pep.moparisthebest, you might want to show up for that meeting, your wish about council members might be granted :p
neshtaxmpphas joined
debaclehas left
vanitasvitaehas left
jubalhhas joined
vanitasvitaehas joined
mukt2has joined
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
mukt2has left
jubalhhas left
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
remkohas joined
matkorhas left
matkorhas joined
Douglas Terabytehas left
ajhas joined
Chobbeshas left
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
Chobbeshas joined
moparisthebesthas left
krauqhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
Danielhas left
pdurbinhas left
adiaholichas joined
remkohas left
moparisthebesthas joined
Danielhas joined
adiaholichas left
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
moparisthebestpep.: Oh I'll be there :)
Danielhas left
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
stpeterhas joined
Danielhas joined
mukt2has joined
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
mukt2has left
stpeterpep.: My interpretation of the bylaws (and of XSF history) is that we convince 5% of members that this item needs to be added to the agenda and then we vote on it during normal voting process. Because voting has already started, instead we would hold a special meeting and the voting on the agenda items for that special meeting could be handled in the usual way (via memberbot). While we are doing this, we might as well clean up *all* instances where "in writing" does not mention electronic transmission...
lskdjfhas left
stpeterAlso note §5.10 Rules of Procedure - it's not clear to me that we actually need to amend the bylaws here, although it's always better to make these things clear in an official way or in the main rules document, not in another document that we need to reference separately.
Danielhas left
pdurbinhas joined
Danielhas joined
stpeterFor completeness, I posted to the members@ email list on these matters.
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
Chobbeshas left
strypeyhas joined
Douglas Terabytehas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
strypeyhas left
strypeyhas joined
stpeterhas left
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
adiaholichas joined
waqashas joined
andyhas joined
matkorhas left
matkorhas joined
strypeyhas left
strypeyhas joined
mukt2has joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
mukt2has left
Nekithas joined
Yagizahas joined
strypeyhas left
strypeyhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
waqashas left
strypeyhas left
strypeyhas joined
karoshihas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
strypeyhas left
strypeyhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
adiaholichas left
Shellhas joined
Tobiashas joined
rainslidehas joined
Danielhas left
strypeyhas left
Shellhas left
rainslidehas left
adiaholichas joined
Danielhas joined
j.rhas left
wurstsalathas joined
strypeyhas joined
j.rhas joined
strypeyhas left
rainslidehas joined
emushas joined
mukt2has joined
eevvoorhas joined
rainslidehas left
rainslidehas joined
Danielhas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
rainslidehas left
Douglas Terabytehas left
Douglas Terabytehas joined
Danielhas joined
debxwoodyhas left
DebXWoodyhas joined
remkohas joined
remkohas left
debxwoodyhas joined
pdurbinhas left
debxwoodyhas left
Douglas Terabytehas left
marc_has joined
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
rainslidehas joined
COM8has joined
COM8has left
rainslidehas left
debaclehas joined
Dele (Mobile)has joined
mukt2has left
COM8has joined
lskdjfhas joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
kokonoehas left
adiaholichas left
kokonoehas joined
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
emushas left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
karoshihas left
COM8has left
adiaholichas joined
karoshihas joined
Douglas Terabytehas joined
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Steve Killehas left
COM8has left
COM8has joined
marc_has left
Steve Killehas joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
debaclehas left
COM8has left
COM8has joined
mukt2has joined
COM8has left
ajhas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
COM8has joined
COM8has left
rainslidehas joined
rainslidehas left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
debxwoodyhas joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
debaclehas joined
COM8has joined
eevvoorhas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
COM8has joined
COM8has left
remkohas joined
rionI don't quite understand latest changes related to oob. If I prefer to send data via SIMS should I also add oob data in the same stanza? What if I want to share multiple files at once, should I abandon oob at all?
goffihas joined
pdurbinhas joined
COM8has joined
lskdjfhas left
Danielrion, in the compliance suite?
