jcbrandSeve You can count me as another person who doesn't find humorous XEPs particularly funny.
SeveGood to know I'm not alone, jcbrand :)
jonas’moparisthebest, another, less important, aspect is that April 1st is a monday, and I don’t have lots of resources for doing editor work on mondays
APachhas left
delehas joined
Ge0rGHow much more than pressing a button is it? Would it be hard to stimulate a Monday from a different time zone? That should give you half a day of wiggle room in each direction.
APachhas joined
jonas’Ge0rG, assigning a number, checking that it builds, checking that the metadata is ok for publication, tagging, archiving, pushing, waiting two hours to send the email (and not forgetting about that)
j.rhas joined
jonas’much of this is automated, but to apply the appropriate amount of care, I need to allocate a bit of time for that
delehas left
blablahas left
blablahas joined
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
Tobiashas left
larmahas left
Tobiashas joined
Steve Killehas left
lskdjfhas left
Steve Killehas joined
lnjhas left
lnjhas joined
andyhas left
andyhas joined
debaclehas joined
andyhas left
uhoreghas left
Matthewhas left
Half-Shothas left
benpahas left
benpahas joined
uhoreghas joined
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
lnjhas left
KevDoX: If it's meant to be implemented: Standards Track and not April 1st. If it's not meant to be implemented, Humorous and April 1st. Although whether it's actually amusing or not is an open question.
MattJIf it's standards track who cares if April 1st?
debaclehas left
alacerhas joined
blablahas left
!xsf_Martinhas left
j.rhas left
larmahas joined
tahas left
GuusI agree with Kev - Anything published on April 1st runs the risk of being treated as humorous. Many people won't notice the track that's published on.
Ge0rGGuus: I don't see this being a problem with that specific proposal.
GuusIf a XEP is not intended to be dismissed off-hand as humorous, we shouldn't publish it on April first.
Ge0rGI don't see a problem with publishing serious proposals on April 1st, and I don't think people will dismiss something they actually need based on the publication date.
GuusIt will introduce confusion with at least some people, which we can easily avoid.
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rGAnd especially with DoX, which is of the "ha-ha, only serious" kind <http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html>
Guusthat's utterly confusing to anyone that's not on top of things.
jonas’I’d maybe not say "utterly", but yeah. Especially with this type of borderline proposal, I think we should commit to it being either the one (humorous) or the other (standards track).
jcbrandThere's nothing wrong with publishing a serious proposal on April 1st, but that's not a reason to actively push for it to be published on April 1st.
Seve>If it's standards track who cares if April 1st?
I agree, not all the world celebrates 1st of April, just saying.
SeveI don't check when a XEP was published, honestly.
SeveI care about the content.
jonas’Seve, me neither, but some may, and especially on the day of publication.
SeveI'm not pushing to any of the sides, just mentioning that
GuusMany people won't be affected, but some will. We should err on the side of caution. Especially since it'd be effortless to do so.
Ge0rGyou folks are way too serious.
GuusGe0rG I like meta-jokes as much as the next guy, probably more. But let's not do that in a standards organisation.
KevIf it was an obviously serious proposal, April 1st would make no difference.
KevBut this is a XEP that at first glance I assumed was meant to be a joke.
Ge0rGGuus: ..in a standards organization that has an explicit document class for "funny" things?
GuusGe0rG we can go back and forth over this all day, but I don't think we're going to agree. 🙂
Ge0rGthis is kind of those cheap 80ies tv shows where there are two huge neon signs above the stage with "Applause!" and "Laughter!"
Ge0rGKev: the XSF process doesn't allow for a proposal to be _both_ standards track and humorous.
blablahas joined
Ge0rGWhat about if we change our process to allow for that? It would probably take a year or so, and then we can publish this XEP on April 1st 2020.
SeveCome on :)
Ge0rGKev: speaking of process, is there a chance to get a quick vote from you on XEP-0412?
GuusGe0rG Comedytrain has open podium on Tuesdays, in Toomler, Amsterday. 😉
KevGe0rG: Probably not while I'm off ill.
