XSF Discussion - 2019-07-25

  1. nyco

    and... time?

  2. Guus waves

  3. nyco

    fresh waves? we beat records in temperature in Paris

  4. nyco

    I'm in a Burger King... :'(

  5. pep.

    #itsnotjustparis !

  6. Guus

    same here 🙂

  7. Guus

    well, I'm not in a Burger King.

  8. Zash

    Something something makes you wish for nuclear winter.

  9. nyco

    at least I gotta milkshake

  10. nyco

    maybe not nuclear winter, but something in between, like planting trees, reduce waste...

  11. Guus

    ralphm MattJ Seve ?

  12. Seve

    I'm here :)

  13. Seve

    I was just thinking on a funny sentence, but nothing came out.

  14. nyco


  15. MattJ


  16. MattJ

    Sorry I'm late

  17. nyco


  18. nyco

    who leads?

  19. Guus

    our (burger) king of course!

  20. nyco

    anyway, I had just one question: should we enlarge the poll on compliance badges to Standards@ instead of restricting it to Members@ ?

  21. Guus

    I don't mind.

  22. Guus

    is there a need to gather more feedback?

  23. Guus

    Let's do this properly.

  24. Guus bangs a gavel

  25. Guus

    0. Role call

  26. Guus

    everyone but Ralph has made a noice

  27. nyco


  28. nyco

    everyone but Ralph has complained about heat :)

  29. Guus

    0. Agenda

  30. Guus

    apart from what's on Trello, and what Nyco just said, anything else?

  31. nyco

    I'm good

  32. Seve

    Nothing here

  33. Guus

    1. Minute Taker

  34. Guus


  35. Guus


  36. Guus

    2. Vote on Github contribution

  37. Seve

    I saw it, but I haven't made my mind yet, sorry.

  38. nyco

    a lot of stuff is highly obsolete

  39. nyco

    I'm all for merging, because that's done anyway

  40. nyco

    a contribution is a contribution

  41. Guus

    In short: we had someone that renewed many of the projects that are listed on our website. From what I can tell, the renewals itself are semantically correct. There was a debate wether or not we'd require _people involved_ with a project to renew them - or if we'd allow anyone to do it.

  42. nyco

    we still have no high-level, world-class XMPP app

  43. Guus

    Are we comfortable voting on this today, or does anyone want more info/time?

  44. Ge0rG

    From the floor, as the one who brought us into this mess, I'm strongly in favor of requiring somebody involved in the projects to do the renewal.

  45. Guus

    background info is linked to in the trello issue.

  46. Ge0rG

    As we don't have any other proxy info on commitment to xmpp from the developers.

  47. nyco

    maybe that rule was not our best move...

  48. nyco

    I see the intention though

  49. Guus

    I disagree - the list is on our website to facilitate finding useful things, not to pull in XMPP developers from the listed projects.

  50. MattJ

    (I'm just reviewing)

  51. nyco

    the same goes for Vysper, btw just revived... or not

  52. Guus

    nyco I'm aware that there's a lot of gray area here.

  53. Ge0rG

    Guus: yes, and things are only useful if they are still maintained.

  54. Guus

    Ge0rG - or heavily used.

  55. Ge0rG

    Compliance Suite would be another proxy, but then most are out.

  56. nyco

    that's the art of decision making: lacking clear black and white frontiers

  57. pep.

    Guus, it would probably be smarter not to encourage using unmaintained software, hence having developers chip in

  58. Ge0rG

    Guus: unmaintained clients that are heavily used are a major burden for our ecosystem.

  59. Guus

    Also - there's no practical way for the website editors to verify that people providing a PR are sufficiently associated with the project that they're renewing

  60. nyco

    pep. I agree with that, well I agreed with that originally

  61. Ge0rG

    Guus: I'm not speaking about 100% enforcement, but about clearly communicating.

  62. nyco

    we're still neutral, or more precisely wanna be

  63. Ge0rG

    Simply asking in the PR whether the author is involved would be fine by me

  64. Guus

    I think that with what we've done with the renewal, the quality of the list has dramatically improved. I'm not sure if putting in more enforcement effort would be worth it.