COM8has left
rionDaniel: yep
emushas joined
Ge0rGrion: I don't think OOB forbids adding multiple elements
Ge0rGrion: also you should be happy that the latest change demoted OOB and SIMS from required to noteworthy
jubalhhas joined
Danieli mean for one it doesn’t force you to do anything. i think nobody is argueing that oob doesn’t have problems. however multiple people also feel like sims isn’t ready yet. that's why a number of implementations are still on oob (a lot of them have signaled willingness to switch once sims is ready though).
if you just want recommendations on what to do; i'd just send multiple messages for mulitple files for now
rionI remember these talks a few days ago here about multiple OOBs. And honestly I don't remember what was the point of not doing this.
Danielnote i'm not defending that this is the proper, ideal way to handle that. but for now it should give you the best compat with other implementations
Danieli really like what sims is trying to do. i really don’t like how it is doing that
pdurbinhas left
rionDaniel: do you mean missing encryption for metadata?
COM8has joined
Ge0rGDaniel: feel free to write a SIMS2 XEP that just defines a meta-data element with file_size, content_type, width, height, blurha_sh
Danieli mean we rightfully complain about about oob being weird hacky, under specified legacy crap. but i highly suspect that if we implement sims now in 2 years we will have the same feelings about references
Ge0rGand that can be part of a message like OOB or attached-to a different message
rainslidehas joined
Danielrion, no. i'm worried about references
KevI don't think we need SIMS2, SIMS can just be updated can't it?
KevDaniel: I know references needs cleaning, particularly with the split into references/fastening, but in principle this is sane isn't it? You're trying to say that here we have a reference to some other resource that we're sending you and is treated as part of the current flow, which is all that References does (post-split), so it seems like the right application.
KevGe0rG: Yes, ^
Danieli just want a sims that can be used stand alone. i’m ok with SIMS also being able to be used within a reference
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
rionas for me we still need to reference some text from sims. just to have the text for legacy clients while removing it for compliant. It works pretty well when this text has an http link for example (same link as in <source>), but in case of SIMS we remove the link and download one in <source> on our own with caching and checksum checking.
KevDaniel: Probably thinking of a different use case. What's the case for the 'stand alone' use?
Ge0rGKev: sending a single file as a message
Danieland when i mean stand alone i mean without referenceing a body
Danieli don’t care about the syntax
Danieljust send a file without a body
KevAh, so you still want it to be 'part of the conversation', just that there's no text attached?
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Danielyes
Ge0rGrion: how should the UI for that work out? show just the message, with an underlined link, and when you click the link it will open a popup with the media file?
KevSo just https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0385.html#usecases-sending-photo Example 1 without the <body/> would do for your case Daniel?
Ge0rGKev: in that case, wrapping it in <reference> doesn't make any sense
DanielKev, yes. but then there is no reference.
ZashOr cry a tear of backwards compat and stick some fallback text there?
Danielbecause what is begin and end refering to?
Danieland you can’t have a reference without those attributes
Ge0rGDaniel: are there any open issues with SIMS that won't be solved by making <media-sharing> a direct child of <message>?
ZashImplied entire <body>?
Danieli mean i don’t really care about the syntax. but semantically it doesn’t make sense
DanielGe0rG, not that i'm aware of
Danieland yes media-share as a direct child of message is kinda what i'm talking about when i say i want it stand alone
Ge0rGSpeaking of semantics. You will want <body> to contain the original URL for legacy clients.
mathijshas left
Ge0rGBut then you also need a mechanism to tell modern clients that it can remove all of the body.
mathijshas joined
DanielGe0rG, yes. but then the reference thing becomes more problematic
Danielbecause of what you just said
rionGe0rG: kind of. for images/audio messeges I show the media directly (picture/player) right in the log. for other files I think to show a special button with file name and context menu to download/save us/etc.
all the SIMS links are removed from body. remaining text is preserved as a description
Ge0rGDaniel: just the opposite. Let me draft an XML example.
