XSF Discussion - 2019-11-07

  1. moparisthebest has joined

  2. pep.

    Ok email sent to members.

  3. pep.

    moparisthebest, you might want to show up for that meeting, your wish about council members might be granted :p

  4. neshtaxmpp has joined

  5. debacle has left

  6. vanitasvitae has left

  7. jubalh has joined

  8. vanitasvitae has joined

  9. mukt2 has joined

  10. kokonoe has left

  11. kokonoe has joined

  12. mukt2 has left

  13. jubalh has left

  14. Daniel has left

  15. Daniel has joined

  16. remko has joined

  17. matkor has left

  18. matkor has joined

  19. Douglas Terabyte has left

  20. aj has joined

  21. Chobbes has left

  22. kokonoe has left

  23. kokonoe has joined

  24. Chobbes has joined

  25. moparisthebest has left

  26. krauq has joined

  27. Daniel has left

  28. Daniel has joined

  29. pdurbin has joined

  30. Daniel has left

  31. pdurbin has left

  32. adiaholic has joined

  33. remko has left

  34. moparisthebest has joined

  35. Daniel has joined

  36. adiaholic has left

  37. Chobbes has left

  38. Chobbes has joined

  39. Chobbes has left

  40. Chobbes has joined

  41. moparisthebest

    pep.: Oh I'll be there :)

  42. Daniel has left

  43. Chobbes has left

  44. Chobbes has joined

  45. stpeter has joined

  46. Daniel has joined

  47. mukt2 has joined

  48. kokonoe has left

  49. kokonoe has joined

  50. mukt2 has left

  51. stpeter

    pep.: 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...

  52. lskdjf has left

  53. stpeter

    Also 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.

  54. Daniel has left

  55. pdurbin has joined

  56. Daniel has joined

  57. stpeter

    For completeness, I posted to the members@ email list on these matters.

  58. kokonoe has left

  59. kokonoe has joined

  60. neshtaxmpp has left

  61. neshtaxmpp has joined

  62. Chobbes has left

  63. strypey has joined

  64. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  65. Daniel has left

  66. Daniel has joined

  67. strypey has left

  68. strypey has joined

  69. stpeter has left

  70. Daniel has left

  71. Daniel has joined

  72. adiaholic has joined

  73. waqas has joined

  74. andy has joined

  75. matkor has left

  76. matkor has joined

  77. strypey has left

  78. strypey has joined

  79. mukt2 has joined

  80. krauq has left

  81. krauq has joined

  82. mukt2 has left

  83. Nekit has joined

  84. Yagiza has joined

  85. strypey has left

  86. strypey has joined

  87. neshtaxmpp has left

  88. adiaholic has left

  89. adiaholic has joined

  90. waqas has left

  91. strypey has left

  92. strypey has joined

  93. karoshi has joined

  94. mimi89999 has left

  95. mimi89999 has joined

  96. neshtaxmpp has joined

  97. strypey has left

  98. strypey has joined

  99. mathijs has left

  100. mathijs has joined

  101. adiaholic has left

  102. Shell has joined

  103. Tobias has joined

  104. rainslide has joined

  105. Daniel has left

  106. strypey has left

  107. Shell has left

  108. rainslide has left

  109. adiaholic has joined

  110. Daniel has joined

  111. j.r has left

  112. wurstsalat has joined

  113. strypey has joined

  114. j.r has joined

  115. strypey has left

  116. rainslide has joined

  117. emus has joined

  118. mukt2 has joined

  119. eevvoor has joined

  120. rainslide has left

  121. rainslide has joined

  122. Daniel has left

  123. mukt2 has left

  124. mukt2 has joined

  125. rainslide has left

  126. Douglas Terabyte has left

  127. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  128. Daniel has joined