  65. Guus

    Also, I think that the PR that's outstanding now, would benefit the website.

  66. Guus

    I'd hate to reject that PR, simply because its author is not associated with most of the projects there were renewed.

  67. MattJ

    I think I'm in favour of accepting it

  68. nyco

    we still need better to qualify the quality, maintenance and modernity of a piece of software

  69. Ge0rG

    Guus: can you verify that all updated projects are actually still maintained? Including their xmpp parts?

  70. MattJ

    Ge0rG, I peeked at a few random samples, and it seemed so

  71. nyco

    just some websites are still up, dunno why

  72. Guus

    Ge0rG I've run through the list, and verified that most of the renewed projects indeed had activitiy

  73. nyco

    how can we truly check?

  74. nyco

    ask for declarative info from the owners?

  75. Guus

    nyco we can't without spending much more effort than I think is wise to spend on such a list.

  76. Ge0rG

    Pidgin also had activity. Nevertheless it's stuck in 2005, xmpp-wise.

  77. nyco

    agree, exactly what I wanted to point at

  78. nyco

    Psi(+) is the same

  79. nyco

    maybe not Gajim

  80. nyco


  81. nyco

    chair? we take a decision today?

  82. Guus

    So, we now have a list of which 20% of the items on it are debatable, against more than half, before we had this procedure. That's good enough for me, to be honest.

  83. Ge0rG

    I suppose you can just have a Board vote on this specific PR, for an exception to the maintainer rule.

  84. nyco

    or we revoke the maintener revival rule ;-)

  85. Guus

    I'd prefer to make this a vote on the rule, not on a specific PR

  86. Guus

    to prevent this from coming back again.

  87. Ge0rG

    I'm not in a position to prevent that, so do go on.

  88. Guus

    if we cannot have that vote today, then I'd like to vote on just the PR today - to ensure that the author gets feedback.

  89. Seve

    So what would it be? We remove the once per year check? Or just the acceptance of the change only if it comes from a person related to the specific project?

  90. nyco

    we keep the rule, make an exception today, reconsider the rule later?

  91. Guus

    I propose that we vote to allow a renewal/listing of a software project from anyone - not just a project associate.

  92. flow

    *Is* there a "maintainer rule"?

  93. nyco


  94. nyco


  95. Matt

    hey guys

  96. Guus

    flow: it's noted in a blog item, which I suspect is taken verbatim from the then-board descision.

  97. Zash

    I thought these rules were precisely to prevent random users from asking to revew Pidgin?

  98. nyco


  99. Guus

    Zash: no, they weren't

  100. Guus

    they were there to be able to remove unused listings.

  101. Guus

    Board, are you comfortable voting today? If not, I'm punting this to next week.

  102. nyco

    what do we vote?

  103. flow

    Hmm it is not really explicitly spelled out in https://xmpp.org/2017/03/new-xmpp-software-listing-rules/ AFAIKT

  104. Guus

    I propose that we vote to allow a renewal/listing of a software project from anyone - not just a project associate.

  105. nyco

    right flow

  106. Matt

    is there a place where i can make a thread about xmpp??

  107. nyco

    Guus +1

  108. Matt

    i havent been able to find a fourms

  109. nyco

    MattJ what do you mean?

  110. Guus

    Matt is a different person than MattJ.

  111. Matt


  112. pep.

    Matt, can you wait a bit please, this chan is currently used for a board meeting

  113. nyco

    yep, just saw this

  114. Matt

    uh oh

  115. Matt

    im sorry

  116. Guus

    Matt - we're in the middle of a di...what pep said. 🙂

  117. Guus

    no worries.

  118. Guus

    Seve, MattJ?

  119. MattJ

    I'm ok voting now

  120. Guus


  121. MattJ

    But the vote is simply allow/disallow, right?

  122. MattJ

    I have to say I prefer the middle-ground: allow by maintainer by default, allow exceptions if necessary

  123. MattJ

    This PR is exceptional because clearly some work was put into it

  124. Guus

    MattJ: requesting renewal doesn't automatically mean acceptance.