Ge0rGDaniel: make the reference reference the full body, that way a modern client will just replace the full body with the inline image
DanielGe0rG, where is it encoded that the body is just a fallback
Danieland not a 'link' to show the image
Daniellike in example 1 of sims
Ge0rGWe just need to mandate that in the XEP
Ge0rGthat example doesn't make sense in that regard
Ge0rGmaybe we need a new reference type / mode, "replace"
Danielso when ever i reference the entire body it's a fallback?
rions/all the SIMS links are removed from body/replaced with media elements/
Danielwhen i reference just 90% of the body it's a link?
Danielalso that link usecase is super weird
Ge0rGrion: do you replace the referenced text with an inline representation of the media?
Ge0rGDaniel: I agree
Danielwho is going to enter that as a user like that
rionGe0rG: yes
Danielhow would the ui even look like
Ge0rGDaniel: the only UI that makes sense is not to use link text but to place the media inline
Danielso it will be rendered as "Look at the nice
[picture]
from the summit?"
Ge0rG<message to='julient@shakespeare.lit' from='romeo@montague.lit'>
<body>Look at this nice view! https://download.montague.lit/4a771ac1-f0b2-4a4a-9700-f2a26fa2bb67/summit.jpg</body>
<reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' begin='24' end='101' type='data'>
<media-sharing xmlns='urn:xmpp:sims:1'>
<!-- stripped meta data -->
<sources>
<reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' type='data' uri='https://download.montague.lit/4a771ac1-f0b2-4a4a-9700-f2a26fa2bb67/summit.jpg' />
</sources>
</media-sharing>
</reference>
</message>
Danielwtf?
Ge0rG> Look at this nice view! [Image]
KevDaniel: My thought in this case was that you would have a body that was http://picture, and the reference would be the full body, and the media-sharing would cover the metadata.
Danielthat's not what the examples says
Ge0rGDaniel: yes, the example doesn't make sense.
Ge0rG(am I repeating myself)
Ge0rGI mean, there is "Inline" in SIMS
kokonoehas left
DanielGe0rG, in your example will it be mandated that the text you are 'linking' must be an url?
Ge0rGDaniel: no. I would just recommend that, and mandate that the referenced part of the body, whatever it is, will be replaced by the media element
Ge0rGDaniel: making it an URL makes sense for legacy clients, if you use HTTP Upload
Daniel> Daniel: My thought in this case was that you would have a body that was http://picture, and the reference would be the full body, and the media-sharing would cover the metadata.
i’m generally fine with that approach. but if the same xep also allows hot linking like in the example i need to somehow discover which it is going to be
kokonoehas joined
ajhas joined
Ge0rGif you use JFT, it would be something like "[the file I just shared]"
Ge0rGDaniel: looks like everybody here agrees that hot-linking doesn't make sense
Danielso we agree that the xep isn’t ready yet?
Danielthat's all i said
Ge0rGDaniel: we've just gone beyond that, by identifying what needs to be changed:
- mandate that the referenced text is replaced by the inline media. Done.
COM8has left
Ge0rG+ recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text
KevI don't think there's any need to mandate that bit of the UI, is there? Just to describe what the semantics of the referenced text are.
KevA client can then choose how to render it.
Daniel> + recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text
that too
Ge0rGKev: oh god no.
rion> mandate that the referenced text is replaced by the inline media. Done
PR?
MattJKev, what are the client's other options in your mind?
MattJI don't like open-choice standards
KevTo show the message, including the link, with the image below it, for example.
Danielare references going to be used somewhere else? or is references only going to be used for sims where it is (imho) 'ok' but not really ideal to use
KevA la Slack, Discord etc.
