guus iow: I don't think that the XSF extensively promoting some clients will have much effect.
  317. zinid when for gaming 1M is a good start 🙂
  318. ralphm I have no way of telling how many users are federated right now.
  319. ralphm Or how that changed over time.
  320. kokonoe has joined
  321. krauq has left
  322. dwd ralphm, It'd be interesting to see if such a metric could be measured.
  323. zinid after "stats" XEP was deferred we now never know, that was such a mistake
  324. krauq has joined
  325. dwd Guus, I think the XSF pointing to success stories and helping to onboard users certainly couldn't hurt.
  326. dwd zinid, WHich one? I have only the vaguest recollection.
  327. Guus dwd it doesn't hurt. I don't think it will help much, either. Not to an extend that I'd be willing to open the can of worms that is neutrality.
  328. zinid dwd, what success stories? currently we only have a bunch of walled gardens typically with heavily modified protocol
  329. Guus if projects need the XSF to promote them to be successful, they won't be.
  330. Guus I'd love to use projects as an example of how XMPP is successful, though. But that's the other way around.
  331. dwd zinid, Harsh, but not a complete distortion.
  332. zinid I think the only success story currently is Conversations
  333. zinid if we're speaking about "Jabber"
  334. Guus So, let's reproduce that success.
  335. zinid time, dedication and money?
  336. Andrew Nenakhov Zash, > The iOS situation is sad. Not really.
  337. Guus but I do believe that more people are making a living based on federated, non-walled garden solutions
  338. kokonoe has left
  339. alacer has left
  340. Guus we have various hosting providers, which I'd be interested in finding out if they're successful (I might be joining those, soonish, btw)
  341. alacer has joined
  342. Guus we have various contractors that make a living from doing walled as well as non-walled stuff
  343. Guus (me!, but I know others that I shall not name without their approval)
  344. Andrew Nenakhov https://photos.app.goo.gl/Yuqyud7otrjAiUNu5
  345. Guus so, I don't think it's al bad as you might think. But, we can, and should, improve.
  346. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, but no groupchat support
  347. ralphm Indeed a client without MUC is a non-starter for me.
  348. Andrew Nenakhov There will be, just not that MUC or MIX shit
  349. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, and how this can be promoted?
  350. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, I just wonder, what should I say to users: use the one with incompatible implementation?
  351. Guus having a proprietary group chat smells like recreating a silo again.
  352. Andrew Nenakhov Like maybe new Xabber protocol that is partly compatible with xmpp and not held back by ineffective governance. 😂
  353. Andrew Nenakhov > having a proprietary group chat smells like recreating a silo again. It's not meant to be proprietary.
  354. kokonoe has joined
  355. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, partially compatible is a bad selling point
  356. Guus (what he said)
  357. Andrew Nenakhov Better than the current situation.
  358. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, better for whom?
  359. Andrew Nenakhov For users of course.
  360. zinid for all users, like me included?
  361. lskdjf has joined
  362. zinid how can I join your groupchat from Conversations, Dino or Gajim?
  363. Guus I fear you'll mostly fragment things further.
  364. Andrew Nenakhov Probably. Our new group chat will work more or less ok on conversations, yes.
  365. Andrew Nenakhov Without any modifications.
  366. zinid yeah, how?
  367. kokonoe has left
  368. zinid and what will I see? partially working piece of shit?
  369. Andrew Nenakhov In fact it's already working. Just add support@gc.xabber.com to contacts.
  370. zinid so it's basically GroupChat 1.0?
  371. jubalh has joined
  372. zinid I mean from my perspective
  373. zinid I wonder how this can be selled by anyone except Xabber devs?
  374. Andrew Nenakhov There is a spec online xabber.com/protocols/
  375. zinid Guus, wrt fragmentation: what did you expect after 3 years of no progressing MIX?
  376. dwd Andrew Nenakhov, What's ineffective about the governance?
  377. Andrew Nenakhov We'll release standalone server that can be used on any xmpp server
  378. Guus zinid I'm not saying I'm happy about that. But creating a third variant does not help.
  379. jubalh is it possible to create a MUC on this server for profanity? looking for a server that could host our channel
  380. dwd jubalh, Profanity in general, or the project? :-)
  381. jubalh dwd, project ;)
  382. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, so you diverge and create a separate standards body with your governance? 😀
  383. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, I admit your work, but here is where our opinions diverge
  384. Guus jubalh - unsure - but why not host your own?
  385. waqas has left
  386. Guus jubalh - unsure - but why not host your own domain?
  387. zinid Guus, because it's a PITA? even for me actually
  388. jubalh Guus, because the orignal author who also owns the domain stopped hosting because he had a lot of problems with spam and idk. so i'm looking for an alternative
  389. Andrew Nenakhov > Andrew Nenakhov, What's ineffective about the governance? Take that story of extending xep-0085 to send extended notifications. Recording audio, video, ... - moved exactly nowhere in almost a year despite quite pressing need
  390. Guus jubalh - as I'm experimenting with setting up a hosting provider, I'd consider running a service for Profanity
  391. Guus maybe take that out of this MUC, though?
  392. jubalh Guus, yeah lets talk about it
  393. ta jubalh isnt github and a muc enough?
  394. Guus kindly contact me at guus.der.kinderen@igniterealtime.org
  395. Andrew Nenakhov > Andrew Nenakhov, so you diverge and create a separate standards body with your governance? 😀 A great xmpp schism. We'll denounce the council rule and install our own anticouncil.
  396. jubalh ta, for me github is enough. but i got several requests whether we could have a MUC for users
  397. kokonoe has joined
  398. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, 😀
  399. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, we'll invite you to it. All developers are welcome who want to build something working
  400. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, I'm not interested in fragmenting infrastructure
  401. ta The MUC can be hosted on any server. Just announce it on github.
  402. zinid worst case I can go to the IETF directly
  403. jubalh ta, just looking for a suitable server. wasnt sure if i can just create a MUC on any and they have to accept it. so i wanted to ask first
  404. ta The profanity.io domain should be saved though i think.
  405. dwd Andrew Nenakhov, So you made a suggestion, I offered a counter-proposal that would (I think) be acceptable, and you... did nothing. And it's me that's being ineffective?
  406. Andrew Nenakhov I'm ok with that counter proposal actually. Anything that works is ok. But it's still ineffective way that bloats the specification.
