XSF Discussion - 2019-03-28

  1. flow

    I can't remember the last time a standards@ thread triggered carlo

  2. MattJ


  3. Guus

    > Within the limitations of XMPP, your ideas are among the least worst. Can we have motivational posters printed with this one, please?

  4. jonas’


  5. Seve


  6. dwd

    Seve, Thanks for this. I've not looked when the WG meeting itself is, I thought I might listen in.

  7. Seve

    dwd, meeting happening now, I can't follow it but the room is this one: mls@jabber.ietf.org

  8. Seve

    More slides are being shared there

  9. dwd

    Ah - you'll want the audio etc too.

  10. dwd

    But I don't think I really understand more than one word in five when they start the serious cryptography.

  11. Seve


  12. Seve

    Yeah, there's audio stream available as well, but I'm at work anyway, can't follow anything (implying I would understand something, which is most probably not :D)

  13. pep.

    PFF you're away from the list one day and there's already a full thread on markup formats

  14. Zash

    Was a week ago a good time to poke someone about https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-email-tls ?

  15. flow

    dwd, appreciate your email response to evgeny

  16. Guus

    as did I.

  17. flow

    Although I have to admit that evgeny's mail made me chuckle.

  18. flow

    But yeah, neither carlo's email nor the response added much or even any value to the discussion

  19. Guus

    Let's not single out one person - there's a lot of this going on, sadly.

  20. Guus

    It causes me (and thus very likely others) to not participate in discussions like this.

  21. Guus

    which hurts standards development (not that I'm bringing to much to the table, but if more people are discouraged, this becomes an issue real fast).

  22. Guus

    I literally discarded a draft email to that thread, for "I don't want to waste time arguing right now" reasons.

  23. Ge0rG

    the whole thread was tl;dr. Am I missing out on drama?

  24. flow

    Feels more like a holy war than drama

  25. Guus

    much of the same: "everything is broken and you're not dipshits for even considering other options than my solution."

  26. Guus

    it's... discouraging.

  27. flow

    I tend to believe that this is something that can not be settled in a discussion, but has to be settled by the ecosystem

  28. Guus

    much of the same: "everything is broken and you're dipshits for even considering other options than my solution."

  29. Guus

    flow I tend to agree. Sadly, implemenation in the ecosystem takes time, which fuels the 'why isn't this fixed yet' thought.

  30. dwd

    There's a conversation about behaviour in technical debate in the IETF list at the moment, but I'll say here what I'm currently writing there:

  31. dwd

    Yes, people should not be assholes - because it's vastly less efficient as well as the more obvious social things.

  32. Guus

    "... and you're all dipshits for not taking my word for that!" <-- right? 😉

  33. MattJ

    To be fair, maybe I missed something, but apart from two emails I found the discussions quite constructive so far

  34. dwd

    But also, it's worth picking out the technical argument from things and treating it independently from the aggression.

  35. Guus

    MattJ I'm not ruling out I've started to be oversensitive at a certain pressure point.

  36. dwd

    MattJ, I could cheerfully point out several emails in there that I felt added very little, if anything, to the technical debate.

  37. dwd

    MattJ, And, in addition, had a distinctly aggressive air.

  38. Seve

    "Please, everyone, ensure your messages are like an efficient light bulb - optimise for light, not heat." very spot on :D I like it very much (and it works with the jabber icon)

  39. flow

    MattJ, possibly. I also found the thread to be civilized for large parts. The "holy war" remark was not meant towards that specific thread, but the situation regarding rich(?) text in XMPP as whole.

  40. Zash

    Can we un-deprecate 71?

  41. MattJ

    We can do anything, if you can convince the council

  42. Guus

    It was deprecated solely because of the security implications, right? Specifically: that it's very complex to have an implementation that is secure.

  43. Guus

    Even though the spec itself does not have obvious security issues.

  44. Zash

    And the security problems are in the Web, not the spec. "Not markdown" has the same problems.

  45. MattJ

    Also the same web clients that had security flaws in their XHTML-IM often also had security flaws elsewhere (like not escaping nicknames)

  46. MattJ

    nothing to do with XHTML-IM

  47. Zash

    In fact, you can get the same problems without rich text support

  48. MattJ

    But not using XHTML-IM invites people to just dump it into the DOM

  49. MattJ

    But using XHTML-IM invites people to just dump it into the DOM

  50. MattJ

    waqas wrote a safe sanitizer for it, fwiw, and it's not complex

  51. Zash

    People will just dump "not markdown" through a markdown lib into HTML and dump that into the DOM

  52. dwd

    Well, the feeling in Council wasm't that XHTML-IM was the sole source of security issues, it was that it was very hard to avoid security issues.