MattJWe've had a fair few of them, and we either ended up tightening them or it just became a mess or people adopted de-facto standards
KevMattJ: I think mandating UI behaviour in protocol standards is usually not right. It's not needed for interop.
KevIt needs to be clear what the semantics of the protocol are, definitely, and it's currently not, but exactly where on the screen an image is rendered isn't needed here, I think.
MattJIn this case the semantics are clear - the text is a fallback for the media
KevAh. I don't agree there.
KevIt's more than a fallback when it's the URI identifying the media.
Danielalso did we cover rions mulitple files use case yet?
KevYou might click it to open it in your browser, for example, or copy it to share with someone else.
KevUnfortunately, I can't keep going with this right now, have other work, but could we take this on list and I'll try to chime in later (and maybe see if Tobi has cycles to update SIMS with the outcomes).
Ge0rGKev: if we define the semantics as "the referenced text is supposed to be replaced by the media", I would agree.
Ge0rGKev: if we define the semantics as "this could be a URL, a link text or the verbatim string 'yaddayadda'", then good luck
LNJhas joined
rainslidehas left
rainslidehas joined
rainslidehas left
DebXWoodyhas left
rainslidehas joined
lskdjfhas joined
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
rainslidehas left
Syndacehas left
pdurbinhas joined
pdurbinhas left
kokonoehas left
pep.dwd, "and that moreover we avoid doing this kind of thing if at all possible", I don't like resolutions that say "we should avoid doing this" when the alternative is not clear either. that means everybody is afraid and nothing ever changes
pep.I guess we can add another agenda item yo clarify this :)
pep.I guess we can add another agenda item to clarify this :)
Ge0rGdwd: very nice Special Meeting Agenda mail! 👍
kokonoehas joined
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
mukt2has left
kokonoehas left
mukt2has joined
kokonoehas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
mukt2has left
strypeyhas joined
strypeyhas left
DebXWoodyhas joined
mukt2has joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has left
remkohas left
gavhas left
adiaholichas left
gavhas joined
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has joined
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
adiaholichas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
adiaholichas joined
stpeterhas joined
jubalhhas left
Syndacehas joined
Chobbeshas joined
stpeterhas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
marc_has joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
mukt2has left
MattJI managed to double-book myself (thank DST) and I won't be able to make the board meeting today, sorry!
SeveWe will miss you <3
pep.In 0158, what does "An entity MUST NOT send a challenge stanza under any other circumstances." mean? knowing that "Upon receiving a triggering stanza, an entity MAY send a "challenge stanza"" is already subjective (somebody might say a stanza is concidered as triggering, somebody else not)
pep.§3.1.2
pep.I'm mostly curious about the usefulness of the MUST NOT
pep.Also still §3.1.2, "The 'xml:lang' attribute of the challenge stanza SHOULD be the same as the one received from the sender, if any.", there is always an xml:lang attribute (if not on the captcha element or message, on the stream)
krauqhas left
GuusFellow board members: I'm faced with an emergency at work, and can't attend the meeting.
Chobbeshas left
nycono worries
nycotime
Sevetime is it
nycook... :)
Severalphm, are you around?
Seve(Maybe we are not enough)
ralphmI'm at a company event all week, as mentioned last week. Sorry!
SeveOhh right
Sevemy bad
nycoso no quorum
andyhas left
SeveThen I will say just thanks nyco for the newsletter!
nycowelcome, not finished though
andyhas joined
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas joined
krauqhas joined
mukt2has left
strypeyhas joined
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas left
Chobbeshas joined
jubalhhas joined
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
mukt2has left
lovetoxhas joined
Dele (Mobile)has joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has joined
mukt2has left
Chobbeshas left
mukt2has joined
Chobbeshas joined
strypeyhas left
mukt2has left
strypeyhas joined
mukt2has joined
davidhas left
davidhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
David Cridlandhas joined
David Cridlandhas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
David Cridlandhas joined
strypeyhas left
jubalhhas left
Ge0rGKev: you should work on making your statements less British and more understandable... re "I think we need to either not be introducing voting items that people effectively can’t vote in"
KevSummary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.
