XSF Discussion - 2019-10-03

I could swear that I once saw some rendered XEP diffs. Could someone point me to a place to learn how to create those? 😀

Htmldiff or something if I recall

Yes, Tobias had some tooling for that. It was good.

But it broke down one day and nobody was able to restore it.

I miss those days.

stpeter: do you know whether Tobias still has that XEP diff tooling? It would be great to have it back online.

edhelas: sure 172 is used

edhelas: yes there are some plans to start using it

And use it as a default nickname for mucs

Among other things

https://bouah.net/2019/10/sprint-in-the-cold-north/

Daniel pep. thanks :) I'll keep it then

vanitasvitae, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/530 related

Thanks, I'll see if I can get something workable.

Hey guys, I'll be on mobile today unfortunately, may be travelling at meeting time.

Noted, thanks :)

📱

Hello!

I'll be around in just a moment

I'm around now.

:)

0. Welcome + Agenda

-o/

So it seems we have a full house (in a moment)

Any additional items for the agenda?

Ok, here I am

I don't have additional items.

None for today

None from me

1. Minutes

Who will take them?

nyco, do you have comments? As I see you are writing

Im' not writing :)

I think that might be a bug, he's been typing for weeks for me

Ahh, ok haha

weeks? that's a novel! :)

I can't wait!

hehehe

not sure of the qulity

ok, here it is:

""

done

how do you like it?

2. DOAP

I understand there was a discussion on this topic last week, initiated by Link Mauve .

2 weeks ago

Oh, right, I didn't check the date on the meeting notes.

we're missing last weeks minutes, so you found the 'last'.

Uh-oh, was that me?

So I'm not sure if it was discussed last week (no minutes), and hope somebody will still do minutes this week.

Yes, long discussion! But interesting as well

Sorry :/

We skipped the DOAP subject last week. ✏

yep

The short of it: I seem to stand alone in my reservations.

I'd like that we move forward and try

Can somebody summarize the pros and cons?

The DOAP week we spent the whole meeting discussing DOAP, and nothing else got done, so we tried to spend last week catching up

I asssume the goal is having a standard machine readable listing of projects?

ralphm, that is a big goal, yes. But having machine-readable data about projects allows a bunch of interesting things besides that

MattJ: you can repent by doing minutes this week, too.

But nothing concrete - I think it's enough to aim for the listing

But e.g. being able to pull up a XEP and see a list of implementations would be handy for a different audience

Link Mauve can explain

I think Link Mauve might be away, unless I'm mistaken

Can we do things incrementally?

ralphm, that's basically what this PR is... very much so

It adds some scripts to our repo that ingest the DOAP data provided by projects, and stores that info in a place that is accessible to our site generator

So yay.

It doesn't execute the scripts and it doesn't modify the site itself

I assume the rest of the discussion was on what kind of data could be in the records.

Guus had a fair few objections to the idea, I think debating those took up a chunk of the time

Let's not re-hash all of that. Please just read the minutes and the logs

Let's not use valuable meeting time retelling what we discussed in other meetings.

maybe postpone this until everyone is caught up?

Guus: I did read that, but I am trying to see what we need to actually go forward.

(I indeed did not read all of the log)

Other options than merge or reject the PR?

Are there any other options?

Not for now

But the whole process and adopting it

My concerns are summarized by two main points: a) I don't like us listing more details on the XSF website and b) If we want to do it, is DOAP the best tool (people told me last time: yes).

Merging the PR is pretty much just a statement that we're willing to begin experimenting with this approach

Which I do like, to start experimenting with it ✏

a) is irrelevant for this PR then, because it doesn't modify what is displayed on the website

So accepting the PR does not imply having more details, right?

Even if we didn't add anything visually, it would at least allow some automation of what we currently display

If it's not for the benefit of our website, it shouldn't be merged in the repo for our website, surely?

I think we should decide on going for DOAP or not, before that PR, as Guus mentions it does not make sense otherwise

Guus's objection relates to adding more data - I'm saying that DOAP is an improvement even if we never add more data than what we currently display

So we can just say: we only do these bits of information and not others.

(however I personally would probably be in favour of adding more data in the future)

Of course, yes

Yes

And then later discuss possibly expanding with new fields

We're not going to do DOAP only to replace the current listing of project name and link 🙂

Guus, it shifts the burden of updating listings from us to project maintainers, which I think is an improvement in itself

I appreciate an attempt to easing us into DOAP, but its goal is to do a lot more than to re-implement what we have now.