  53. MattJ

    (it's linked from the modernxmpp docs)

  54. dwd

    And, in addition, that many uses of XHTML-IM went beyond the subset it mandates anyway.

  55. Guus

    I'm biased on this. Good thing I'm not on council 🙂

  56. Guus

    not biased - but I'm undecided.

  57. MattJ

    The opposite of biased? :)

  58. Guus

    I can't make up my mind.

  59. MattJ

    I agree it's not a simple issue

  60. Guus

    And if you're making fun of my English, I move that we start using Dutch as the primary language in here. Where I have the same problem, but at least you won't notice then. 😉

  61. MattJ

    However I tend to agree with Andrew Nenakhov that we shouldn't artificially limit what can be done (e.g. about text in hyperlinks)

  62. Guus needs moar coffee.

  63. MattJ

    Otherwise people will just make up their own stuff which will probably be worse in the long run

  64. Guus


  65. dwd

    I'm also a big fan of "I've implemented this and it works".

  66. MattJ


  67. dwd

    Not saying we should just adopt those ideas wholesale and verbatim, but it does strongly suggest there's some solid ideas to get from the work.

  68. MattJ

    Also the argument that OOB exists and works isn't accurate, OOB is a hack implemented by Conversations and adopted by others

  69. MattJ

    I'm not against OOB (in fact I like it), but Conversations has broken it (<desc> can't be used, for example)

  70. dwd

    Also it's implemented by others is wildly varying ways - I've been doing a lot with it recently.

  71. dwd

    Gajim, for example, requires the URL in the <body/> to triger rendering the OOB.

  72. MattJ

    That's from Conversations

  73. MattJ


  74. MattJ

    I guess "and Gajim" can be added there

  75. Zash

    That behavior originated in Conversations

  76. MattJ

    and there are two reasons, one of which is that Daniel didn't want to have to change the DB schema :)

  77. Zash

    And before that it was just the URL by itself in <body>

  78. MattJ

    The other is that it's a sensible fallback, and ensures that a user of a fallback client client doesn't lose any info

  79. pep.

    "I'm also a big fan of "I've implemented this and it works".", Poezio and gajim have implemented xhtml-im and it works :P

  80. MattJ


  81. jonas’

    10:39:10 dwd> I'm also a big fan of "I've implemented this and it works".

  82. jonas’

    I’m not

  83. jonas’

    especially not with influential implementations.

  84. jonas’

    because it’s typically already deployed in the wild at that point and then everyone *has* to follow suit

  85. jonas’

    (Styling intended)

  86. pep.

    Yeah, I'm also half-half on that, mostly because of what jonas’ says

  87. dwd

    Hence the follow-up statement.

  88. pep.

    I need to reply to that thread anyway.. noticed a few funny statements (if only a few)

  89. lovetox

    you dont understand the reasons behind the oob thing

  90. lovetox

    also its weird dwd that you want to control what the client of another person shows or does

  91. lovetox

    its really nothing you should think about

  92. lovetox

    btw you dont have to use oob at all with Gajim, if the user chooses he can let Gajim show and load *all* links, it doesnt matter if they have a oob element or not

  93. Ge0rG

    The Web is so great, we can't do XMPP without it.

  94. dwd

    lovetox, I'd just like to send an image to someone. It's not about controlling if the user sees it inline or not, it's about expressing intent.

  95. dwd

    lovetox, Compare and contrast with RFC 2183, which allows people to indicate if the MIME part is intended to be an attached file or an inline portion of the message.