KevIf I've not done it Monday, do feel free to chase.
Ge0rGKev: alright, thanks. Get well soon :)
KevThanks.
Ge0rG(this is not meant egoistically at all)
GuusIt didn't, until you mentioned that. 🙂
GuusAs someone with no skin in the game: get well soon, Kev.
KevTa. It's only a cold, but it turns out they can be plenty annoying enough.
Ge0rGIt was well-intentioned, but then I had a feeling that it sounds like an empty phrase, and then I realized that it's even worse if taken in the context of my inquiry.
Ge0rGI suppose that whatever I'm saying now is only going to make it worse.
Guusyup.
dwdGe0rG, Keep digging, it's fun watching.
Ge0rGSo let's get back to DoX.
Ge0rGdwd: you owe me a vote as well :P
Ge0rGstarted to read ATT three times already. But the bus rides are too short and too bumpy to get through a complex cryptographic protocol.
dwdGe0rG, I'm still debating whether to through this back to another Last Call. We've had so few comments, I'm not sure it'll fix anything, though.
dwdGe0rG, That is more or less my concern with ATT. It's a (relatively) novel cryptographic design that the XSF is probably not the best place for.
Ge0rGdwd: there is always CS-2020 for comments.
dwdGe0rG, That's a fair point.
Guusdwd, I'm missing context, but it feels wrong to have both a defined (although minimum) period for 'last call', but also throw things back to last call for not having enough feedback.
Ge0rGindeed, what Guus said. 0412 has been in Last Call for over a month.
dwdGuus, Yes, although Council has done exactly that. But in this instance, we have had a change in author, and that author has added their own changes.
Ge0rGdwd: as I said before, I'd rather undo my changes than go through another month of Last Call Feedback Not Happening.
Ge0rGdwd: so either Council is agreeing with my (rather minor) changes, or not. In the latter case, I'll just revert the commits and get that thing out ASAP, and push them into CS-2020
dwdGe0rG, Sure. And equally, I'm not sure I want to veto the spec from Draft anyway. I just need to think about it a bit before making a decision.
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Ge0rGdwd: and after all, Draft isn't Final. So it boils down to us (the Council) not closing any roads for us.
Half-ShotXhas left
GuusIf the change is considerable, that might warrant a Last Call. If this is about the Compliance Suites, I 'd much prefer to finally either reject or publish things. Sam has a point - it's almost April - this is getting silly.
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Guusespecially if we have another xep coming up next year.
Ge0rGApril 1st would be a good day to publish the Compliance Suite.
GuusThank you for not leaving that one unused, Ge0rG 😃
debaclehas joined
dwdGuus, The reason why it's taking so long is not, in fairness, COuncil taking time over things, but the utter lack of discussion in the community.
Ge0rGI might fat-finger it a bit and change the year to 1999, to commemorate the anniversary.
Guusdwd I thkn that Council should decide to either use 'lack of discussion' as grounds to not advance the XEP, or to take it as a silent agreement.
GuusRe-iterating what we've done a couple of times, expecting a different outcome, is not productive.
Ge0rGGuus: if we take lack of discussion as grounds not to advance, then the XSF will stall altogether.
dwdGuus, Or - and where I'm leaning, actually - just push this one through and accept it stinks a bit, and hope to get a decent discussion for CS-2020.
Ge0rGdwd: may I remind you that we had the same argument about CS-2018?
dwdGe0rG, Yes. The community's input thus far for two years is that they just want a Compliance Suite, but don't care what's in it.
SyndaceRegarding ATT, I think the upcoming sprint in Berlin will yield a lot of offline discussion about it. So on Sunday/Monday a lot of OMEMO people will have talked about it. The author and various client-devs are involved.
GuusI suspect that part of the reason for a lack of discussion is that there's a feeling that it's not going anywhere, anyways. Let's break that cycle, but getting something out the door.
Ge0rGSyndace: how many security people will be there?