  129. debxwoody has left

  130. DebXWoody has joined

  131. remko has joined

  132. remko has left

  133. debxwoody has joined

  134. pdurbin has left

  135. debxwoody has left

  136. Douglas Terabyte has left

  137. marc_ has joined

  138. COM8 has joined

  139. COM8 has left

  140. COM8 has joined

  141. COM8 has left

  142. rainslide has joined

  143. COM8 has joined

  144. COM8 has left

  145. rainslide has left

  146. debacle has joined

  147. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  148. mukt2 has left

  149. COM8 has joined

  150. lskdjf has joined

  151. COM8 has left

  152. COM8 has joined

  153. COM8 has left

  154. kokonoe has left

  155. adiaholic has left

  156. kokonoe has joined

  157. COM8 has joined

  158. COM8 has left

  159. COM8 has joined

  160. COM8 has left

  161. COM8 has joined

  162. COM8 has left

  163. emus has left

  164. COM8 has joined

  165. COM8 has left

  166. mathijs has left

  167. mathijs has joined

  168. COM8 has joined

  169. COM8 has left

  170. COM8 has joined

  171. karoshi has left

  172. COM8 has left

  173. adiaholic has joined

  174. karoshi has joined

  175. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  176. COM8 has joined

  177. COM8 has left

  178. COM8 has joined

  179. mathijs has left

  180. mathijs has joined

  181. Steve Kille has left

  182. COM8 has left

  183. COM8 has joined

  184. marc_ has left

  185. Steve Kille has joined

  186. COM8 has left

  187. COM8 has joined

  188. debacle has left

  189. COM8 has left

  190. COM8 has joined

  191. mukt2 has joined

  192. COM8 has left

  193. aj has left

  194. mathijs has left

  195. mathijs has joined

  196. COM8 has joined

  197. COM8 has left

  198. rainslide has joined

  199. rainslide has left

  200. COM8 has joined

  201. COM8 has left

  202. COM8 has joined

  203. COM8 has left

  204. debxwoody has joined

  205. Dele (Mobile) has left

  206. debacle has joined

  207. COM8 has joined

  208. eevvoor has left

  209. mathijs has left

  210. mathijs has joined

  211. COM8 has left

  212. COM8 has joined

  213. COM8 has left

  214. COM8 has joined

  215. COM8 has left

  216. COM8 has joined

  217. COM8 has left

  218. remko has joined

  219. rion

    I 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?

  220. goffi has joined

  221. pdurbin has joined

  222. COM8 has joined

  223. lskdjf has left

  224. Daniel

    rion, in the compliance suite?

  225. COM8 has left

  226. rion

    Daniel: yep

  227. emus has joined

  228. Ge0rG

    rion: I don't think OOB forbids adding multiple elements

  229. Ge0rG

    rion: also you should be happy that the latest change demoted OOB and SIMS from required to noteworthy

  230. jubalh has joined

  231. Daniel

    i 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

  232. rion

    I 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.

  233. Daniel

    note 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

  234. Daniel

    i really like what sims is trying to do. i really don’t like how it is doing that

  235. pdurbin has left

  236. rion

    Daniel: do you mean missing encryption for metadata?

  237. COM8 has joined

  238. Ge0rG

    Daniel: feel free to write a SIMS2 XEP that just defines a meta-data element with file_size, content_type, width, height, blurha_sh

  239. Daniel

    i 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

  240. Ge0rG

    and that can be part of a message like OOB or attached-to a different message

  241. rainslide has joined

  242. Daniel

    rion, no. i'm worried about references

  243. Kev

    I don't think we need SIMS2, SIMS can just be updated can't it?

  244. Ge0rG

    Kev: shouldn't somebody™ update References first?

  245. Kev

    Daniel: 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.

  246. Kev

    Ge0rG: Yes, ^

  247. Daniel

    i just want a sims that can be used stand alone. i’m ok with SIMS also being able to be used within a reference

  248. mathijs has left

  249. mathijs has joined

  250. rion

    as 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.

  251. Kev

    Daniel: Probably thinking of a different use case. What's the case for the 'stand alone' use?

  252. Ge0rG

    Kev: sending a single file as a message

  253. Daniel

    and when i mean stand alone i mean without referenceing a body

  254. Daniel

    i don’t care about the syntax

  255. Daniel

    just send a file without a body

  256. Kev

    Ah, so you still want it to be 'part of the conversation', just that there's no text attached?

  257. mathijs has left

  258. mathijs has joined

  259. Daniel


  260. Ge0rG

    rion: 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?

  261. Kev

    So just https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0385.html#usecases-sending-photo Example 1 without the <body/> would do for your case Daniel?

  262. Ge0rG

    Kev: in that case, wrapping it in <reference> doesn't make any sense

  263. Daniel

    Kev, yes. but then there is no reference.

  264. Zash

    Or cry a tear of backwards compat and stick some fallback text there?

  265. Daniel

    because what is begin and end refering to?

  266. Daniel

    and you can’t have a reference without those attributes

  267. Ge0rG

    Daniel: are there any open issues with SIMS that won't be solved by making <media-sharing> a direct child of <message>?

  268. Zash

    Implied entire <body>?