  96. lovetox

    yes your intent is declared when you use oob

  97. lovetox

    you dont need to follow body==oob url logic

  98. lovetox

    if a user uses http upload to share a picture, he communicates a URL, i as a client add a oob tag to tell another client, that the intent is a shared image that the user specifically uploaded, so not a copy paste of URL from somewhere

  99. lovetox

    because we also need a fallback for clients that dont support oob, this results in oob url == body

  100. lovetox

    for this particular case of sharing something

  101. lovetox

    that does not mean that oob cant be used in other ways , like adding a description

  102. lovetox

    if your client has support for adding a description to uploaded content, tell me and i will make it look good in Gajim

  103. lovetox

    i didnt saw something like that though until now

  104. MattJ

    lovetox, the problem is that if you put anything in <desc> it is ignored by Conversations, and any other client

  105. MattJ

    so the sensible thing to do would be to put the <desc> content also in <body> for fallback clients

  106. lovetox

    yeah and? open a issue on their tracker for it

  107. MattJ

    But then Conversations will stop displaying it inline

  108. MattJ

    Daniel knows about it and doesn't want to fix it, because it would require a schema change in the Conversations database

  109. lovetox

    yeah and?! Because one client does not support something now we stop using it?

  110. MattJ

    I mean, he didn't say he would never fix it, but it's not priority, and it means that <desc> can't be used in practice today

  111. lovetox

    i dont get this kind of argument

  112. MattJ

    Tell that to all the users of Conversations :)

  113. dwd

    lovetox, But opening an issue on the tracker would surely be trying to control how a client presents some data?

  114. MattJ

    "When your client sends me a message, it doesn't display"

  115. Zash

    "It doesn't work in IE"

  116. lovetox

    then he doesnt see the description

  117. lovetox

    whats the difference to now where you cant add one

  118. lovetox

    because it doesnt show it inline anymore

  119. lovetox

    so you want to control how the image is displayed

  120. Zash

    If you wanna make everything worse, send the description in a separate message.

  121. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: didn't you intend to post to standards@ about MUC Avatars and how to move forward?

  122. Zash

    Didn't I intent to just load mod_pep onto a MUC and call it a day?

  123. Seve

    >yeah and?! Because one client does not support something now we stop using it? Out of context somebody would think we should rename XMPP to Conversations :)

  124. Ge0rG

    "ejabberd - a Conversations™ compatible server"

  125. Ge0rG

    It would be funny if it wasn't about the abuse of trademarks and the sad state of XMPP.

  126. Andrew Nenakhov

    Well since xmpp stands for messaging and *Presence* protocol, I could hardly call Conversations an XMPP client at all 😂 XMP, or XMPp at best

  127. pep.

    "MattJ> But then Conversations will stop displaying it inline" maybe someday we'll finally rename to The Conversations Protocol.

  128. jonas’

    conversations does funny things when you simply slap an OOB tag on all the links

  129. pep.

    Well that's a conversations problem..

  130. Andrew Nenakhov

    Btw, is it just me unable to find a setting, or there are no roster groups at all?

  131. Zash

    What do you mean?

  132. flow

    Andrew Nenakhov, possibly there are not roster groups at all

  133. Zash

    Define "roster groups"

  134. Seve

    They are, but look like tags, I think

  135. flow

    you don't have to add every aspect of the protocol to your (G)UI, and some argue that they do more harm than good

  136. Andrew Nenakhov

    Seve, I can't find even tags now

  137. dwd

    Roster groups in COnversations are indeed displayed as tags. It's a reasonable rendering of what they are, in fairness.

  138. Andrew Nenakhov

    I agree with that semantically they are tags. I just somehow don't see them at all now.

  139. Zash

    There's a setting somewhere that make them show up in the "start conversation" view

  140. Ge0rG

    How does Xabber handle roster groups? And how are they named in the UI?

  141. Andrew Nenakhov

    Like it should. ☝️

  142. Ge0rG


  143. jonas’

    Andrew Nenakhov, oh, so you’re doing tags, too? :)

  144. Andrew Nenakhov

    Of course, no )

  145. jonas’

    hm, I find tags much more useful

  146. Andrew Nenakhov

    My co-workers don't. We are using Xabber for Web as a daily driver desktop chat app. Briefly experimented with tag based groups, quicky dropped cause everyone hated it

  147. Andrew Nenakhov

    So like, 'redsolution' shared roster groups to list all active colleagues and their presences, 'developers' 'managers'

  148. Ge0rG

    +1 for tags. Just to annoy Андрей.

  149. Andrew Nenakhov


  150. Ge0rG

    the concept of a contact list is deprecated anyway. all you need is a search/address bar where you can type things.

  151. Andrew Nenakhov

    Tell that to my managers, lol

  152. Ge0rG

    aren't you the manager? I thought so...

  153. Andrew Nenakhov

    Then tell me how far they've sent you

  154. jonas’

    Andrew Nenakhov, https://sotecware.net/files/mlxc/02-tagsinput.webm FWIW

  155. Ge0rG

    Andrew Nenakhov: or is everybody managed by FSB now?