  407. Andrew Nenakhov Those matrix guys aren't exactly wrong with criticism of specs, cause Instread of amending one simple xep we create yet another xep
  408. zinid nah
  409. Guus and to fix that, you create yet another one.
  410. Andrew Nenakhov Recent example: xep166 that is incompatible with push
  411. zinid the problem is that someone cannot come to agreement 🙂
  412. Andrew Nenakhov To fix it we need deferred 353
  413. Guus https://xkcd.com/927/
  414. zinid and so far Matrix community is in agreement, and we are constantly fighting
  415. Andrew Nenakhov We'll use that 353, ok, but it's not exactly healthy process that bloats standards count
  416. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, how are you going to address those problems in *your* standards body? 😀
  417. Zash You don't need a standards committee if everyone agrees with each other
  418. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, we'll rule it with an iron fist! ✊
  419. ralphm Regarding 3 years of no progress on MIX. I think this is unreasonbly unfair.
  420. zinid ralphm, why? still no implementations, still the XEPs have a lot of questions, still no agreement whether it should be recommended for implementation or not
  421. ralphm This is not easy, given what we want to achieve here, and it is not like many people have been spending time in trying to implement it, so far, but a lot of commentary about its perceived non-progress.
  422. ralphm I'm happy with dwd's message yesterday, and will use my day to respond to his implementation experience with my own.
  423. zinid I never said standards are easy, but this must have sane deadlines
  424. igoose has left
  425. ralphm zinid: I very much disagree.
  426. zinid I know that
  427. zinid I see that 🙂
  428. zinid because, well, the XSF is just a standards body, blah-blah-blah
  429. dwd ralphm, I think it's reasonably fair, actually. Designing MIX with a fork-lift upgrade was a mistake we should - I should - have seen from the outset. We also took far too long to get a reasonable upgrade pathway from MUC.
  430. ralphm dwd: oh, I agree that in its current state we well never get a decent migration path, and I thought we made some headway at the Summit.
  431. dwd ralphm, Had we had those two from the outset - so a MIX could be accessed by MUC clients, or MIX clients on non-MIX servers - the upgrade path would have been simpler, and a lot more incentive around for people to move on with deployment.
  432. neshtaxmpp has joined
  433. contrapunctus has left
  434. contrapunctus has joined
  435. wurstsalat has left
  436. ralphm zinid: I'm not sure what you think the XSF *should* be doing, but I don't think that attempting to set deadlines to the creation of a standard, to a loosely connected set of people that voluntarily do what the XSF is currently doing, is a good approach. I'm happy for people to attempt other protocols.
  437. Guus I don't think deadlines are a good solution - but I do think that explicitly taking into account the time-to-adoption as a factor of the XEP would be a good idea.
  438. ralphm Many protocols we have standardized at the XSF were one of several. MUC has seen several iterations, so has Disco, PubSub, media streaming. In the end, implementation experience decided what we went with.
  439. zinid ralphm, I'm not going the deadlines should be written in stone, that's way I said "sane", not 10 years
  440. zinid *not saying
  441. ralphm Guus: we already do have this. Before a XEP goes Final, it must have multiple implementations.
  442. ralphm If there's commentary about the slowness of getting widely used specifications to Final, that's entirely valid.
  443. Guus ralphm that's to late in the process.
  444. ralphm Guus: it depends on how you look at it, and I disagree.
  445. Guus I disagree with your disagreement 🙂
  446. Guus but, sure.
  447. ralphm Guus: it is not the case when a group of people wants to work on MIX, other people can't work on other solutions in the same problem domain. I welcome this, and in the end running code will strongly affect the outcome.
  448. ralphm It is not that the XSF is mandating all efforts to go into MIX.
  449. Guus Surely not, no
  450. ralphm So, I am happy to work on MIX, and people that like to see more implementations can work on it.
  451. Guus Well, in that light Andrew Nenakhov s MUC spec is a good idea. 🙂
  452. Guus MUC-replacement*
  453. Guus kindly submit it as a XEP. 🙂
  454. ralphm yes
  455. ralphm I also said the same to the ESL people that did MUC Light.
  456. pep. has left
  457. pep. has joined
  458. zinid ralphm, my vision of the XSF is to point into the right direction of the standardization process, otherwise I see not point in the XSF, as I said I can work with the IETF directly
  459. zinid really, how are you different from the IETF currently?
  460. kokonoe has left
  461. kokonoe has joined
  462. zinid as a developer I don't care about promotion and endless meetings yielding into nothing
  463. ralphm zinid: we are a standards body dedicated to XMPP. So I agree we are similar to the IETF.
  464. zinid you're now EXACT copy of the IETF
  465. ralphm What do you mean with 'now'?
  466. zinid after you reformatted from JSF to XSF
  467. ralphm zinid: I think you have a twisted view of the JSF.
  468. zinid I have a good view, I remember it circa 2004
  469. ralphm Besides the name, the XSF didn't change in direction.
  470. zinid it does in practice
  471. rtq3 has joined
  472. zinid back then the specs were designed by the people from the XSF, I could come, report about problem and it's fixed, and now?
  473. ralphm I've been on the Council between 2004 and 2013.
  474. ralphm And the process hasn't changed, and specs were designed by people in the community.
  475. zinid sure, and there were a lot of productive work, done mostly by Peter and friends, they didn't redirect me to "hey, do it yourself"
  476. zinid ralphm, the analogy: I started an OSS project, but I don't write code, I only accept PRs - that's the current state of the XSF, it was *different* back then
  477. ralphm zinid: yes Peter indeed did a lot of things, because he happened to be payed by his employer to do this.
  478. ralphm This was not a function of the XSF, but rather of a very active person being able to dedicate his time to it.
  479. zinid ok, maybe that, but I don't care that much why it was the way it was
  480. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, see, they support my idea of anticouncil
  481. ralphm So if your point is, the pace of things in the XSF changed since Peter moved to other things, I agree.
  482. zinid okay, let's say that's my point, so the XSF has bus factor = 1?
  483. Andrew Nenakhov I'll raise some more funds, hire you, and together we will rule the galax^Wxmpp
  484. ralphm zinid: but do you really feel it is unreasonable to ask people in the community to put in effort to change things? The Council's job, for example, is not to create standards, it is to assist the process of getting them there.
  485. contrapunctus has left
  486. contrapunctus has joined
  487. zinid ralphm, and the whole point of the XSF is now?
  488. ralphm still the same as ever
  489. zinid why should I work with the XSF?
  490. Andrew Nenakhov Soo why don't we get the 0085 standard "there" to meet modern requirements?
  491. zinid maybe we will just resurrect xmpp wg at the ietf?
  492. ralphm You don't have to, and indeed some people have instead opted to go to the IETF directly with a draft.
  493. zinid ralphm, so the only your answer is "go do it in a different place" without convincing me as a developer?
  494. ralphm No, that's not what I said.