patrickhas joined
nycothat's a general problem, if you allow me
given the diversity of our community, we should all be responsible for understandable communication
using a simple English form helps
KevIt's a general problem, but from what people keep saying I'm the worst offender.
jonas’something about hithertofore
Zashjonas’, that word made me retroactively confused about everything said in the last hour
Kevhitherto is one of the few unhelpful words that I /don't/ use, I think.
emushas left
KevI do try, when I remember, I just often forget.
Kev(And I like the way I speak :( )
pep."Kev> Summary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.", I agree
emushas joined
pep.To me what dwd says rings an alarm anyway, it means there's no appropriate process in place if we're trying to workaround bylaws.
Dele (Mobile)has left
waqashas joined
Dele (Mobile)has joined
waqashas left
!XSF_Martinhas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
Dele (Mobile)has left
David CridlandTo quote Kev, I do not disagree.
Dele (Mobile)has joined
MattJNeither me also
pep.British and their fancy language
David CridlandFWIW, it was useful that one time to have an escape hatch. What had happened was that we'd had a tie in voting for Board, and we had no method available to resolve the tie. Our solution was to use the meeting to reduce the Board positions, so the tie was irrelevant, and then by the next meeting we'd worked on a long-term fix for that problem in the bylaws.
mukt2has left
Dele (Mobile)has left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
emushas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
pep.David Cridland, Kev, maybe this needs to be brought as an agenda item for the next annual meeting? :-°
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
lovetoxhas left
ZashBylaws overhaul?
pep.Well we have identified a problem
lovetoxhas joined
pep.When I tried to correct a typo..
pep.So yeah
adiaholichas left
pep.The process is unclear an definitely not used often enough :)
ralphmwell, I think that is a bit strong
pep.The process is unclear and definitely not used often enough :)
David CridlandIn fairness, it's the kind of process we shouldn't be using opften at all.
pep.David Cridland: why not?
David CridlandChanging our bylaws?
ralphmI agree
pep.Tbh, bylaws are quite hard to read. I'd be happy yo have a more understandable language being used
lovetoxhas left
lovetoxhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Zashpep., legalese tho
pep.Sure, we can get that reviewed
ZashBylaws /should/ be hard to change, so that you don't accidentally let something bad trough.
pep.I disagree
winfriedhas left
pep.With the "should be hard to change"
winfriedhas joined
ralphmI personally believe that your particular changes aren't pressing enough to be classified as a problem.
pep.These bylaws have obviously not been written for this era with all the "in writing" appearing in there
pep.ralphm: surr
ralphmIf the Secretary is willing to accept e-mails over handwritten letters as
pep.ralphm: sure
ralphm'writing', and there's an actual meeting subsequentially, that's perfectly fine.
ZashI'm personally wondering if it's not too easy to change the bylaws.
krauqhas left
ralphmZash: well, the corporation == the body ofmembers. If there's a majority for a change, you can change things.
pep.Zash: dunno about that. Maybe member quorum can be changed to more members or sth.
pep.Majority of 1/3 does seem low
pdurbinhas joined
ralphmThat's a valid point. I dont' remember why that number was chosen.
ZashI'd find it more normal to require 2/3 majority on two consecutive members meetings.
ralphmWell, we're not writing the Constitution here.
Zashralphm: It's kinda standard for random gameing associations here.
ZashRandom non-profit organizations for any purpsoe even
KevI think there is a problem here that it is worth solving, and I think that problem is that it's unclear how items can be added to an agenda for a meeting, and who is eligible to vote on them.
ralphmI think that our Bylaws actually require Board to suggest changes, which then have to be approved by the membership.
KevI think the other concerns are secondary, really.
j.rhas left
patrickhas left
j.rhas joined
ralphmSo before changing things you need a willing Board. If you don't currently have one, you need to follow procedures to fix that first.