  156. Andrew Nenakhov

    jonas’, the main use pattern of using groups was to scroll over them to see who's online, sorted by relevant groups.

  157. jonas’

    Andrew Nenakhov, I see

  158. jonas’

    I became headaches when thinking about how to deal with the situation where a user attempts to do conflicting changes to the same contact in multiple groups

  159. jonas’

    and I prefer the tags UI anyways

  160. Andrew Nenakhov

    jonas’, like, what conflicting changes?

  161. jonas’

    Andrew Nenakhov, or to put it another way: I found it to be confusing behaviour when changing a contacts name in one group affects the contact in another group

  162. Andrew Nenakhov

    jonas’, I don't find it confusing. Maybe because I have good interfaces.

  163. jonas’


  164. Ge0rG

    if it's a tree, it's confusing.

  165. Ge0rG

    because you imply that one contact is multiple leafs.

  166. Ge0rG

    and if it's not a tree but a DAG, it's even more confusing because nobody will understand that.

  167. lovetox

    hm tags sound like a good idea

  168. jonas’

    lovetox, I think they are! https://sotecware.net/files/mlxc/02-tagsinput.webm

  169. Ge0rG

    lovetox: please fix the dialogs where a JID is split into locapart and domain first

  170. jonas’

    I have another clip somewhere where I showcase the UI to manage tags on a contact, but I can’t seem to find it

  171. Andrew Nenakhov

    jonas’, anyway, I fully understand the reasoning behind tags approach. It just didn't stick with my personnel do we dropped that option for now

  172. lovetox

    Ge0rG the account creation dialog is on my list

  173. Ge0rG

    lovetox: I recently encountered it in the Join MUC dialog

  174. lovetox

    but it is a big thing, because it contains so many workflows

  175. Ge0rG

    lovetox: also are you following https://docs.modernxmpp.org ?

  176. lovetox

    IBR, Anonymous registration, proxy settings etc

  177. lovetox

    this must all be done in this one dialog

  178. Ge0rG

    account creation is kind of special, because you need to specify the server first

  179. Ge0rG

    Also: https://github.com/modernxmpp/modernxmpp/issues/7

  180. lovetox

    if you think about it, to have a really good account creation/adding GUI you need to support a shitload of things

  181. lovetox

    you need Forms support with nice looking GUI, you need catpcha support with Forms, you need BOSH, http proxys, socks5 proxies, a lib that supports IBR really good with giving meaningful errors if something does not work

  182. lovetox

    and at last you need to handle the 7 different allowed methods that a server can offer you the IBR registration

  183. Ge0rG

    lovetox: what's your point, again?

  184. MattJ

    lovetox, if there really are 7 (which I hope not), I'm pretty confident you can ignore some of those

  185. lovetox

    that it sounds trivial to make a good add/creation dialog

  186. lovetox

    but it entails many things to do it really good

  187. MattJ

    I can think of simple (no form), form, or out-of-band

  188. Zash

    MattJ: Don't look at mod_register_redirect

  189. MattJ

    lovetox, would really appreciate anything you can bring to the modernxmpp docs

  190. Ge0rG

    lovetox: I never claimed it's easy :D

  191. lovetox

    MattJ i referred to the table of death in the IBR xep

  192. Ge0rG

    my own client only implements half-a-method

  193. MattJ


  194. MattJ

    It doesn't actually seem that bad

  195. Ge0rG

    out-of-band registration _is_ bad.

  196. MattJ

    The table is possibly a little excessive. For a client that supports forms, it's basically telling you to always use that if the server offers it

  197. Ge0rG

    I mean it's working more or less on PCs, where it's not so hard to type a username and a password, but it really sucks on mobile

  198. pep.

    Ge0rG, agreed

  199. Ge0rG

    _especially_ if you need to solve some 64px klingon captcha on your 1080p 4" display.

  200. Ge0rG

    (which reminds me of the misdesigned xmpp compliance badges with the tiny fonts)

  201. Zash

    And guess how many clients actually support anything but username+password

  202. pep.

    You're making me sad

  203. Ge0rG


  204. jonas’

    Ge0rG, by "number installed" instead of "number of software projects"? likely! :)

  205. Zash

    This is where it turns out those 3 are the libpurple ones.