  495. zinid but I'm not convinced, really, why shouldn't I go directly to the IETF?
  496. zinid or even better, maybe we will move the process to the xmpp wg?
  497. zinid that will be fair and my complaints will become invalidated
  498. ralphm zinid: If you want something to happen at any standards organization (the XSF, the IETF, IEEE, or wherever), you will have to put in work to create your proposal, convince people to support your ideas, find people to give their view on things, and get people to implement it.
  499. zinid ralphm, and? how the XSF will help me?
  500. zinid please don't abstract
  501. jubalh has left
  502. ralphm zinid: the XSF is not a magical group of people that just do things on your behalf. The Council is an elected set of individuals that want to dedicate time and their expertise to help out (other) people to create good standards. You could be one of them.
  503. Wiktor ralphm, I think zinid's point is that XSF could (should?) just be replaced by IETF WG and everything else would stay the same (process etc.), so there are no advantages of having XSF over XMPP WG... that's how I get it
  504. zinid Wiktor, right
  505. zinid and the current situation is even worse: if I say wtf is matrix.org - I'm replied "and wtf is XSF"?
  506. zinid and when I say I'm working on the IETF specs - that will sound much more solid
  507. ralphm To whom?
  508. zinid ralphm, to the XMPP opponents
  509. alacer has left
  510. zinid and I cannot use the argument that Matrix is a non-standard body
  511. ralphm I don't work on XMPP to appease its opponents.
  512. zinid but I digress actually
  513. waqas has joined
  514. zinid ralphm, sure, but when you have business you kinda deal with competetors
  515. zinid anyway, so what stops the XSF to move the process to the IETF entirely?
  516. Andrew Nenakhov XMPP as a platform is on fire. And many here refuse to accept it.
  517. Zash If you have a business you should spend money on marketing yourself, not negative marketing on your competitors.
  518. Andrew Nenakhov I'm unhappy because I want to create great federated chat products, but can't do it with current xmpp standards.
  519. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: because of the XSF?
  520. Wiktor Zash, I think that's zinid's idea, having XSF inside IETF would give XMPP better position, that XEPs are developed inside IETF not XSF
  521. Wiktor better image* or however one would put it
  522. zinid sure, IETF is an "industry standard", that's pure marketing thing
  523. ralphm I think creating great federated chat products is not related to where the standards have been defined.
  524. zinid general words again
  525. zinid you're dropping some obstacles to make a general claim which sounds valid
  526. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, we can create great products on our own set of standards. Yes.
  527. ralphm zinid: I'm just giving you my perspective. I think the idea that labeling a standard XSF or IETF doesn't necessarily help to actually get traction or success. I think that working on standards within the XSF helps with getting insight of people that have worked on similar problems, but in the end it comes down to people (XSF or not) having to put in the work.
  528. zinid and my question still holds: what makes the XSF a lot more different than XMPP WG at IETF?
  529. neshtaxmpp has left
  530. zinid > helps with getting insight of people that have worked on similar problems like in the ietf xmpp wg mail list? 😉
  531. ralphm Yes, they are functionally equivalent.
  532. alacer has joined
  533. zinid okay, I see
  534. ralphm Except the IETF XMPP WG isn't a thing right now, and the XSF is.
  535. zinid why? because it's formally concluded?
  536. contrapunctus has left
  537. zinid we can call it xmpp-ng!!!
  538. contrapunctus has joined
  539. zinid people at the ietf like this -ng stuff 😀
  540. Zash What difference would that make?
  541. ralphm You could do a new XMPP WG at the IETF, but I wonder if that would help you in any way.
  542. ralphm As likely the same (active) people would get involved.
  543. zinid ralphm, just like the XSF doesn't help me like at all?
  544. neshtaxmpp has joined
  545. zinid I'm probably not clear enough
  546. Wiktor zinid, XSF is operational, I guess people don't want change for change sake and setting up XMPP WG would be extra work that no-one wants to do (that's understandable)
  547. kokonoe has left
  548. ralphm XSF is just a formalisation of processes around work that needs to be done by people. You can move the process elsewhere, but you still need the people, and the process to get to a similar place.
  549. dwd zinid, One benefit of the XSF over the IETF is domain expertise of the Council. The Council's absolutely not perfect, but the IETF has only one person who knows anything about XMPP (or, indeed, messaging) and that itself is only by fluke.
  550. dwd zinid, Also, we move a lot faster than the IETF, surprising as that might seem.
  551. zinid Wiktor, but maybe, marketing wise, it worth the effort to move to the xmpp wg?
  552. dwd zinid, As an example, TLS 1.3 was approved in November 2017, but finally published in August 2018.
  553. zinid dwd, and we have tons of experimental or drafts being widely deployed
  554. kokonoe has joined
  555. zinid I recall that drama
  556. Guus Just got back from lunch.
  557. dwd zinid, A benefit of doing (more) work in the IETF is greater visibility, particularly within that group. I would like to encourage people to do that where it makes clear sense (like security areas). Your recent work is a good candidate here, I did wonder about pushing that way, venue-wise.
  558. Guus What is the benefit from moving to an ietf workgroup?
  559. ralphm Guus: what dwd says
  560. waqas has left
  561. Guus Visibility within the ietf?
  562. dwd zinid, But I have, equally, had a huge amount of push-back when i've done this before, with people telling me that I'm doing process for process sake. But I get that all the time anyway. :-)
  563. ralphm So typically we ventured out to the IETF for things like SASL, TLS, nameprep/précis, DNS related issues
  564. zinid dwd, and will XSF help me with the IETF bureaucracy? Like resurrecting the WG, IANA contacts? I bet it won't
  565. ralphm zinid: you keep mentioning you want help, but what do you expect others to do for you, exactly?
  566. ralphm zinid: what do you want to achieve?
  567. zinid ralphm, I don't ask the XSF anything to do already, you just said me that's pointless
  568. zinid so I use it as a very slow wiki to publish my XEPs
  569. zinid thanks at least for that
  570. ralphm I didn't say the XSF is pointless, that's *your* opinion.
  571. zinid okay
  572. dwd zinid, The XSF has resisted, in the past, having a formal Liaison with the IETF - but we could do that. That would give us a more fomralised pathway through to the IESG etc.
  573. ralphm And also, I didn't say I (or even the XSF) didn't want to help you.
  574. ralphm zinid: it just seems that you want something different. Faster, or in another way. But it is not entirely clear to me what.
  575. dwd zinid, In turn, a liaison relationship would allow the XSF to do a lot more to actively help steer XMPP work through the IETF.