  125. MattJ


  126. flow

    I would favor allowing everyone until there is a mechahism in place which only allows updates by registered (mail|xmpp) addresses FWIW

  127. Ge0rG

    so this is about who may open a PR on the website?

  128. Guus

    I'd prefer to vote on allow/disallow - to not have this keep coming back, which I think is wasteful of our time. If you disagree, feel free to correct me.

  129. nyco

    let's not make it too strict and too complex and too formal and too restrictive

  130. pep.

    flow, maybe once DOAP is democratized we could use the author list there :)

  131. MattJ

    "Should non-maintainers be allowed to renew a project listing?" is the vote then, right?

  132. Ge0rG

    once DOAP is deployed, we don't need to maintain a list. It would be auto-generated from the DOAP records.

  133. Guus

    MattJ: yes.

  134. pep.


  135. Seve

    Guus, sorry, I'm just having difficulties on what to do. I would like to have a thought or two about what do we expect from the list, but anyway this will change on every board.

  136. Guus

    but I'd first like to here from Seve

  137. Guus

    but I'd first like to heaer from Seve

  138. pep.

    Ge0rG, which might not be better tbh

  139. nyco


  140. Guus

    Seve, if we postpone the vote until next week, does that help you?

  141. pep.

    We don't have control over who commits on each client

  142. pep.

    But we could very well list them if they support X or Y. For future discussions I guess.

  143. Seve

    Guus, I'm on the side of having better quality over than quantity, but I think that's not possible right now as nyco said. I will be+1 on the vote, then.

  144. nyco

    honestly, doing a release is a very long checklist if authors delegate that to other people, that's cool

  145. Guus

    Ok, so, you're OK to vote, I gather from that. 🙂

  146. Guus

    For the record: I motion that the XSF should allow non-maintainers to renew a project listing on our website.

  147. Ge0rG

    I presume that my disagreement and its motivation has been logged.

  148. Guus

    Ge0rG if only we had a minute taker...

  149. Guus

    or: it'll be as logged as the outcome of this vote.

  150. nyco

    technically, logged, yes

  151. nyco


  152. Guus

    nyco, seve, mattj, can I have a vote for the chat log please?

  153. nyco


  154. MattJ


  155. nyco

    Guus you vote as well :)

  156. Guus

    I'm +1

  157. MattJ

    Oh wait, we agreed it still needs review/approval, right?

  158. Ge0rG

    I read that as "editors will approve renewals from non-maintainers"

  159. nyco

    > For the record: I motion that the XSF should allow non-maintainers to renew a project listing on our website.

  160. MattJ

    "to renew" or "to request renewal"?

  161. Seve is waiting for clarification

  162. MattJ

    > 15:10:19 Guus> MattJ: requesting renewal doesn't automatically mean acceptance.

  163. MattJ

    If this is the case, I don't really know what this vote is for, since we'd be reviewing individual requests anyway

  164. Guus

    Mattj, the vote is for a PR not to be automatically rejected, if the PR author is not a project member.

  165. Seve

    But no confirmation from a project member would be required, right?

  166. Guus


  167. MattJ

    I don't want PRs automatically rejected, which way should I vote? :)

  168. Ge0rG

    required for what? What will editors do with such PRs?

  169. Guus

    Ok, let push this to next week.

  170. MattJ

    Ok :)

  171. Ge0rG

    will they be brought up to Board?

  172. Guus

    We can discuss this out of the context of this meeting

  173. Ge0rG

    or will editors just decide, somehow?

  174. Guus

    (I need to go soon)

  175. nyco

    it's 16:15 past

  176. nyco

    do we put an end to this meeting?

  177. Guus

    I motion that we, as a one time exception, accept https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/588

  178. Guus

    nyco, noted.

  179. Guus

    wait, let me rephrase that

  180. Guus

    I motion that, independent of the outcome of the pending discussion, now choose to accept https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/588

  181. nyco


  182. MattJ

    +1 to accepting PR #588

  183. nyco

    gotta go...

  184. nyco


  185. Guus


  186. Guus

    tx nyco

  187. Seve


  188. nyco

    thx all

  189. Guus

    Ok, that's a full house, motion carries.