KevBut Ralph is right that only the Board can change the Bylaws.
waqashas joined
ralphmZash: does that give you more assurance?
Kev(And need the members approval)
moparisthebestthat's not at all what dwd said yesterday
KevAnd that couldn't happen e.g. during a members meeting, because of periods of notice for Board meetings.
David CridlandYou might find, BTW, that the "in writing" bits result from Delaware law.
waqashas left
ralphmdeposing board is not necessarily easy
Zashralphm: Some, as long as Board can't do it without support from the Members
ralphmDavid Cridland: ah yes. So this may apply: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c012a/index.shtml
ralphmZash: it can't
ZashGood
David Cridlandralphm, Probably. Delaware Corporation law is notoriously loose - it's why so many companies are incorporated there - but it probably has various constraints.
ralphmDavid Cridland: particularly § 12A-107, so arguably we don't need pep.'s change
waqashas joined
David CridlandAh, good spot.
waqashas left
ralphmAnd there are similar provisions in Dutch law, and I'm sure in most other modern jurisdictions.
Yagizahas left
pdurbinhas left
stpeterhas joined
Nekithas left
emushas joined
mukt2has joined
ralphmpep.: I reviewed both changes, and consider them unneeded.
ralphm(and recorded that on the respective PRs)
KevWell, one's possibly unneeded, the other is wrong, isn't it? Having just checked the typo one myself.
ralphmproviso is just a word that means what it is supposed to
KevRight - I mean that changing it to provision isn't simply unneeded, it isn't the right word for the intention there.
KevI've done the negatives thing again, haven't I.
Kev"provision is the wrong word"
mukt2has left
pep.Ok, so the typo is not a typo. Now how many members do need to say the other is unneeded for it to be unneeded
KevNone.
pep.They can only say so during a vote, no?
KevIt's Board, not the members, you need to take this to.
pep.Why
KevBecause that's what the Bylaws require.
KevThe Board makes changes to the bylaws, with the Members' approval.
jubalhhas joined
pep.Members can override this right?
KevI don't see where the Bylaws say that - which bit are you looking at?
pep.I'm not at the moment
pep.If so, that is missing, IMO. I don't want one person to be able to veto everything going through
jubalhhas left
KevWhere's the veto coming from?
KevI don't see that bit, either.
ralphmYou can initiate the removal of a board member
ralphmOr all of them.
pep.Kev: ok I read ralphm's message above too fast
ralphmThe power is ultimately still with the membership.
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
ZashRemoving all of them via new elections or just rm -rf board/ ?
Steve Killehas left
KevEither can be done by the Members.
jubalhhas joined
pep.Imo bylaws would be members matters and board here only to address daily business, not block members from changing bylaws (which is what I understand with "So before changing things you need a willing Board. If you don't currently have one, you need to follow procedures to fix that first.")
KevWell, Board are the legal custodians of the XSF (which is a legal entity). Any change to the Bylaws needs to be legally valid, so having the Board as the keepers of such changes (with the proviso that they can't make changes the Members don't like) seems right to me.
Steve Killehas joined
mukt2has joined
pep.I'm not saying that's not what it is currently
KevWhat you desperately don't want (must not have) is a subset of the Members, probably well-meaning, making some mistaken edits to the Bylaws that are in some way mistaken.
KevAnd if you remove Board from the equation that's what you get.
KevNow, Board could propose 'bad' changes to the Bylaws too, but they're the ones who're legally responsible for it, so at least it's on their heads.
pep.Kev: which is why I would increase member quorum, rather than leaving this to 5 (potentially non-)members
KevBut this isn't left to 5.
ZashKev, maybe that's why it's common to have two readings of changes to the bylaws here.
KevZash: There's two for the XSF too, essentially. One is that the Board must approve the change, then the Members must also approve it.
pep.Kev: ok. My original point was that I don't want board blocking changes
ZashAlso usually any (member?) usually get to propose any changes to any document.