  576. zinid dwd, sorry, I don't understand what you're saying, I'm not into bureacracy of the IETF, but I'm aware of the XSF's one
  577. zinid but seems like yeah, I need to deal with that eventually
  578. dwd zinid, Effectively, a formal relationship with the IETF where they recognise us and have a defined contact for combined work.
  579. dwd zinid, As opposed to now, where while several senior IETFers are current or previous XSF participants (and often members), there's no formal relationship, and so no way for "The XSF" to do things like request the WG is reopened.
  580. dwd zinid, GIven there's active XMPP work going on in the IETF now, this seems like something we should explore.
  581. ralphm dwd: I think a Liaison is not a bad idea in itself. How does it help zinid, though?
  582. Guus Is it fair to summarize the discussion up til now with "Zinid is unhappy with the slow bureaucracy of the XSF, and suggests we replace the XSF with an IETF workgroup to speed things up" ?
  583. zinid dwd, goot to know
  584. zinid Guus, I actually admit that IETF bureaucracy is worse, please don't misunderstand me
  585. dwd ralphm, It'd help him navigate some of his RELOAD work through, if we wanted to do that. Or at least help us highlight the work in the right places there. Similarly, it'd give MILE and SACM a pathway through to request reviews on their XMPP work.
  586. Guus zinid then I don't understand the reason for your suggestion. Or I don't understand your suggestion itself, maybe.
  587. dwd Guus, FWIW, I understood his comments to be about exploring ways to improve the standards process and the outcome of it, and not any particular concrete suggestion.
  588. ralphm dwd: to be honest, even the Board got involved with his RELOAD work, and even though it might have been slowish, we discussed https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/eax-car.html and requested modifications.
  589. ralphm I'd like to understand how we are *not* helping.
  590. dwd ralphm, Yes, understanding how the XSF could help more is indeed useful.
  591. Guus So is the idea to look at how the IETF has structured their processes for that?
  592. dwd ralphm, But I don't think that needs to be a particularly adversarial process.
  593. ralphm No, the idea is that we first understand the problem, before we jump to solutions.
  594. Zash Problem Statements are good
  595. dwd Guus, The XSF's process is essentially a streamlined version of the IETF's, with various tweaks to promote safe early adoption.
  596. ralphm dwd: agreed. And if I came across as adversarial, that was not my intent.
  597. Guus Yes, I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this discussion
  598. Guus I'm not suggesting any change or solution at this point
  599. Guus I simply want to understand what all of this talk is aiming to achieve.
  600. neshtaxmpp has left
  601. dwd ralphm, Sometimes, the best way to uncover a problem is to see what solutions people propose. :-)
  602. dwd ralphm, From there, one can explore their rationale for the solution, and see what the problem might be.
  603. ralphm If the XSF (or bodies within) is preventing people to move forward, I'd to like to see how we can help that. But similarly, if people have a different perception on what the XSF does, I'd like to help explain that
  604. igoose has joined
  605. rtq3 has left
  606. Andrew Nenakhov As a developer, I'd be happy with xsf that I could ask, "I need to send recording video notifications instead of just typing", and would be told, "ah cool, we'll add XEP-0499 chat notifications subtype", I say "cool!" and implement it
  607. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: ok, but
  608. Guus Doesn't the XSF do exactly that - likely not for that exact feature that you're looking for, but for 100's of others?
  609. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: why would it then not be ok to ask for a contribution to the document to that effect?
  610. Guus on top of that, the XSF facilitates a process in which you can add specifications for the feature that you're missing in such a way that it can be adopted by everyone that's interested.
  611. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: do I understand correctly that you expect the XSF to whip up a spec for a suggestion for something like this?
  612. Andrew Nenakhov That would be more of what I would expect of a standards body. Maybe after a discussion.
  613. Guus Isn't that _exactly_ what the XSF does?
  614. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: I'm asking because indeed that kinda happened before. People would suggest things, and Peter would go and create a spec for it as Author, and submit it to, well, himself as Editor, and then get it to Council, where he'd (also) vote on it.
  615. zinid ralphm, eax-car is actually would be a very good help from the XSF, but I was asked to do moar bureaucracy, and to spend several weeks forming business rules of CA coordination, which I can only copy from the CA/B Forum's requirements. So even here useless. And that's absolutely not for RELOAD, I described it in details in my email, but still nobody reads
  616. zinid whatever
  617. Guus you supply a suggestion (in the form of a XEP). The XSF discusses it. It gets published.
  618. zinid ralphm, I decided not to work on the XEP. Let it be just random collections of CA certificates on every client
  619. ralphm zinid: well, it would have been great that have given that feedback after our meeting. This is the first I hear about you not being happy about what we discussed.
  620. zinid and my EAX technical XEPs I will discuss with the Council
  621. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, yes, what you describe about Peter would make me more happy that necessity to write own XEP. I can probably do that and will do that in the future, if it's necessary.
  622. Alex has joined
  623. Guus zinid, if you think that any feedback that we give is pointless, yeah, then I can see how that frustrates you.
  624. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: ok, so then indeed it seems to be an expectance mismatch. The XSF does not create new XEPs. It adopts them and manages the process of making it a good protocol by using the expertise of the Standards JIG (basically everyone in the XMPP interested in standards, on the standards mailinglist) under the guidance of the Editor and Council. So indeed we currently *do* expect people to write XEPs themselves.
  625. Guus I for one, think it offers value - yes, it slows things down, but it will also prevent issues down the road.
  626. zinid > So indeed we currently *do* expect people to write XEPs themselves. And the incentives?
  627. ralphm zinid: I agree with Guus, and I think it is reasonable to write up details on what you expect the XSF to do in practice, before asking it do it.
  628. Guus I'm out for a dentist appointment.
  629. zinid also, regarding my "frustration", I can work with the Council, it's not pointless, but the whole XSF with its board is useless, sorry
  630. ralphm zinid: people have different incentives to write specfications, and then also for submitting them to a standards body. This is up to you. I can only comment on what we then will attempt to facilitate.
  631. ralphm zinid: the Council is the most important part of the XSF indeed. The Board is primarily there for having a legal structure to do our work in, regarding funding of resources (like website, mailinglists), having a process for electing the Council from a membership, and facilitating events like the Summit.
  632. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, actually this situation is kinda uneven. We write software , we write XEPs, and then XSF will decide if it's accepted or not. Kinda not cool.
  633. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, +1
  634. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: there is *no* requirement to have your extensions approved by the XSF before you can use them.