  190. Guus

    3. AOB?

  191. Guus

    (none for me)

  192. Seve

    None here

  193. ralphm


  194. Seve

    Wow, nice ralphm

  195. ralphm

    Also hi

  196. nyco

    oh hey

  197. Guus

    hi ralph

  198. Guus

    4. Date of next

  199. Guus


  200. nyco


  201. ralphm


  202. Guus

    5. End

  203. Guus bangs the gavel.

  204. nyco

    thx all

  205. ralphm

    Thanks guus

  206. nyco


  207. Ge0rG

    Btw, ChatSecure and Empathy from that PR don't look very maintained. The last actual code change to Empathy was in Sep 2017.

  208. dwd

    Ge0rG, Don't say that *now*.

  209. pep.

    Ge0rG, empathy is very much not maintained from what I understand.

  210. Ge0rG

    dwd: I'm not on Board, so it wasn't my duty to review that PR in time for the vote.

  211. Ge0rG

    which is just an excuse for me not having uncollapsed all the diff chunks

  212. ralphm


  213. ralphm

    7 days seems recent

  214. Ge0rG

    ralphm: The last *actual code change*

  215. pep.

    Collabora at least hasn't worked for ages on it. And independant devs are not pushing anything anymore. Also there's now a "new" xmpp backend for telepathy, telepathy-nonsense (empathy uses gabble)

  216. dwd

    pep., Yeah, Empathy's backend was wjjjt's, I think, and he's not worked on it in a decade or so.

  217. waqas

    Last commit with actual release code changes was in Aug 17, 2017 (not including translation fixes)

  218. Ge0rG

    (maybe this is just another way to confirm that project maintainers should be involved in the renewal 🤷)

  219. Guus

    I wonder if much of the discussion that we're having here is caused by a difference of perspective. In my perspective, this list is "good enough" if it doesn't list a significant amount of old/crappy projects - like it did before we had the renewal process. I feel that others try to hold that list to a higher standard.

  220. Guus

    Although I'd love the list to be "better", I fear that the effort involved would skyrocket - which in my opinion isn't worth it.

  221. Guus

    That's why I'm OK to settle for what I think is "good enough" (which generally is what we have now)

  222. Ge0rG

    Guus: I know that some people in the XSF are very focused on keeping the XSF neutral, and listing some implementations while deliberately delisting others is only one small step away from violating neutrality.

  223. Ge0rG

    Which is why the periodic renewal by projects was introduced in the first place, because it is clearly not a violation of neutrality.

  224. Ge0rG

    or rather, it provides an objective way to treat all projects, while significantly improving the SNR of the list.

  225. Ge0rG

    so nobody can cry foul.

  226. Guus


  227. Ge0rG

    if the current Board is okay with having editors or the Board decide on non-maintainer PRs based on subjective criteria, so be it.

  228. Ge0rG

    Guus: signal to noise ratio

  229. Ge0rG

    https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kopete-devel/ also looks more dead than alive.

  230. Guus

    Ge0rG: we could still accept _all_ PRs, without applying any criteria other than very basic ones (eg: is the listed website reachable).

  231. Guus

    That's not ideal, but would still be an improvement over what we had before the renewal policy (as old/crappy listings will eventually go away, unless renewed)

  232. Guus

    or at least, I'd be willing to go with that, until we find that those are being structurally renewed, too.

  233. Ge0rG

    Guus: this allows gaming of the list by project affectionados.

  234. Ge0rG

    I'm still using my favorite jabber client from 2002, it needs to be on that list!

  235. Guus

    Not more than what we had before the renewal process.

  236. Ge0rG

    Guus: I think we agree that before, the situation was just bad.

  237. matt

    hey no offense to anyones emotions but why is this chat public?

  238. matt

    how do you guys combat people like coming in and start spamming

  239. Ge0rG

    matt: that's a very minor problem, and typically solved manually by the room admins

  240. Guus

    Hey Matt, unsure what you mean? We certainly didn't want to come across as rude.

  241. matt

    no im not upset

  242. Guus

    or are you not specifically meaning _this_ argument? 🙂

  243. Guus

    ah ok 🙂

  244. Guus

    well, what Ge0rG said. There are moderators here, that can remove people from the room.