  269. Daniel

    i mean i don’t really care about the syntax. but semantically it doesn’t make sense

  270. Daniel

    Ge0rG, not that i'm aware of

  271. Daniel

    and yes media-share as a direct child of message is kinda what i'm talking about when i say i want it stand alone

  272. Ge0rG

    Speaking of semantics. You will want <body> to contain the original URL for legacy clients.

  273. mathijs has left

  274. Ge0rG

    But then you also need a mechanism to tell modern clients that it can remove all of the body.

  275. mathijs has joined

  276. Daniel

    Ge0rG, yes. but then the reference thing becomes more problematic

  277. Daniel

    because of what you just said

  278. rion

    Ge0rG: 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

  279. Ge0rG

    Daniel: just the opposite. Let me draft an XML example.

  280. Ge0rG

    <message to='julient@shakespeare.lit' from='romeo@montague.lit'> <body>https://download.montague.lit/4a771ac1-f0b2-4a4a-9700-f2a26fa2bb67/summit.jpg</body> <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' begin='0' end='77' 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>

  281. Ge0rG

    Daniel: make the reference reference the full body, that way a modern client will just replace the full body with the inline image

  282. Daniel

    Ge0rG, where is it encoded that the body is just a fallback

  283. Daniel

    and not a 'link' to show the image

  284. Daniel

    like in example 1 of sims

  285. Ge0rG

    We just need to mandate that in the XEP

  286. Ge0rG

    that example doesn't make sense in that regard

  287. Ge0rG

    maybe we need a new reference type / mode, "replace"

  288. Daniel

    so when ever i reference the entire body it's a fallback?

  289. rion

    s/all the SIMS links are removed from body/replaced with media elements/

  290. Daniel

    when i reference just 90% of the body it's a link?

  291. Daniel

    also that link usecase is super weird

  292. Ge0rG

    rion: do you replace the referenced text with an inline representation of the media?

  293. Ge0rG

    Daniel: I agree

  294. Daniel

    who is going to enter that as a user like that

  295. rion

    Ge0rG: yes

  296. Daniel

    how would the ui even look like

  297. Ge0rG

    Daniel: the only UI that makes sense is not to use link text but to place the media inline

  298. Daniel

    so it will be rendered as "Look at the nice [picture] from the summit?"

  299. 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>

  300. Daniel


  301. Ge0rG

    > Look at this nice view! [Image]

  302. Kev

    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.

  303. Daniel

    that's not what the examples says

  304. Ge0rG

    Daniel: yes, the example doesn't make sense.

  305. Ge0rG

    (am I repeating myself)

  306. Ge0rG

    I mean, there is "Inline" in SIMS

  307. kokonoe has left

  308. Daniel

    Ge0rG, in your example will it be mandated that the text you are 'linking' must be an url?

  309. Ge0rG

    Daniel: 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

  310. Ge0rG

    Daniel: making it an URL makes sense for legacy clients, if you use HTTP Upload

  311. 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

  312. kokonoe has joined

  313. aj has joined

  314. Ge0rG

    if you use JFT, it would be something like "[the file I just shared]"

  315. Ge0rG

    Daniel: looks like everybody here agrees that hot-linking doesn't make sense

  316. Daniel

    so we agree that the xep isn’t ready yet?

  317. Daniel

    that's all i said

  318. Ge0rG

    Daniel: 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.

  319. COM8 has left

  320. Ge0rG

    + recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text

  321. Kev

    I 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.

  322. Kev

    A client can then choose how to render it.

  323. Daniel

    > + recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text that too

  324. Ge0rG

    Kev: oh god no.

  325. rion

    > mandate that the referenced text is replaced by the inline media. Done PR?

  326. MattJ

    Kev, what are the client's other options in your mind?

  327. MattJ

    I don't like open-choice standards

  328. Kev

    To show the message, including the link, with the image below it, for example.

  329. Daniel

    are 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

  330. Kev

    A la Slack, Discord etc.

  331. MattJ

    We'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

  332. Kev

    MattJ: I think mandating UI behaviour in protocol standards is usually not right. It's not needed for interop.

  333. Kev

    It 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.

  334. MattJ

    In this case the semantics are clear - the text is a fallback for the media

  335. Kev

    Ah. I don't agree there.

  336. Kev

    It's more than a fallback when it's the URI identifying the media.

  337. Daniel

    also did we cover rions mulitple files use case yet?

  338. Kev

    You might click it to open it in your browser, for example, or copy it to share with someone else.

  339. Kev

    Unfortunately, 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).

  340. Ge0rG

    Kev: if we define the semantics as "the referenced text is supposed to be replaced by the media", I would agree.