  635. Andrew Nenakhov If all xsf does is approval, maybe we can join efforts with zinid and have our own anticouncil. ?
  636. zinid ralphm, thus we will have his non-standard imlementation, great
  637. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, I'm not going into anticouncil!!! 😀
  638. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, even working with IETF turtle would be much less effort
  639. ralphm zinid: so either you work with a standards body, and then have a document vetted by hopefully more people, or you don't. Also, a standard is only a standard if it is used by multiple parties, not if we rubberstamp it.
  640. zinid ralphm, I got your point, yes, clearly
  641. zinid I just disagree
  642. lnj has left
  643. Zash Being published by the XSF doesn't force anyone else to implement it.
  644. ralphm zinid: so what *do* you expect then?
  645. zinid ralphm, the DIRECTION
  646. zinid what's the decision on MIX? should we stop accepting hacks and patches to MUC?
  647. zinid because the XSF is supposed to be clever, it should analyze current adoption and decide
  648. ralphm zinid: it seems that MIX is not in a place where it could replace MUC. There are a few people that have slowly started working on implementations (my team, isode, dwd), and there's probably still work to do.
  649. alacer has left
  650. zinid ralphm, good to hear you started, I finished already 🙂
  651. Zash Having Someone™ with a vision and enough energy to be driving would be good, but hard to produce in a volonteer based org.
  652. zinid Zash, then no point pretending?
  653. ralphm My personal opinion is that there are a lot of good things in there, but it is lacking in a proper upgrade path, unclear in some areas (that e.g. dwd has pointed out yesterday).
  654. lumi has joined
  655. zinid in my book, the best the XSF can do is to move process to the IETF
  656. zinid for example to help me working with the IETF
  657. zinid (since you asked what help I wanted)
  658. zinid it's not solely because of me of course, before you start ranting 🙂
  659. zinid moving to the XSF will bring more recognition to the XSF and XMPP
  660. zinid currently XSF is like "who is it?"
  661. ralphm zinid: I'm sad about you feeling I'm ranting. I'm trying to help understand what issues you have with the XSF, the Board, or me.
  662. ralphm zinid: I have seen some epressions of frustration by you and Andrew Nenakhov over the last few months, and I thought this was as good time as any to see if I can get it resolved.
  663. zinid so I suggested the solution
  664. Yagiza has left
  665. zinid I will have zero complaints then
  666. ralphm zinid: if your suggestion is closing up shop and moving to the IETF, I'm not sure how that is constructive.
  667. zinid I will just work within WG discussing technical stuff
  668. zinid ralphm, marketing wise
  669. ralphm I don't see the marketing angle at all.
  670. zinid ralphm, okay
  671. zinid I think you just don't want to see, I understand that you like all this XSF community around you, and you're the chair
  672. ralphm I.e. I don't see how it helps you that the rubberstamp is from the IETF rather than the XSF. Who would actually care about this, and is this really a problem we need to address?
  673. ralphm zinid: well, I like the community, I don
  674. yon has left
  675. ralphm 't care that I am the Chair. I'm happy that I can help the community in that role.
  676. ralphm If if the reverse isn't true, I'd do other stuff
  677. ralphm Like help out with Council, or the Editors
  678. zinid my customers actually care, because when I say we support "industry standard" we're lying, XSF is not accepted as a standards body, unlike IETF
  679. Zash Why are you here then?
  680. zinid nice question 🙂
  681. zinid sorry for disturbing your bubble
  682. waqas has joined
  683. ralphm zinid: for all things XMPP, I'd say we've been generally accepted as the body that defines its "industry standards".
  684. ralphm It is not like there's a vote on which standards bodies are 'real' or not.
  685. zinid marketing wise there is
  686. yon has joined
  687. ralphm zinid: so if the IETF would say: for all your XMPP business go to the XSF, it would help?
  688. zinid who will read what they say? the customers will read I E T F.
  689. zinid means no vendor lock-in, good
  690. Zash The IETF doesn't make standards. Everyone using the specifications is what makes it into standards.
  691. zinid > The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.
  692. ralphm yeah, also the IETF allows for publishing drafts outside of WGs that are not really vetted
  693. ralphm “The XMPP Standards Foundation (also known as the XSF and formerly the Jabber Software Foundation) is an independent, nonprofit standards development organisation whose primary mission is to define open protocols for presence, instant messaging, and real-time communication and collaboration on top of the IETF’s Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).”
  694. Zash XMPP is an IETF standard, but you can still build lock-in, not federeate etc.
  695. zinid Zash, are we talking about marketing here?
  696. zinid or do you think I don't know what you're saying?
  697. Zash Are we?
  698. zinid I can write in my facebook blog "I create standards", does it count?
  699. zinid Zash, well, yes, we're talking about marketing until you chimed it
  700. zinid asking me stupid question about "why I'm here"
  701. Zash Ignore me then
  702. Guus XMPP is an IETF standard. Us acting as a IETF workgroup would not add much on top of that in the sense of marketable exposure.
  703. ralphm zinid: also note that RFC 6120 points to the XSF in several places, like section 8.4, that among other things says: “An extension element or extension attribute is said to be "extended content" and the qualifying namespace for such an element or attribute is said to be an "extended namespace". Informational Note: Although extended namespaces for XMPP are commonly defined by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) and by the IETF, no specification or IETF standards action is necessary to define extended namespaces, and any individual or organization is free to define XMPP extensions.”
  704. zinid okay, you disagree with everything I say, I disagree with everything you say, we should probably stop here
  705. ralphm zinid: so you can write "I develop protocols" on facebook. Whether they become standards, is to be seen. As I mentioned before, a specification becomes a standard because of being used by multiple parties, not because of the rubberstamps on it.
  706. ralphm zinid: I'm sorry about that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view, though.
  707. Ge0rG I agree that it would be great to have a better documented common vision of where xmpp is moving, and it would be great to have council members working full time on xmpp. Unfortunately, the latter is not going to happen.
  708. Zash I believe someone said that the council was more active in the past, rather than just voting on things
  709. Alex has left
  710. kokonoe has left
  711. alacer has joined
  712. Ge0rG Yes. And having council members being paid for that task immediately brings up conflicts of interest.
  713. winfried has joined
  714. ralphm Zash: I don't feel that the Council is now less productive than when I was on it (for 8 years).
  715. Alex has joined
  716. igoose has left
  717. ralphm I'd love people being payed by their employer to be able to spend time on the volunteer efforts in the various roles at the XSF.
  718. Zash That's mostly how the IETF works
  719. ralphm It is how all standards bodies work.
  720. ralphm Although, of course, some of them have entry fees for organizations to be able to participate.
  721. kokonoe has joined
  722. igoose has joined
  723. Zash Our Summits are notoriously cheap compared to the ETFs :)
  724. Zash Our Summits are notoriously cheap compared to the IETFs :)
  725. rtq3 has joined
  726. waqas has left
  727. zinid and the outcome of your meetings?