  206. Ge0rG

    somebody write an android transverter from data forms to ui widges

  207. Zash


  208. Zash

    Pidgin supports dataforms

  209. Zash

    Or, some sort of extended IBR at least

  210. Guus

    Board: I'm getting a service person visiting my house somewhere today. He hasn't been here yet. Luck shall have it that he'll arrive just when the board meeting starts.

  211. Guus

    I might be unresponsive.

  212. MattJ

    Noted, thanks!

  213. Ge0rG

    I've heard that moparisthebest volunteers for the Editor role.

  214. Zash

    Yeah it's the form.

  215. Guus

    That guy is pulling up now.

  216. Guus

    Impeccable timing

  217. Guus


  218. Seve

    MattJ, feels like it's just you and me

  219. dwd

    Your friendly ex-officio COuncil Chair is here too.

  220. nyco


  221. Ge0rG

    that Council Chair could do their voting duty as well :D

  222. dwd

    Ge0rG, Yeah.

  223. MattJ


  224. ralphm bangs gavel

  225. ralphm

    0. Welcome + agenda

  226. ralphm

    Who? What?

  227. MattJ


  228. Seve is here!

  229. ralphm

    Seve: I think you had something to say about the agenda?

  230. Seve

    Yes ralphm.

  231. Seve

    I moved a bit the items that we have for discussion to give them some time as well. I was fearing that we would stick to juts one and don't discuss the rest.

  232. Seve


  233. ralphm


  234. Seve

    Some of them look like they need less time than others, so I thought this would be a good idea to have things done.

  235. MattJ

    Sounds good

  236. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  237. ralphm


  238. dwd

    I will, sadly, be disappearing into a meeting shortly, sorry.

  239. ralphm


  240. ralphm


  241. Guus

    I'm back

  242. ralphm

    Had network issues.

  243. ralphm

    Back, too.

  244. ralphm

    2. Server outage post-mortem

  245. ralphm

    Guus' point

  246. Guus

    We've discussed this two weeks ago, iirc

  247. ralphm

    Right, I wasn't sure if it needs to be on here still.

  248. MattJ

    We did. Not sure we actually got anywhere though, or if there is anywhere left to go

  249. Seve

    Don't recall any action

  250. Guus

    I'd like to see if we want have improvements, and if so, discuss how we improve things.

  251. Guus

    ralphm volunteered to talk to intosi during practice about this.

  252. Guus

    (unsure what practice)

  253. ralphm

    Indeed I did, and haven't yet, so I will try today.

  254. ralphm

    We have rehearsals on Thursdays, me on drums, him on bass.

  255. ralphm

    3. Automagically merge PRs from authors.

  256. Guus

    Let's, as board, decide if we want things to improve somehow

  257. Guus

    if not, we need no furhter action

  258. Guus

    if so, we should facilitate furhter action.

  259. ralphm


  260. Guus

    ah, we're moving on.

  261. ralphm

    Guus: I'll first have that chat.

  262. ralphm

    (and put it as a todo in Trello)

  263. dwd

    Presumably you'd want to merge only on Experimental?

  264. MattJ

    dwd, yes

  265. MattJ

    This was prompted by a remark from zinid, and how he's frustrated by the round-trip times regarding publishing to (Experimental) specs where he is the author

  266. MattJ

    He'd like to commit, and see it rendered

  267. ralphm

    How would you implement this? Just allow authors merge control and have them merge themselves?

  268. MattJ

    My counter was that PRs are a typical workflow in just about any open-source project

  269. Ge0rG

    Is that worth the trouble of implementing some kind of access control system?

  270. MattJ

    Well right now the Editors are the access control system

  271. ralphm

    If he just wants to have things rendered, local rendering works just fine for me?

  272. MattJ

    ralphm, rendered for others to reference as well

  273. Ge0rG

    You can rather easily publish the rendered html

  274. MattJ

    Ge0rG, not on xmpp.org, obviously

  275. ralphm

    MattJ: do you have an idea on this would work?

  276. ralphm


  277. Guus

    If we can automate more, I don't see harm in doing that. If the task of automating things takes more resources than doing things manually the next few years, I see no point in automating stuff.

  278. Ge0rG

    MattJ: obviously. But replacing the editors with some kind of bot that can check the identity of a github user against the author field in the XEP is not trivial

  279. MattJ

    I'd like to hear Editor feedback on this idea - I know jonas has made a lot of progress with automation

  280. Guus

    a second pair of eyes before we _publish_ things seems desirable, though.