ZashWorks I suppose
debxwoodyhas left
ZashKinda like how the govt proposes laws and parliment votes on them
KevZash: Well, I don't think that Board are going to refuse to consider a change brought forward by Members (and if Board do start refusing to listen to Members, Members have a mechanism for removing them).
pep.Kev: in any case I agree with you that the way to propose agenda items should be clarified.
moparisthebestcould a proposed vote be something like "Fire current board. Amend bylaws to do X. Rehire current board." ? then members could just vote on that themselves?
Kevmoparisthebest: No, because the Board must make the change to the Bylaws"
KevIf you fire the Board you need a new one before that can happen.
ZashWhich is in a way also two votes by members, first for a Board positive to the change, then for the change itself
moparisthebest"Fire current board. Hire Y as board providing they immediatly amend bylaws to do X. Fire Y. Rehire current board."
jubalhhas left
KevThey can't *immediately* amend the Bylaws.
waqashas joined
Dele (Mobile)has joined
moparisthebestif they are all in the meeting they can't?
KevNo.
pep.*providing they agree with our bylaws change
KevI suggest, possibly unreasonably, that everyone currently proposing that we change our Bylaws in some way, goes away and reads the Bylaws first.
ZashCan I request them in writing? 😛
pep.When I was saying bylaws are not easy to understand..
larmaKev, not sure how these things work in Delaware law, but usually the members can instruct the board to do specific things.
KevYou may request many things in writing, as stated in the Bylaws :p
ralphmI feel this discussion is what you get when software developers think legal documents are like code.
larmaAlso bylaws are just bylaws, laws override them, so even if bylaws now say members can't do anything, it's just factually not true
Kevlarma: I think we're a long way off anything that would require the Members to get into a legal battle with the Board.
ralphmI don't think there's an actual problem here and we're talking a many hypotheticals.
Kevralphm: I think there *is* a problem here, it's just not the one being discussed.
pep.ralphm: ask lawyers to volunteer under a legal working group at the xsf?
ralphmHah
ralphmpep.: To solve what?
moparisthebestthat probably happens when approx 100% of the members are software developers :) I know I'm guilty
KevThe problem, I think, being that it's not clear how to get something onto the Agenda, and who then votes on it :)
ralphmA legal team *wrote* this text.
pep.I also think there is a problem, and I'm happy to retract both of my items for the one Kev is talking about
Dele (Mobile)has left
pep.Which tbh, was mostly what was I was expecting from all this. To figure out how to do it
ralphmA good first step is: ask Board.
KevI'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that it's possible to interpret the Bylaws such that a single person could, in the perfect storm, vote on something on behalf of all Members.
ZashLegal team gonna legalese
ralphmOr, if you want to bypass them, ask the Secretary.
Kev(Which Dave's (a) reading leads to, I think)
Dele (Mobile)has joined
ralphmKev: yes, I think that notion is false.
Kevralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would do, if it came to it.
Kevralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would go, if it came to it.
ralphmIntent is the most important thing in legal terms.
ZashWhile y'all are reading the Bylaws, is there anything in there that would prevent someone from being a member without their name being public?
KevThat is, I don't agree with Dave's (a), but I don't think it's a completely unreasonable reading, either.
ZashIIRC this came up last Summit
ralphmMemberbot clearly lets you proxy specific *votes*, not a carte blanche to represent members in new matters.
KevIndeed.
pep.Zash: I don't think so? And if required I'm sure only the secretary could be told
KevBut I think Dave's (a) was that once you have cast your vote, you have left the meeting, and then the remaining members present could as quorum. So if only on member remained, a majority of that 1 could vote.
KevWhat I think I'd like to see Board (new, presumably) tackle is proposing a change to Bylaws simply that the items for vote at a meeting must be announced X in advance.
ralphmI don't read it that way, per my email.