  728. ralphm And less humming
  729. zinid drinking beer? I'm not against beer, but that's probably not the goal
  730. ralphm zinid: I found our meeting useful, and just assuming we just drunk beer is not a very good argument.
  731. Zash There's beer at IETF meetings too
  732. zinid ralphm, useful? I don't know, where to read about that?
  733. zinid just my voice from the floor
  734. ralphm zinid: we even allowed people to remotely participate.
  735. rtq3 has left
  736. zinid that's impressive 😀
  737. Andrew Nenakhov On the positive side: we have working calls on iOS. Can so done at XSF resurrect xep-353? 0166 doesn't cut it.
  738. rtq3 has joined
  739. Andrew Nenakhov *can someone
  740. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, nobody can, do it yourself or GTFO
  741. zinid that's the official position
  742. Andrew Nenakhov But it's in deferred state
  743. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, take the authorship
  744. ralphm zinid: I'd have loved you to have been there, physically or remotely.
  745. Andrew Nenakhov I assume it's the council that moves XEPs between states?
  746. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: we've recently made a change to XEP-0001 to deal with orphaned specs.
  747. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, yes, because the author's inactivity, so it requires new authorship to move it back
  748. ralphm zinid: it *doesn't*
  749. zinid ralphm, so you changed that?
  750. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, actually I'd rather change 0166 than support 0353
  751. ralphm zinid: yes, I actually wrote the text for it.
  752. zinid okay, I misread that
  753. Zash Andrew Nenakhov: Is 0353 in need of anything specific or could it be advanced as-is?
  754. ralphm zinid: but we do require someone to help guide it through the process of proposing it as Draft in case the author has abandoned it: the Document Shepherd.
  755. Andrew Nenakhov Zash, my developer says he did everything as is in 0353, so it's probably good to use
  756. ralphm zinid: the first step, in case of XEP-0353 would be to contact fippo or stpeter. Sending a message to the standards list would be good first step.
  757. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: for what it is worth, we did it slightly differently, with IQs, which required server support. Even if we don't end up doing it like XEP-0353 says, there's clearly a need for a solution.
  758. Zash Andrew Nenakhov: If they have any feedback then that would be good to share with the list. Even if it's just "It's fine, it could made Draft"
  759. Andrew Nenakhov Ok.
  760. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: what we found is that you want to indeed share the session-initiate to all the resources, and then define how accepting the session works (there might be two resources sending a response).
  761. rtq3 has left
  762. rtq3 has joined
  763. ralphm The problem with XEP-0353 doesn't do that, it precedes the process.
  764. ralphm So you get more roundtrip.
  765. ralphm Instead, if you somehow got the payload of the session-initiate to all resources, they could already start doing things, like setting up a session with a TURN server, or something.
  766. Dele Olajide has joined
  767. Dele Olajide has left
  768. lumi has left
  769. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, we don't think that two resources sending a response is a big problem. User can't answer a call from tablet and pnohe at once. And even if he does , second device will get 'line busy' answer, I think
  770. ralphm Sure, but it would need to be defined.
  771. Alex has left
  772. ralphm I just spoke to a colleague and he mentioned that in a previous project they actually 'just' replaced the initial iq for a session-initiate with a message to the bare JID.
  773. Zash ralphm: Do you do anything so that a currently offline client can later see what calls were made? Eg missed calls while being offline seems like a useful feature.
  774. ralphm And then had some kind of conflict resolution.
  775. ralphm Zash: yes, separately
  776. ralphm Zash: we have this concept of CDR messages (Call Detail Record) to alert all resources of the result of a session.
  777. Zash This seems like something you'd get partially by using messages for initial setup.
  778. ralphm https://ralphm.net/publications/xmpp_chat_voip/#/6/5
  779. ralphm The CDRs are after the fact.
  780. ralphm That is after the call has been terminated in one way or the other.
  781. Andrew Nenakhov Zash, If calls are initiated by a message they'll be in message archive, I guess
  782. ralphm But you want other clients to know which resource accepted the session-initiate.
  783. Zash Yes. But a proper CDR would include whether it was answered and how long the call was.
  784. Yagiza has joined
  785. Andrew Nenakhov True.
  786. ralphm Zash: indeed, as in my example
  787. ralphm We didn't get to propose this to the XSF.
  788. alacer has left
  789. rtq3 has left
  790. Zash ralphm: That's from the presentation you gave at the Summit right?
  791. Zash Server-assisted Jingle does seem in line with the routing changes proposed.
  792. alacer has joined
  793. ralphm Zash: yes
  794. ralphm Zash: well, yes and no. Our implementation was server assisted, but I'm unsure if that's ideal.
  795. ralphm Again because of the deployment issues (not unlike MIX)
  796. Zash 353 + MAM could get you some of it.
  797. contrapunctus has left
  798. contrapunctus has joined
  799. ralphm I don't think XEP-0353 is the right approach though, because it precedes the actual initiation.
  800. ralphm So a client knows it has a call, but cannot setup anything yet, because he doesn't yet have the details of the call.
  801. Zash Hm, and it has some overlap with SIMS
  802. ralphm Zash: how so?
  803. Zash In the abstract "Jingle initiaded via <message>" sorta way.
  804. waqas has joined
  805. ralphm oh
  806. Zash SIMS as in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0385.html
  807. Andrew Nenakhov I actually think SIMS is a very bad idea
  808. Andrew Nenakhov Like yet another markup language for year 2019
  809. ralphm Well, we used SIMS for sharing media in our app.
  810. moparisthebest I don't *think* you are talking about SIMS Andrew Nenakhov ?
  811. ralphm I don't see it as another markup, but more as a format to describe a shared image, video, audio thing.
  812. moparisthebest Andrew Nenakhov, I *think* you are talking about https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0394.html Message Markup
  813. moparisthebest ?
  814. ralphm We used it without the begin/end attributes on the reference container, though.
  815. Zash I see it as reusing the Jingle FT descriptor in
  816. Zash ... a message
  817. ralphm So if the objection is on that wrapper, I think that's worth discussing.
  818. Zash I can understand that it looks a lot bigger than OOB that's used currently with http upload, but it allows some nice things.
  819. yon has left
  820. ralphm Those extra things were essential in building something similar to sharing media as for example WhatsApp.
  821. ralphm Particularly thumbnails, and caption.
  822. ralphm I think they ended up not really using the hashes for caching, although I still think they should have.
