XSF Discussion - 2019-10-19

question to the people who are longer involved with the XSF then I am; why are XEPs (usually) created by individuals instead of working groups?

i mean some (few) XEPs are written by more than one person; but we don’t seem to have the tradition of working groups like the ietf has

most successful IETF work starts from individual drafts too

the closest the XSF has to a WG is a SIG and we haven't really had them for a while

i have a vague feeling (without knowing a lot about how the IETF works) that working groups could be more focused (regular meetings) and also more "democratic" as it would be a group of multiple people who have to have a rough consensus on the spec instead of just one author who has ultimate say in how things are written down (and then council basically just being able to say yes or no when it moves on)

but i might might be wrong. i just noticed that the xsf process mirrors a lot of the itef process; except that part

and i'm wondering if there was a reason for that

IETF working groups also usually have (more or less) a single person who tries to determine the consensus and writes it down in the I-D. That job is not easy, at least sometimes, just look at the OpenPGP WG and 4880bis. It is also what I would expect from a XEP author, but as you mentioned, I also have the feeling that this is not how it currently works in XSF

When I worked on OX (XEP-0373, -0374), I set up a public monthly meeting and announced it. There was also a git where public could send patches to, which got regulary build so that everybody could view the current state of the ProtoXEP

I wonder if we should do the same with message fastening

“18:16:46 Zash> C) Steal Matrix thing where every server downloads and re-hosts every uploaded file?”, that’s prosody-modules’s mod_bob.

I’m still not sure how much of that is a good idea.

Ah, you mentioned it afterwards.

Link Mauve: It being in-band is limiting

Fine for stickers I imagine tho

Yes.

For a further iteration of bob, we might want to hook into 0261/0047 at least, to support more than one stanza.

“12:06:48 flow> pubsub/pep experts: Is it normal that I receive a notification twice on publication: http://paste.debian.net/1107636/ ?”, I have experienced a similar bug with Ejabberd when I have multiple resources subscribed to a PEP node, Holger told me it’s a known bug.

Daniel, flow: I think that's something we could improve yes. I don't especially like that only one person ultimately has a say and don't accept your change because they haven't had coffee yet, or more realistically because they have their own agenda and don't care about the rest

One thing to note is that the authors don't 'own' the XEPs, the XSF does. So the authors don't hold a XEP hostage.

Yes technically the council could "take over", but I'm not sure how well that would be accepted socially

I haven't seen this happen during my short time being involved, apart for clearly abandonned XEPs, and then it was really "can we really do this?"

The counter to this is that it's also good to have one person ultimately responsible for getting the doc done and resolving any disputes

I see my role as a XEP author mainly as proxy between the community and the editor, once it has been accepted as Experimental. ✏

This means however that I select which voices from the community I listen to though

If the council votes, do they give any kind of feedback about why the have took their position?

led, when veto-ing, a council member is obliged to give a rationale

those should be included in the council minutes

and they are also included in the voting summaries Tedd Sterr sends

Ok that's good then.

and of course you can always ask

we’re not like the City Council, we don’t devour citizens.

MattJ, the counter to what exactly?

As far as I understood it, nobody disputes that there should, and maybe even has to be, one person chairing the process. I just think we can do better…

We hardly have enough persons to just write down what they think is best, never mind to have a democratic XEP design process

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0002.html what does it mean to be a SIG leader

pep.: Like a chair I guess?

so...?

XEP-0001 defines "Approving body Chair", well it doesn't. It only defines what a chair should do

"The precise rules for polls, including meetings and timeouts, are determined by the Chair of the Approving Body."

pep.: I was looking for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0019.html

ta

So what, does that prevents anybody from creating SIGs anymore?

Do we need a XEP to revert this change? ✏

> pep.: I was looking for https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0019.html That is a good read. That kinda explains my earlier question

So, nothing prevents you from forming your own, as '19 says, small ad-hoc group to work on a proposal.

Sure that people can already do.. it's just to be transparent and stuff

Also https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0381.html

And it's still proposed, orz..

"The Last Call ends on 2017-03-14"

Heh

xeps$ grep status.Proposed xep-????.xml xep-0292.xml: <status>Proposed</status> xep-0300.xml: <status>Proposed</status> xep-0345.xml: <status>Proposed</status> xep-0353.xml: <status>Proposed</status> xep-0363.xml: <status>Proposed</status> xep-0381.xml: <status>Proposed</status>

345 got an extra blank?

Indentation moves in mysterious ways.

Groups can also be build based on components. .e.g. security, mobile, processes, performance,... maybe a kind of XEP Security Group which are working on security,... Just an idea. But it is important that there is one person, which is taking care about the activities with a group.

<xs:enumeration value='Organizational'/> < apparently there's no type Procedural.

Good thing schemas are not normatives..

Ops

Heheh

That's really sad

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/846 here.

Technically schemas are not normative, that's editor land.

Oh, and revision block.