  245. matt

    pretty cool to see the dev work on a project though

  246. Ge0rG

    Guus: also please let me remind you of https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/425

  247. Kev

    I still like the original process we agreed, FWIW (someone on the team renews it, it goes on, else not). It was simple (although obviously people can lie about affiliations) and consistent.

  248. dwd

    matt, Not even the dev work, this is all a meta-level up from there.

  249. matt

    huge fan of xmpp been using it for a year now

  250. matt

    i hope you guys can come down to nyc some time

  251. dwd

    matt, Cool. What are you using it for, and what clients/servers/etc?

  252. Ge0rG

    I think the developers of ChatSecure are located in NYC

  253. matt

    oh really?

  254. dwd

    Also yeah, it'd be lovely to get the US Summits going again somehow.

  255. matt

    would totally love a meet up

  256. Guus

    US summit would be nice to have again!

  257. matt

    i mostly use xmpp for IMs and file transfers

  258. Ge0rG

    Kev: +1

  259. matt

    im pretty vanilla

  260. matt

    but i wanna implement a new system

  261. dwd

    matt, Personal use with friends, that kind of thing?

  262. matt


  263. Guus

    I'm off to do more work again. Thanks for the insights, Ge0rG (others). Still not seeing it your way though 🙂

  264. dwd

    matt, Cool - that's probably our biggest use-case, but still most people use Signal/Whatsapp/Facebook Messenger/etc, so it's nice to see.

  265. Ge0rG

    Guus: whatever makes your Board work.

  266. matt

    me and my friends love it

  267. dwd

    mathieui, So by "a new system", you want to write a new client, or something else?

  268. Ge0rG

    Guus: but don't mind me complaining in the next pidgin renewal PR

  269. dwd


  270. matt

    it brings back that old 90s AIM feel that we grew up with

  271. dwd

    matt, So by "a new system", you want to write a new client, or something else?

  272. matt

    I wanna add DND stats to the Vcards

  273. Guus

    Ge0rG I would send out rescuers if you'd fail to complain on that.

  274. matt

    i want to add Real life experience to xmpp

  275. matt

    like life RPG but with instant messaging

  276. dwd

    matt, Ah, you'd probably want to add extension stuff like that to PEP, I'd think.

  277. dwd

    matt, That's the mechanism that, for example, location, mood, etc all work through.

  278. matt

    hm pep

  279. matt

    is that a module?

  280. pep.

    It's a specification

  281. dwd

    matt, Serverside, it can be. But it's usually built in as standard on any server you're likely to use.

  282. matt

    why cant i just edit the Vcard module

  283. Zash

    We talk about standards here, not code.

  284. dwd

    matt, Well, if you did that, then no other client would be able to use what you wrote without special support.

  285. matt


  286. Guus

    Matt, in this room you'll find mostly people that discuss about the protocol, and not so much individual implementations. The goal is to have a general consensus, so that we can build interoperable implementations of clients/sever

  287. dwd

    matt, Whereas if you use PEP, you don't have to edit any server code at all, and any client can just add the support for the DND/RPG/etc data you add.

  288. Guus

    Matt, in this room you'll find mostly people that discuss about the protocol, and not so much individual implementations. The goal is to have a general consensus, so that we can build interoperable implementations of clients/servers

  289. matt

    very cool

  290. dwd

    matt, So you'd just edit your client's code to add the new PEP node and its data. Which is less work for you, plus it gives you things like push updates etc, which vCard won't do.

  291. matt

    ok so how do i do that with form data

  292. dwd

    matt, What client are you using?

  293. matt


  294. Guus

    From a protocol perspective, you could use any of the features that dwd mentioned as an example. This is the documentation for sharing 'location' through that mechanism, for example: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0080.html

  295. matt

    and using ejabberd

  296. Guus

    (hoping that my random pick of examples was appropriate 😛 )

  297. dwd

    matt, Gajim, you'll find, already uses PEP for location, mood, user tune, and probably some other things I've forgotten. Dig around in the code and you'll soon find it all.

  298. matt

    you guys are awesome

  299. matt


  300. Guus

    We're here all week. Try the veal.