KevWhich would mean that anyone proxy voting can be represented, and all is good, with minimal change to our process or bylaws.
stpeter+1
Zashpep., yeah, practically, only the secretary needs to know. As long as the secretary can't just make up a bunch of sock puppets and take over the world
ralphmKev: makes sense
zachhas left
ralphmstpeter: hi!
pep.Zash: we already trust the secretary with our proxy votes
larmaActually the laws also only require the secretary to know
emushas left
kokonoehas left
larma§6.7 The Secretary shall have general charge of the membership records of the Corporation and shall keep, at the principal office of the Corporation, a record of the Members showing the name, address, telephone number, facsimile number and electronic mail address of each Member.
SeveKev: I agree
larmaI wonder where the secretary got my phone and facsimile number from?
Kevlarma: Except that members can request those records, IIRC. (That's from memory, I haven't checked)
stpeterIn practice we have never gathered that information, nor have we gathered physical address.
Kevstpeter: Probably we should either start, or amend the Bylaws.
moparisthebestmaybe the secretary is just extremely good at doxing people
pep.I say amend.
stpeterKev: yes, amend.
KevI think start. I don't see why every Member shouldn't be required to have a fax number.
ralphmSurprising 🤣
pep.Kev, :)
stpeterI have to say, this conversation includes wild speculation and some unnecessarily harsh language.
mukt2has left
pep.stpeter, if the world was all flowers and rainbows..
stpeterAt least append jokey emojis if you're not serious about some of the claims and assertions here. No one, for instance, is doxing anyone.
ralphmstpeter: quite
stpeterDoxing is a violent act, in my opinion.
pep.(I don't even know what that means.. /me looking for his translator)
mukt2has joined
pep.oh
ralphmThe act of researching a person and expose private details, like address, phone...
pep.I took that as a joke anyway
larmaKev, even if members can request that records, they cannot publish them. And given the bylaws I think it should be possible to be elected as a member without publishing your private data, which we currently require. This could even get us into problems as there is no good reason to require this data to be published
moparisthebestoh sorry I meant the doxing comment as a joke :)
stpeterIn general, yes, we should review the bylaws to ensure that they are consistent with our existing practices (and of course Delaware law).
stpetermoparisthebest: thanks for the clarification.
debxwoodyhas joined
stpeterWe once had someone ("Solarius") who applied to be a member without providing their real name. We'd discussed this matter before.
larmastpeter, consider that not only Delaware law applies. As we have EU citizin members, some EU laws also apply (at least for those members)
pep.stpeter, it's come up again when passing 345 to draft. (Which is still isn't. slack off editors.)
Kevlarma: The Board did go through a GDPR exercise at the time. So what we have now is considered reasonable by the Board (or at least the Board at that time).
stpeterEU law does not govern the operation of the Foundation's articles of incorporation and bylaws per se, of course, because the Foundation is legally domiciled in Delaware. That doesn't mean EU doesn't apply in some respects to data the Foundation gathers.
KevRight.
stpeteris off to another meeting
KevEnjoy! :)
pep.(not?)
larmaSome EU laws apply if the organization is actively operating in EU, and that is obviously the case.
zachhas joined
sonnyhas left
Kevlarma: I think what Peter was saying (mansplaining because he's not here now, rather than because he can't talk for himself) was that the EU laws don't apply to the bylaws. They apply to the XSF's interaction with the EU folks.
stpeterCorrect.
eevvoorhas joined
larmaYeah, but we should better make sure the bylaws don't effectively prohibit the XSF to interact with EU folks 😉
Dele (Mobile)has left
KevYes.
larmaI don't think they do, whereas our current implementation might
mukt2has left
ZashIANAL and I don't remember all the GDPR by heart but surely a members based organization must be able to keep a record of members
mukt2has joined
larmaZash, it's not about keeping records, it's about publishing them