GuusI suspect that part of the reason for a lack of discussion is that there's a feeling that it's not going anywhere, anyways. Let's break that cycle, by getting something out the door.
mimi89999has left
Ge0rGdwd: maybe the community just trusts into the elected Council to do the right thing?
dwdGe0rG, The elected Council's Thing is not writing XEPs, though.
Kev> The community's input thus far for two years is that they just want a Compliance Suite, but don't care what's in it.
I'm not sure that's true.
mimi89999has joined
KevThere are a small number of loud voices saying that.
SyndaceGe0rG: Not sure if any ^^
KevI'm not sure that's the same as being the Will of the People.
dwdKev, Oh, indeed - the majority of the community has been entirely silent on the issue.
Ge0rGdwd: in case of Compliance Suites, it might actually be a good idea to have those maintained by a Council member.
Kev(Possibly because it's the opposite of what I think, which is that the date is unimportant (and shouldn't be there at all) and that if we can't do a decent job of a CS, we should delay until we can)
Ge0rGKev: if the people remain silent, we have no way to determine their will
Ge0rGKev: we are delaying the decesnt job of a CS at least since 2016 now.
GuusKev: do you propose to replace the CS XEPS with one, that we periodically update?
Half-ShotXhas joined
Ge0rGI think that with the presence of XMPP clients that stopped implementing new XEPs a decade ago, it is useful to be able to assign a year to a given implementation.
Half-ShotXhas left
Andrew NenakhovI might be late to a party, but it's absolutely necessary for serious things to be published on April 1st. If anything it makes plausible jokes better.
Ge0rGAnd we have discussed before that CS does not quite fit into our XEP process, but that for lack of a better process we are sticking to doing it as we are now.
Ge0rGIf you want to change the process, please do so for CS-2020
Ge0rG(see, sometimes, you can't tell truth from sarcasm)
lskdjfhas left
j.rhas joined
GuusNothing is going to change by pushing this one back to LC, I think. So I'd suggest to either reject or accept the advancement.
GuusI think Council's mandate covers that neatly - the amount of community feedback can be used as an argument to reject, but I don't think Council _requires_ community feedback to vote on a XEP.
dwdGuus, It doesn't mandate this, but neither do the rules preclude this as a reason to veto.
Half-ShotXhas joined
Guusyou got me confused.
Ge0rGGuus: I think Dave wants to say that the council may refuse a proposed XEP based on lack of community feedback
dwdGuus, Oh. Yes, unsurprising, I've rephrased what you were saying, more or less.
GuusYeah, that's what I ment. 🙂
Ge0rGSo everybody is in agreement now? Great!
Half-ShotXhas left
j.rhas left
GuusDon't know about you, but I'm frantically refreshing my mailbox.
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Ge0rGI'm also frantically refreshing my mailbox, but on my current 64kbit/s connection a login+fetch cycle is counted in minutes.
Ge0rG> Reading new messages (402342 bytes)...
jonas’why do you have to re-login to refresh?
Guusthat takes away from the franticallity 😞
Ge0rGjonas’: for $reasons. One of them being that IMAP support in mutt plainly sucks
jonas’ah, mutt
Ge0rGanother one being that I fetch my mail from the ISP via POP3, just to sync my inbox via IMAP to my own server
Ge0rGdid I mention yet that mswatch is an ugly hack?
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
larmahas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
GuusAnd you've not yet deviced a method to be notified of new mail via XMPP? tsss.
tahas joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
mimi89999has left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
Half-ShotXhas left
intosihas left
mimi89999has joined
mimi89999has left
rtq3has joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
G0s+has left
Half-ShotXhas left
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
Half-ShotXhas joined
jcbrandhas left
intosihas joined
blablahas left
blablahas joined
Ge0rGGuus: being notified? Just deliver them over XMPP!
Half-ShotXhas left
Half-ShotXhas joined
jcbrandhas joined
GuusGe0rG yes, get on with it!
Ge0rGThen we can have COIOX!
Ge0rGjonas’: do you have any plans for this weekend?
jonas’Ge0rG, yes.
jonas’why?