  823. Andrew Nenakhov moparisthebest, SIMS is using references
  824. Andrew Nenakhov <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' begin='17' end='20' type='data'>
  825. Andrew Nenakhov Pretty much a very ugly markup language to me
  826. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: first of all, you don't actually have to use the begin/end attributes, and just included it as some kind of attachment.
  827. ralphm Second, the idea of References came from how Twitter allows for marking up Tweets in their API.
  828. Andrew Nenakhov Twitter did a number of changes to how they mark up their messages
  829. ralphm Particularly useful for marking up @mentions, #hash, links, etc. in a plain-text string. Potentially after the fact.
  830. Andrew Nenakhov Currently any images now are expempt from 280 char limit, they are just "added"
  831. ralphm (much like how Slack sends a separate message when you submit a plain-text message to highlight stuff)
  832. Andrew Nenakhov I'd rather resurrect xep-0071 :-/
  833. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about this: https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/data-dictionary/overview/entities-object.html
  834. waqas has left
  835. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: sure, there are pros and cons.
  836. ralphm But XEP-0071 didn't allow for marking up the stuff I mentioned above in much the same way.
  837. ralphm At least not semantically.
  838. Andrew Nenakhov Well at least you don't use JSON 😂
  839. Andrew Nenakhov I'll think about 385.
  840. ralphm With References you can say: "this bit here is a hashtag, and here is a link to something useful to do with that"
  841. Andrew Nenakhov I'm not entirely happy with 221 xep modification we currently is to share media files
  842. Andrew Nenakhov https://xmpp.redsolution.com/upload/4bddf4f264f5c6577f16551f16a0abdf3f7ff84d/TKd1DfB6/IMG_20190228_161844266.jpg https://xmpp.redsolution.com/upload/4bddf4f264f5c6577f16551f16a0abdf3f7ff84d/1cjpVG7c/images_2_.jpg https://xmpp.redsolution.com/upload/4bddf4f264f5c6577f16551f16a0abdf3f7ff84d/FFCwhXmN/IMG_20190303_163919048.jpg
  843. ralphm Or: "this piece of text really is a think that can be interpreted as a custom emoji, and here is a link to a thumbnail to replace it with when rendering on a device that can show arbitrary images (unlike, say, a console client).
  844. UsL has left
  845. Yagiza Andrew Nenakhov, why resurrecting XEP-0071 instead of improving XEP-0393?
  846. ralphm Yagiza: for what it is worth, XEP-0393 doesn't resolve this issue of References, but they can work side-by-side.
  847. Andrew Nenakhov Yagiza, because 393 is silly bad horrible idea
  848. Yagiza Andrew Nenakhov, ok, XEP-0394, of course.
  849. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: why? It just documents some convention on how people *already* markup their plain-text.
  850. UsL has joined
  851. Yagiza ralphm, so, why it's a standards track, not informational or historical in that case?
  852. ralphm Yagiza: ah, yes, that _is_ similar to References.
  853. valo has left
  854. ralphm Yagiza: valid question, maybe because it also tells clients how they can interpret it, which is something that is not that widespread.
  855. ralphm I.e. the difference between what users type, and what clients show.
  856. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, because markdown is a method of WYSINWYG editing, a means to encode html in a more human readable way. It is not supposed to be passed as markdown markuped text, it is supposed to be rendered into html
  857. Zash Nothing is perfect in this area
  858. ralphm Zash: right
  859. Andrew Nenakhov So if you format with markdown, you render html and send HTML
  860. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: well, outside of XMPP there are so many uses of Markdown contrary to your point, that I'm not even sure where to begin.
  861. Zash 393 isn't Markdown tho
  862. ralphm People even write books with markdown files as the the source
  863. ralphm Zash: and that
  864. pep. has left
  865. pep. has joined
  866. Yagiza Andrew Nenakhov, anyway, sending HTML version of the text along with plain text is much worse idea, than sending formatting along with the text.
  867. Yagiza ralphm, so, why XEP-0245 is informational, but XEP-0393 is standards track?
  868. Andrew Nenakhov ralphm, I've seen services where you enter html formatted table and they render a markdown formatted table. Existence of such services doesn't prove anything about markdown but that the creators of service apparently forgot that you can use html to format tables directly in markdown.
  869. Zash ralphm: Unfortunately often mistaken for Markdown tho, which produces the same problem XHTML-IM has, due to HTML-passtrough being a feature of many markdown libraries
  870. Andrew Nenakhov Zash, > 393 isn't Markdown tho Uglier, yes. Same principle, though.
  871. lnj has joined
  872. Zash Andrew Nenakhov: Roughtly what people have been using in plain text email since before I was born. Probably.
  873. Andrew Nenakhov Why, if we have html, for, like, 30 years?
  874. Yagiza Andrew Nenakhov, XEP-0393 is just another LML description.
  875. ralphm Yagiza: XEP-0245, which documents /me, is about specifying how the markup *and* implementation have been done historically. The use of /me predates XMPP, and by the time this spec was submitted, all clients already did this.
  876. Nekit has left
  877. Nekit has joined
  878. Yagiza ralphm, so, why it is not hystorical?
  879. ralphm I don't remember
  880. ralphm Yagiza: oh wait
  881. ralphm Yagiza: historical is for things from before we had a JEP/XEP process. I suppose it could have been historical. But it is probably Informational because it is more a best-practice kind of thing.
  882. ralphm I think it could have gone either way.
  883. Alex has joined
  884. Yagiza ralphm, so, why XEP-0393 is not a best-practice of LML implementation in XMPP client software?
  885. ralphm Yeah, I can see the argument for it being informational instead.
  886. Guus back. No cavities! 🙂
  887. ralphm Guus: good for you
  888. Maranda has left
  889. Maranda has joined
  890. ralphm 😁
  891. Alex has left
  892. Andrew Nenakhov Btw a question on 385 Sims. If I share 5 images, what's fallback behavior? It doesn't look like I can put urls to 5 shared images in <body>
  893. ralphm Our client sent 5 images as 5 separate messages
  894. ralphm But it is a good question.
  895. Andrew Nenakhov > Our client sent 5 images as 5 separate messages We decided against such approach.
  896. Andrew Nenakhov Because when we send several items we want them to be presented as nice gallery of images
  897. ralphm It flowed naturally from our product team's requirements, so that was convenient.
  898. ralphm Right.
  899. Andrew Nenakhov And if they are separate there are weird effects when loading from message archive
  900. ralphm Well, if the gallery also has some kind of web presence, you might be able to link to that instead.
  901. Andrew Nenakhov Like we've loaded 5 most recent of 10 and gallery looks kinda broken
  902. ralphm otherwise, I see no real alternative to include links to all images
  903. Andrew Nenakhov See above.
  904. ralphm Maybe I misunderstood, but other than it not being appealing visually, why couldn't you include 5 links in the body?