  281. Guus

    What's there for board to decide, here?

  282. MattJ

    I'm just relaying feedback from an author, that the times between submission and publication can be long, and trying to avoid the "but we're all volunteers" response

  283. Guus

    if Editors choose to further automate things, yey for them.

  284. ralphm

    I'd be ok for the Editors to form their opinion on this and change (or not change) their processes accordingly.

  285. MattJ

    Guus, Board oversees the submission process, so I think it's a relevant point to receive feedback on that process from the people using it

  286. Guus

    we should try and optimize things, sure. People could also volunteer to take up the role of Editor - something that was requested repeatedly.

  287. ralphm

    I don't think it really affects our procedures.

  288. Guus

    MattJ I don't see this as a process change though?

  289. ralphm

    Guus: agreed, more Editors FTW

  290. MattJ

    Guus, not necessarily, no

  291. MattJ

    But you did make the comment about "a second pair of eyes"

  292. MattJ

    Anyway, if we want to conclude that this is up to Editors, that's fine by me

  293. Guus

    I'm not against automation at all. If Editors want this, and if we find someone to do the automation, by all means.

  294. ralphm

    MattJ: I do think for now this is up to the Editors

  295. MattJ

    Sounds good to me

  296. ralphm

    4. High Profile XMPP Uses

  297. ralphm

    I saw a bunch of things on Trello, what do we need to discuss?

  298. Seve

    We were brainstorming, to put it simple, I think.

  299. Seve

    Trying to figure out what can we offer to these "High Profile XMPP Users"

  300. Guus

    I'd like to see a plan developed that leads to someone reaching out to organisations.

  301. Guus

    we can discuss that plan. 🙂

  302. ralphm

    Right, in that case, let's put it at the top for next week.

  303. ralphm

    5. Tigase & XMPP Logo

  304. ralphm

    nyco: what's this?

  305. nyco

    they wanna use the logo, asking for authorisation

  306. Guus

    This is explicitly about the XMPP logo, and not related to the Jabber trademark?

  307. nyco

    yep, I could ask, to double check

  308. dwd

    The logo is, IIRC, public domain isn't it?

  309. ralphm

    I *think* it is licensed Expat/MIT

  310. Guus

    I was going to *think* the same.

  311. Guus

    do we have that written down somewhere? 🙂

  312. MattJ

    I was pretty sure so, but I can't find any reference right now

  313. ralphm

    We have had. From my recollection it falls under our IPR policy. Would be good if stpeter remembers.

  314. ralphm

    I'll send an e-mail to ask

  315. dwd

    In any case, the copyright is owned by the XSF, so you can license it however you like, I think.

  316. ralphm

    Yes, but if we already have, it would be nice to know which one we used.

  317. Guus

    let's ask Peter, and make sure to re-instate a description on the website.

  318. Guus

    for future reference.

  319. Seve


  320. Guus

    Can we preemptively tell Tigase that they can use it?

  321. MattJ

    Seems fine to me

  322. ralphm


  323. Guus

    seems like we need to figure out the 'how', not the 'if' they can use it.

  324. nyco

    I'd say yes, I use it without asking... should I remove it?

  325. Guus

    no point in making them wait for that, right?

  326. ralphm

    I think that's it.

  327. nyco

    agree Guus

  328. nyco

    agree, Guus

  329. ralphm

    6. AOB

  330. ralphm


  331. MattJ

    None here

  332. Guus

    nyco can you tell Tigase?

  333. nyco

    I will

  334. Guus

    next week DST

  335. Guus

    for ... everyone?

  336. ralphm

    7. Date of Next

  337. ralphm


  338. MattJ


  339. Guus


  340. ralphm

    8. Close

  341. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  342. ralphm bangs gavel

  343. nyco

    change of time

  344. ralphm

    nyco: you missed the DST comment?

  345. nyco

    I failed to understand...

  346. ralphm

    Daylight Savings Time

  347. nyco

    that's +1 then

  348. ralphm


  349. Guus

    all board members will meet at the same time-of-day as today.

  350. nyco

    that's clearer for my poor mind

  351. ralphm

    Please, can somebody retroactively make minutes from this?

  352. Guus

    it'll just not be 7 times 24 hours later, and for US-based people, the time-of-day changes, as compared to today.