Observation: projects are already publishing DOAP. We can choose to use it, or we can continue to maintain our site listing by hand

For just 'name' and 'website' - I understand the correctness of your argument, I'm not thinking that it's a pragmatic improvement to managing what we already have 🙂

Some project are, yes. Others are not. One thing that I touched on last time is that by using DOAP, we're raising the barrier for all projects to be included. It's yet another ..... darn, we're rehashing arguments again.

let's just vote on this.

I think with DOAP depending on RDF, it could self-resolve to additional data at the owner's site with some predicate.

Ok

Vote on a tabled motion to use DOAP for our software listings (PR 594)

I'm +1

We don't need to discuss anythign to consensus before putting it to a vote, and I'll not be able to change your minds 🙂

I'm -1

+1

wait, what does thta mean?

what does what mean?

+1 means that the PR is accepted

Vote on a tabled motion to use DOAP for our software listings (PR 594)

+1

"tabled motion"

I'm +1 on accepting the PR

nyco, depends where you come from :)

"merge PR" => that, I understand :)

nyco: right that was stupidly worded

MattJ what do you mean?

I think that the verb 'to table' is confusing too. 🙂

nyco, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure)#Difference_between_American_and_British_usage

so I motion we use just simple English, just please, like in please

nyco even in English, there's a difference here 🙂

depends on what English you use 🙂

anyway

simple

I see 4x+1, motion to accept PR 594 carries.

(which means that the PR can be merged)

Guus: I think in English it means something consistently, it's in American that it gets confusing ;D

I'm sure MattJ can make it very clear in the minutes.

and from here, it's not confusing, it means nothing

3. AOB

(cause yay, we discussed it for a long time again)

Kev, you mean McEnglish?

None here

no AOBs from me

4. Date of Next

+1W

5. Close

Thanks ralphm

Greeeeeat

thx all

Oh, and thanks all, of course!

Oh, and also: the FOSDEM devroom for RTC was accepted yay!

Ralph, did you act on some of the longer standing commitments?

might be good to engage the designer for the badges, etc

Guus: unfortunately I've been swamped and/or exhausted by my job hunt, which has been paying off. More soon.

Indeed.

Congrats!

(provisionally)

The DOAP PR makes Travis unhappy. I'm happy to merge, but I'd like someone to confirm that it doesn't need additional work.

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/594

Oh, I meant it can be merged on merit. If it has conflicts, obviously that needs to be fixed

I understand. Travis being unhappy has likely to do with Python magic that was also worked on (by others than me) recently.

So I'm not sure if the PR will simply work, even if Travis is unhappy

or maybe it needs a rebase or something

sorry, please remind me: who was following on the “recovery" of our LinkedIn account?

Guus, we can just make a note on the PR that Board approved, I'm sure Link Mauve can respond to any technical issues when he is back

nyco I'm not sure what you're talking about (so: not me)

MattJ I did just that.

Thanks <3

on a completely different note: does anyone have any experience with a client named NGX-Chat?

I'm unfamiliar with it, was asked about it.

Never heard of it

https://www.npmjs.com/package/@pazznetwork/ngx-chat

Their demo doesn't seem to play well with Openfire nor EJabberd. Might be their demo though

MattJ care to test it against Prosody?

https://pazznetwork.github.io/ngx-chat-ghpages/

for me, that page keeps in "State: connecting (internal state: online)" with boatloads of errors on the console

Can do, when I'm done with meetings

I don't think I have a test account on a server that has websockets atm

oh, no worries

just wondering against what server the client was developed in the first place.

can someone create repository "registry-docker-base" for me (editor hat) in https://github.com/xsf please?

in the same vein, I need "registry" and "registry-base" repositories in https://hub.docker.com/u/xmppxsf

they should build from github.com/xsf/registrar and github.com/xsf/registry-docker-base respectively

Guus, it does not work with Prosody because it sends the full JID as SASL username.

Kev, MattJ maybe ^

I’d also like to request more privileges on the xeps/registrar repositories so that I can manage the description and tags and such

Drop my Isode account a mail and I'll sort it in the morning or something.

done, thanks

“09:33:12 MattJ> and by logical extension there is no valid JID that ends with '/'”, err, juliet@capulet.example// is a valid JID which ends with a '/'.