  905. Andrew Nenakhov Currently we use data forms media element xep 0221 that allows us to pass metadata like size, video duration, etc, and duplicate links in body
  906. ralphm I'm not too familiar with XEP-0221, but I remember not being a fan when I voted on it in Council.
  907. Andrew Nenakhov > Maybe I misunderstood, but other than it not being appealing visually, why couldn't you include 5 links in the body? But with 0385 if I want to have just images with empty body?
  908. Andrew Nenakhov Naturally with client that supports 0385 I think I can send empty body and 5 items with images and get desired behavior
  909. ralphm Andrew Nenakhov: oh, right, that's a good point. In our case we didn't use begin/end and used the body as a fallback.
  910. Andrew Nenakhov But how to provide fallback?
  911. winfried has left
  912. ralphm So our body had the urls of the images.
  913. ralphm But you can do the same in case the client does understand SIMS, as the client could see that the body only has things being referenced and just ignore the body.
  914. ralphm But good point.
  915. Andrew Nenakhov I think that body should in all cases treated as fallback method. Obvious solution Is to add <formatted> to XEP
  916. ralphm By point is that if the body has 'https://example.org/1.jpg https://example.org/2.jpg', and SIMS that refers to them, it would see that it is basically image + space + image, and choose to ignore it.
  917. ralphm On the other hand, we were also going to do more rich formatting, with carrousels for images, etc. For that, maybe SIMS is less ideal as-is.
  918. ralphm And buttons
  919. ralphm Unfortunately we didn't get to define those fully, yet.
  920. winfried has joined
  921. ralphm At some point, fallbacks become hard, and you have to admit defeat. I.e. accept that some clients will have a degraded experience.
  922. waqas has joined
  923. ralphm In the case where a newer version of the client would support it, the fallback text could reference that fact instead.
  924. ralphm It all depends on the ecosystem, in our case we controlled both client and server deployment.
  925. Andrew Nenakhov We always treat body as fallback to dumbest possible client.
  926. Andrew Nenakhov So pasting all links is a must.
  927. Andrew Nenakhov But making advances client follow some vague rules to ignore body because it has specific type of format... No I dont think it'll work well
  928. Andrew Nenakhov I'll think of it.
  929. Andrew Nenakhov Do any clients support 0385? I'm not a fan of it, but if it has some spread, I might reconsider
  930. andy has left
  931. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  932. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  933. UsL has left
  934. ralphm Not sure, outside of our app
  935. Andrew Nenakhov What is that app you are referring to?
  936. UsL has joined
  937. Dele Olajide has joined
  938. contrapunctus has left
  939. contrapunctus has joined
  940. Dele Olajide has left
  941. Dele Olajide has joined
  942. Maranda has left
  943. Maranda has joined
  944. alacer has left
  945. m has joined
  946. intosi has left
  947. intosi has joined
  948. alacer has joined
  949. valo has joined
  950. kokonoe has left
  951. kokonoe has joined
  952. alacer has left
  953. alacer has joined
  954. winfried has left
  955. winfried has joined
  956. Dele Olajide has left
  957. Dele Olajide has joined
  958. Dele Olajide has left
  959. Dele Olajide has joined
  960. ralphm The VEON app. You can no longer get it.
  961. lnj has left
  962. Andrew Nenakhov Oh ok.
  963. debacle has left
  964. oli "For many years I’ve interacted with my fellow humans, I think perhaps more than any other way, via the medium of Internet chat. But in my chat window, they’re fading, one by one. This problem is technical and personal and I felt it ought not to go unrecognized." https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2019/03/11/Lights-Going-Out
  965. j.r has left
  966. Dele Olajide has left
  967. Dele Olajide has joined
  968. ralphm oli: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2019-03-12#2019-03-12-d63cfafd77ebcb99
  969. oli ralphm: thx
  970. ralphm Some more discussion this morning, so you want yo check the next day in the archive
  971. 404.city has left
  972. Dele Olajide has left
  973. Dele Olajide has joined
  974. ThibG has left
  975. ThibG has joined
  976. m has left
  977. rtq3 has joined
  978. contrapunctus has left
  979. contrapunctus has joined
  980. Dele Olajide has left
  981. Nekit has left
  982. lovetox has joined
  983. lnj has joined
  984. andy has joined
  985. rtq3 has left
  986. rtq3 has joined
  987. valo has left
  988. valo has joined
  989. yon has joined
  990. Steve Kille has left
  991. Steve Kille has joined
  992. ThibG has left
  993. ThibG has joined
  994. j.r has joined
  995. andy has left
  996. valo has left
  997. valo has joined
  998. zinid dwd, here?
  999. zinid dwd, how is it hard to reopen XMPP WG?
  1000. Nekit has joined
  1001. neshtaxmpp has joined
  1002. dwd has left
  1003. Yagiza has left
  1004. 404.city has joined
  1005. 404.city has left
  1006. kokonoe has left
  1007. kokonoe has joined
  1008. Maranda has left
  1009. Maranda has joined
  1010. lorddavidiii has joined
  1011. m has joined
  1012. wurstsalat has joined
  1013. m has left
  1014. oli has left
  1015. oli has joined
  1016. dwd has joined
  1017. Maranda has left
  1018. Maranda has joined
  1019. zinid has left
  1020. Zash has left
  1021. Zash has joined
  1022. yon has left
  1023. oli has left
  1024. yon has joined
  1025. kokonoe has left
  1026. nyco has left
  1027. kokonoe has joined
  1028. lorddavidiii has left
  1029. Nekit has left
  1030. nyco has joined
  1031. lnj has left
  1032. goffi has left
  1033. kokonoe has left
  1034. kokonoe has joined
  1035. yon has left
  1036. yon has joined
  1037. valo has left
  1038. nyco has left
  1039. nyco has joined
  1040. ThibG has left
  1041. ThibG has joined
  1042. m has joined
  1043. m has left
  1044. m has joined
  1045. arc has left
  1046. arc has joined
  1047. m has left
  1048. valo has joined
  1049. j.r has left
  1050. yon has left
  1051. debacle has joined
  1052. yon has joined
  1053. lumi has joined
  1054. arc has left
  1055. karoshi has left
  1056. arc has joined
  1057. lovetox has left
  1058. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  1059. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  1060. debacle has left
  1061. arc has left
  1062. arc has joined
  1063. intosi has left
  1064. intosi has joined
  1065. intosi has left
  1066. intosi has joined
  1067. moparisthebest has left
  1068. moparisthebest has joined
  1069. waqas has left
  1070. rtq3 has left