  353. Guus

    The XSF Events calendar has the right agenda item for the board meeting - just follow that, and you're fine. 🙂

  354. ralphm

    Guus: it is pinned to local time, right?

  355. Guus

    yes. It is pinned to local (I think London) time, and explicitly not to UTC.

  356. nyco

    weird, in scifi movies, when a spaceship reaches a planet, no one ever asks about time and timezones, they just land earth should do the same: one unique time for the whole planet, no timezone, just a "planetzone" and yes, some countries would have their mornings at 0:00 and some would go party in the night at 07:00 😉

  357. MattJ

    UTC, yes

  358. Ge0rG

    the EU is trying that right now.

  359. MattJ


  360. nyco

    (and the reference point would be Paris, of course...)

  361. Guus

    nyco whenever a spaceship arrives at a planet, they can raise the relevant ruling party immediately. They're not even in the bathroom, ever, let alone asleep.

  362. Ge0rG

    But unfortunately, it's harder to change the local starting time of events than the offset of local time to the sun.

  363. nyco

    in the future, the human does no pee anymore

  364. Guus


  365. Zash

    Viva das .Beat

  366. ralphm

    Time in Star Trek is complicated.

  367. Ge0rG

    ralphm: s/in Star Trek//

  368. ralphm

    I think in general they use a 24h clock, but DS9 is on a 26h day schedule (to align with Bajor)

  369. Zash

    It's all wibbly-wobbly

  370. Guus

    Interstellar (the movie) is fun with time. Unsure if it's accurate, but it's fun.

  371. Ge0rG

    ralphm: yes, they are using their cis-male-privileged Earth time everywhere.

  372. ralphm

  373. Guus

    I've started re-reruns of voyager - amazed to find that the borg don't play a role at all in the first few seasons. Totally forgot about that.

  374. Ge0rG

    8472 is my favorite species.

  375. Neustradamus

    About XEP-0308: Last Message Correction : https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0308.html -> It is not specified about log, when we changed the last message, the log has 2 entries (not only 1), it is possible to add a solution?

  376. Ge0rG

    (it also happens to be a TCP port that's not on the nmap top1000 list)

  377. Ge0rG

    Neustradamus: what log?

  378. Guus

    the weak will perish.

  379. Ge0rG

    but TNG was peak Star Trek anyway. VOY had a horrible ending, and DS9 was merely space soap opera

  380. Neustradamus

    Ge0rG: Log in the client and saved by the server

  381. Ge0rG

    Neustradamus: fix the client?

  382. Neustradamus

    It is not specified in the XEP no? The problem is for server and client no?

  383. Neustradamus

    Test 1

  384. Neustradamus

    Test 2

  385. Zash

    Discovery is pretty nice so far

  386. Neustradamus

    look here: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2019-03-28

  387. Ge0rG

    Neustradamus: I think it's by design.

  388. Neustradamus

    It is an example on this XMPP software server, but it is for other XMPP server softwares too.

  389. Ge0rG

    The prosody log display might need support for LMC

  390. Neustradamus

    Holger (for ejabberd), Kev (for M-Link), Guus (for Openfire), MattJ (for Prosody), what do you think?

  391. Guus

    I like Discovery too.

  392. MattJ

    Neustradamus, I think... patches welcome

  393. MattJ

    I'm working on higher priority things right now

  394. Neustradamus

    The XEP must be patched for it for have a 1.0.1, we are ok?

  395. lovetox

    Neustradamus you want to replace a message when you correct it?

  396. lovetox

    then you lose the information what was corrected

  397. lovetox

    so the client cant show you what the message was before it was corrected

  398. lovetox

    why do you think the server should do this? the client can fuse the messages after receiving it

  399. Neustradamus

    To have only the last message in log, not the old message and the new message, example the Test 1 -> Test 2 for minutes ago, there are 2 entries in log.

  400. Ge0rG

    A log on the web is a different thing than a server archive.

  401. Zash

    (Technically, that is the server archive, with some transform)

  402. Ge0rG

    Yes. But then you can instrument the Some Transform.

  403. Zash

    You can. Have fun!

  404. Ge0rG

    I'm working on higher priority things right now

  405. Ge0rG ,oO( I need to bind that to a hotkey )

  406. Guus

    SCAM can send you that on a coffee mug, I think.

  407. Zash

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

  408. Guus

    Pelican Brief flashbacks...