Half-ShotXhas left
GuusIT'S A TRAP!
Half-ShotXhas joined
Ge0rGjonas’: you are my no. 1 go-to bot expert. And this looks like we need a bot to synchronize maildir over XMPP
Guustold ya
SeveI'm glad you are not my boss, Ge0rG
Seve😂
Ge0rGSeve: my current developer team has a size of 0.
moparisthebestjonas’, don't forget the owners of quickmeme.com for allowing an upload to bypass the infallible filters
jonas’ah, yes
jonas’FWIW, I decided that April 1st is not the right date to publish DoX, and since I was nagged about eax-cir in the other room, I’ll just go ahead and process both now
blablahas left
blablahas joined
waqashas joined
jonas’on a different matter, folks interested in future xep archeology might like that I’m starting to tag XEPs✎
jonas’on a different matter, folks interested in future xep archeology might like that I’m starting to tag XEP commits ✏
jonas’https://github.com/xsf/xeps/releases
Zash\o/
Zashjonas’: That is awesome!
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
archas left
archas joined
goffihas left
tahas left
tahas joined
j.rhas joined
APachhas left
Wojtekhas left
madhur.garghas joined
Nekithas left
Wojtekhas joined
APachhas joined
archas left
archas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
archas left
archas joined
madhur.garghas left
debaclehas joined
madhur.garghas joined
igoosehas left
igoosehas joined
marc_has left
waqashas left
archas left
archas joined
Steve Killehas left
Nekithas joined
typikolhas joined
typikolhas left
Steve Killehas joined
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
edhelasone question for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0367.html
if you are doing the "slack-like reaction" implementation, how can you count emojis for MUC, regarding that uniqueness cannot really be based on the from jid
igoosehas left
igoosehas joined
archas left
archas joined
mikaelahas left
mikaelahas joined
Marandahas left
marc_has joined
lumihas joined
jubalhhas joined
archas left
archas joined
rtq3has left
jubalhhas left
jubalhhas joined
larmahas joined
madhur.garghas left
krauqhas left
marc_has left
Dele Olajidehas left
krauqhas joined
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
jubalhhas left
yvohas joined
alacerhas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
madhur.garghas joined
igoosehas left
igoosehas joined
ThibGhas left
ThibGhas joined
rtq3has joined
olihas left
goffihas joined
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
archas left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
archas joined
goffihas left
madhur.garghas left
404.city Supporthas joined
404.cityhas joined
archas left
Nekithas left
lskdjfhas joined
G0s+has left
G0s+has joined
Yagizahas left
jubalhhas joined
olihas joined
404.cityhas left
404.city Supporthas left
jubalhhas left
waqashas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
blablahas left
blablahas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
olihas left
olihas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
archas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
G0s+has left
olihas left
olihas joined
Ge0rGedhelas: based on the full JID in a MUC?
Ge0rGedhelas: or are you speaking of nickname changes?
marc_has joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
archas left
waqashas left
archas joined
waqashas joined
waqashas left
mikaelahas left
archas left
archas joined
yvohas left
j.rhas left
archas left
j.rhas joined
archas joined
debaclehas left
archas left
debaclehas joined
larmahas left
dwdlooks about. Still in the EU!
lnjhas left
lskdjfhas left
pep.jonas’, was that message about JET (0396) prompted by a discussion somewhere?
pep.Because some of us at the berlin sprint were actually talking about that earlier.
pep.I guess people will grump about offline / MUC. Even if there is no actual limitation for jingle regarding this
archas joined
wurstsalathas left
davidhas left
Zashhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0385.html
dwdI think, vaguely, that Jingle FT has a better security model than HTTP upload, though it somewhat depends on the details of the threat model you're working to. I'd love to get some of the crypto-enthusiasts to document their threat model, mind.
lnjhas joined
G0s+has joined
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
Wojtekhas left
Wojtekhas joined
Wojtekhas left
pep.Ok I just sent a follow-up on the ATT thread, I'd love to get feedback on that