  341. Ge0rG

    Kev: if we define the semantics as "this could be a URL, a link text or the verbatim string 'yaddayadda'", then good luck

  342. LNJ has joined

  343. rainslide has left

  344. rainslide has joined

  345. rainslide has left

  346. DebXWoody has left

  347. rainslide has joined

  348. lskdjf has joined

  349. karoshi has left

  350. karoshi has joined

  351. rainslide has left

  352. Syndace has left

  353. pdurbin has joined

  354. pdurbin has left

  355. kokonoe has left

  356. 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

  357. pep.

    I guess we can add another agenda item yo clarify this :)

  358. pep.

    I guess we can add another agenda item to clarify this :)

  359. Ge0rG

    dwd: very nice Special Meeting Agenda mail! 👍

  360. kokonoe has joined

  361. karoshi has left

  362. karoshi has joined

  363. mukt2 has left

  364. kokonoe has left

  365. mukt2 has joined

  366. kokonoe has joined

  367. mathijs has left

  368. mathijs has joined

  369. mathijs has left

  370. mathijs has joined

  371. kokonoe has left

  372. kokonoe has joined

  373. mukt2 has left

  374. strypey has joined

  375. strypey has left

  376. DebXWoody has joined

  377. mukt2 has joined

  378. adiaholic has left

  379. adiaholic has joined

  380. mukt2 has left

  381. remko has left

  382. gav has left

  383. adiaholic has left

  384. gav has joined

  385. adiaholic has joined

  386. mukt2 has joined

  387. kokonoe has left

  388. kokonoe has joined

  389. adiaholic has left

  390. mukt2 has left

  391. mukt2 has joined

  392. adiaholic has joined

  393. stpeter has joined

  394. jubalh has left

  395. Syndace has joined

  396. Chobbes has joined

  397. stpeter has left

  398. mukt2 has left

  399. mukt2 has joined

  400. marc_ has joined

  401. mukt2 has left

  402. mukt2 has joined

  403. mukt2 has left

  404. MattJ

    I managed to double-book myself (thank DST) and I won't be able to make the board meeting today, sorry!

  405. Seve

    We will miss you <3

  406. 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)

  407. pep.


  408. pep.

    I'm mostly curious about the usefulness of the MUST NOT

  409. 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)

  410. krauq has left

  411. Guus

    Fellow board members: I'm faced with an emergency at work, and can't attend the meeting.

  412. Chobbes has left

  413. nyco

    no worries

  414. nyco


  415. Seve

    time is it

  416. nyco

    ok... :)

  417. Seve

    ralphm, are you around?

  418. Seve

    (Maybe we are not enough)

  419. ralphm

    I'm at a company event all week, as mentioned last week. Sorry!

  420. Seve

    Ohh right

  421. Seve

    my bad

  422. nyco

    so no quorum

  423. andy has left

  424. Seve

    Then I will say just thanks nyco for the newsletter!

  425. nyco

    welcome, not finished though

  426. andy has joined

  427. mukt2 has joined

  428. pdurbin has joined

  429. krauq has joined

  430. mukt2 has left

  431. strypey has joined

  432. mukt2 has joined

  433. pdurbin has left

  434. Chobbes has joined

  435. jubalh has joined

  436. Chobbes has left

  437. Chobbes has joined

  438. mukt2 has left

  439. lovetox has joined

  440. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  441. adiaholic has left

  442. adiaholic has joined

  443. mukt2 has joined

  444. mukt2 has left

  445. Chobbes has left

  446. mukt2 has joined

  447. Chobbes has joined

  448. strypey has left

  449. mukt2 has left

  450. strypey has joined

  451. mukt2 has joined

  452. david has left

  453. david has joined

  454. neshtaxmpp has left

  455. David Cridland has joined

  456. David Cridland has left

  457. neshtaxmpp has joined

  458. David Cridland has joined

  459. strypey has left

  460. jubalh has left

  461. Ge0rG

    Kev: 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"

  462. Kev

    Summary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.

  463. patrick has joined

  464. nyco

    that'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

  465. Kev

    It's a general problem, but from what people keep saying I'm the worst offender.

  466. jonas’

    something about hithertofore

  467. Zash

    jonas’, that word made me retroactively confused about everything said in the last hour

  468. Kev

    hitherto is one of the few unhelpful words that I /don't/ use, I think.

  469. emus has left

  470. Kev

    I do try, when I remember, I just often forget.

  471. Kev

    (And I like the way I speak :( )

  472. pep.