  409. Ge0rG

    dwd: was the lack of a vote in your ATT mail by design or by accident?

  410. pep.

    In any case that was good feedback :)

  411. dwd

    Design. A veto seems like a last resort, I'd like to see what others say first.

  412. dwd

    But I am leaning toward a veto, as is probably obvious.

  413. lovetox

    why is it voting already

  414. lovetox

    it was my interpretation that after submitting something to the inbox the author can gather inital feedback and maybe improve the XEP

  415. lovetox

    ah but voting does not really change something

  416. lovetox

    the xep stays forever in inbox and can be improved

  417. Ge0rG

    It's merely a vote on assigning a number.

  418. Ge0rG

    dwd: I'd also love to see your vote on 412.

  419. Ge0rG

    And somebody else would love to get all votes on DoX before the weekend.

  420. dwd

    lovetox, In general, if something's veto'd, people ditch it.

  421. dwd

    lovetox, Also, I have an enormous pet hate of people working on documents in Inbox, excepting addressing veto feedback. There's a huge IPR hole they then fall into.

  422. dwd

    lovetox, Unless/until we accept a XEP and give it a number, it's really not clear whose copyright and license it is.

  423. lovetox

    so the right approach would be to submit the xep to the list before submitting it to inbox

  424. jonas’

    Ge0rG, didn’t DoX expire this week?

  425. jonas’

    Ge0rG, yeah, DoX expired and with the last meeting’s votes it was accepted

  426. jonas’

    I’ll publish it, but not on April 1st

  427. jonas’

    I find it too misleading

  428. jonas’

    it is intended to be taken serious, but the nature of it makes it look like it might not be. I don’t want any confusion around that.

  429. moparisthebest

    why can't it be both? :)

  430. Zash

    March 31 at 23:59

  431. moparisthebest

    in my opinion, it has valid use-cases, but is also silly enough to be published on April 1st :)

  432. jonas’

    moparisthebest, simply to avoid confusion

  433. moparisthebest

    what's wrong with a little confusion

  434. Ge0rG


  435. Ge0rG

    jonas’: please do on 1st

  436. jonas’

    moparisthebest, people already complain enough about confusing things with our standards

  437. moparisthebest

    but what's confusing, it's a simple spec that has implementations, anyone that doesn't want it will ignore it, anyone that does might go "haha this was published on April 1st" but, what's the downside

  438. jonas’

    it’s "this was published on April 1st, is this serious, do people implement it, what?"

  439. moparisthebest

    that's fine, it's easily resolved, if it was published on April 2nd you still don't know if people implement it

  440. Seve

    I don't like humorous XEPs, but in his defense this isn't

  441. moparisthebest

    it's a little humorous, we don't have a Type for that

  442. moparisthebest

    Type: Slightly Humorous Standards Track

  443. Zash

    Type: Art

  444. moparisthebest

    Type: Author thinks it's hilarious but everyone else disagrees Standards Track

  445. moparisthebest

    Ge0rG, since you in particular seemed to consider using this for real, did you see https://github.com/wiktor-k/prosody-dox

  446. Seve

    > Type: Author thinks it's hilarious but everyone else disagrees Standards Track Accurate

  447. moparisthebest

    So 1 council member (and author) are for April 1st release, editor and council member (same person) is against, can we get more council members to weigh in? dwd Link Mauve Kev ?

  448. dwd

    Anything that suggests people shouldn't implement sounds good to me. ;-)

  449. Ge0rG

    dwd: so you are for April 1st as well... 😁

  450. moparisthebest

    Yay that's another council member for!

  451. Ge0rG

    Haven't seen kev yet

  452. dwd

    I don't think, strictly, that the date of publication is something I can actually vote for or against, however.

  453. Ge0rG

    dwd: you can kindly ask the editor to do his duty on a given date.

  454. dwd

    FWIW, I've never been particularly in favour of the "Humorous" track. But then, I'm in favour of more subtle jokes.

  455. moparisthebest


  456. moparisthebest

    Like a real spec with multiple independent implementations that is a bit silly and happens to be released on April 1st ?

  457. moparisthebest

    That's just good marketing

  458. Ge0rG

    I think that after we missed to assign the number 404 to a XEP that actually deserves it, we can have DoX on April 1st... @jonas’

  459. dwd

    Ge0rG, Hidden Jid support isn't bad.

  460. Ge0rG

    I tend to disagree