  301. matt

    come down to nyc

  302. matt

    and do a talk at barns and noble or something

  303. matt

    you guys would be treated like rockstars here

  304. pep.

    They use XMPP?

  305. Guus

    We used to have a pretty strong presence west of the Atlantic, but things have shifted more to Europe in the last few years, sadly.

  306. dwd

    Guus, Well, it's great for *us*...

  307. pep.

    badum tsss

  308. Guus

    I'm happy with a EU-presence, but I wouldn't mind having a US one too. 🙂

  309. matt

    A lot of people use MQTT for production stuff

  310. matt

    like ecommerce

  311. matt

    updating qty

  312. dwd

    matt, For sure, but MQTT isn't any relation of XMPP.

  313. matt

    isnt there a module for xmpp

  314. dwd

    matt, For ejabberd, yes. As far as I know it's completely unstandardized though.

  315. matt

    ah ok

  316. Zash

    Not that far from saying "We use TCP for stuff"

  317. matt

    whats the best way to input xml data?

  318. matt

    through a console like the one on gajim or pidgin

  319. Guus

    Unsure what you mean? You'd rarely want regular end-users to input raw XML data.

  320. Guus

    If you want to play around with sending raw XMPP, then those consoles are probably a good choice though.

  321. matt

    the reason why i ask is cause at some point i want to people to fill out a quiz and it will send it their xmpp accounts

  322. vanitasvitae

    matt: i *think* you should take a look at adhoc commands maybe

  323. matt


  324. Guus

    Dataforms, perhaps?

  325. dwd

    matt, XEP-0050.

  326. dwd


  327. dwd wonders if there's a bot in here these days...

  328. vanitasvitae

    Or this one? https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0336.html#usecases

  329. matt

    ok i will read this one

  330. lovetox

    dont get how you want to use adhoc commands as quiz to random users

  331. lovetox

    what you should do is just attach a dataform with the quiz to a message

  332. lovetox

    then you go around and beg clients to implement support

  333. lovetox

    Gajim has a plugin that shows a button on messages that have a dataform

  334. lovetox

    so you can press the button the form opens you fill out the data, and press send

  335. lovetox

    actually i think this is underused, a lot of nice things you can do with that

  336. lovetox

    but i guess this is because dataform ui is not easy to implement and most client specially mobile dont have support

  337. Ge0rG

    Yeah, you need to write a widget toolkit wrapper. Not a pleasant job.

  338. Zash

    So, buttons?

  339. Zash

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buttons.html with what changes?

  340. pep.

    Zash, with data forms instead?T

  341. pep.

    Zash, with data forms instead?

  342. Zash

    You don't really get dataforms that simple

  343. Zash

    pep.: Like https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/HNcubzSy4lwQv7zP/xform-buttons.md ?

  344. Zash

    or `<button><{form}x/></>` ?

  345. pep.

    Zash, looks good to me?

  346. pep.

    For the security considerations, I guess it's up to the client to be careful for their UI

  347. pep.

    For the security considerations, I guess it's up to the client to be careful to their UI

  348. pep.

    Maybe we'd need a FORM_TYPE value as well? :/

  349. Zash

    pep.: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#voiceapprove

  350. pep.

    I mean your spec, maybe it could use a FORM_TYPE

  351. Zash

    There's no specification. This is already a thing.

  352. Zash

    xform-buttons.md is meant as an informational thing that says "hey you can do this already"

  353. Zash


  354. Zash

    Maybe you could have a form that consists only of a `title`?

  355. Zash

    use that as button label

  356. Lance

    Something to put in a form field indicating "use this input to trigger form submit, instead of adding an extra Submit button"?

  357. Zash

    `<button>` ?

  358. Lance

    i like it

  359. Zash

    Full circle?

  360. Lance

    `<field><button type="submit" /></field>`

  361. Lance

    <button> as ui hint, type=submit as behaviour hint

  362. Zash

    Tho for the use case of just having a few auto replies, xforms is massively overkill

  363. Lance

    with full xforms though, i can see how i can replicate everything from stuff like slack command bots, that aren't just buttons