    "Kev> Summary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.", I agree

  473. emus has joined

  474. 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.

  475. Dele (Mobile) has left

  476. waqas has joined

  477. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  478. waqas has left

  479. !XSF_Martin has left

  480. !XSF_Martin has joined

  481. Dele (Mobile) has left

  482. David Cridland

    To quote Kev, I do not disagree.

  483. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  484. MattJ

    Neither me also

  485. pep.

    British and their fancy language

  486. David Cridland

    FWIW, 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.

  487. mukt2 has left

  488. Dele (Mobile) has left

  489. winfried has left

  490. winfried has joined

  491. emus has left

  492. winfried has left

  493. winfried has joined

  494. Maranda has left

  495. Maranda has joined

  496. pep.

    David Cridland, Kev, maybe this needs to be brought as an agenda item for the next annual meeting? :-°

  497. winfried has left

  498. winfried has joined

  499. winfried has left

  500. winfried has joined

  501. lovetox has left

  502. Zash

    Bylaws overhaul?

  503. pep.

    Well we have identified a problem

  504. lovetox has joined

  505. pep.

    When I tried to correct a typo..

  506. pep.

    So yeah

  507. adiaholic has left

  508. pep.

    The process is unclear an definitely not used often enough :)

  509. ralphm

    well, I think that is a bit strong

  510. pep.

    The process is unclear and definitely not used often enough :)

  511. David Cridland

    In fairness, it's the kind of process we shouldn't be using opften at all.

  512. pep.

    David Cridland: why not?

  513. David Cridland

    Changing our bylaws?

  514. ralphm

    I agree

  515. pep.

    Tbh, bylaws are quite hard to read. I'd be happy yo have a more understandable language being used

  516. lovetox has left

  517. lovetox has joined

  518. mathijs has left

  519. mathijs has joined

  520. Zash

    pep., legalese tho

  521. pep.

    Sure, we can get that reviewed

  522. Zash

    Bylaws /should/ be hard to change, so that you don't accidentally let something bad trough.

  523. pep.

    I disagree

  524. winfried has left

  525. pep.

    With the "should be hard to change"

  526. winfried has joined

  527. ralphm

    I personally believe that your particular changes aren't pressing enough to be classified as a problem.

  528. pep.

    These bylaws have obviously not been written for this era with all the "in writing" appearing in there

  529. pep.

    ralphm: surr

  530. ralphm

    If the Secretary is willing to accept e-mails over handwritten letters as

  531. pep.

    ralphm: sure

  532. ralphm

    'writing', and there's an actual meeting subsequentially, that's perfectly fine.

  533. Zash

    I'm personally wondering if it's not too easy to change the bylaws.

  534. krauq has left

  535. ralphm

    Zash: well, the corporation == the body ofmembers. If there's a majority for a change, you can change things.

  536. pep.

    Zash: dunno about that. Maybe member quorum can be changed to more members or sth.

  537. pep.

    Majority of 1/3 does seem low

  538. pdurbin has joined

  539. ralphm

    That's a valid point. I dont' remember why that number was chosen.

  540. Zash

    I'd find it more normal to require 2/3 majority on two consecutive members meetings.

  541. ralphm

    Well, we're not writing the Constitution here.

  542. Zash

    ralphm: It's kinda standard for random gameing associations here.

  543. Zash

    Random non-profit organizations for any purpsoe even

  544. Kev

    I 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.

  545. ralphm

    I think that our Bylaws actually require Board to suggest changes, which then have to be approved by the membership.

  546. Kev

    I think the other concerns are secondary, really.

  547. j.r has left

  548. patrick has left

  549. j.r has joined

  550. ralphm

    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.

  551. Kev

    But Ralph is right that only the Board can change the Bylaws.

  552. waqas has joined

  553. ralphm

    Zash: does that give you more assurance?

  554. Kev

    (And need the members approval)

  555. moparisthebest

    that's not at all what dwd said yesterday

  556. Kev

    And that couldn't happen e.g. during a members meeting, because of periods of notice for Board meetings.

  557. David Cridland

    You might find, BTW, that the "in writing" bits result from Delaware law.

  558. waqas has left

  559. ralphm

    deposing board is not necessarily easy

  560. Zash

    ralphm: Some, as long as Board can't do it without support from the Members

  561. ralphm

    David Cridland: ah yes. So this may apply: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c012a/index.shtml

  562. ralphm

    Zash: it can't

  563. Zash


  564. David Cridland

    ralphm, Probably. Delaware Corporation law is notoriously loose - it's why so many companies are incorporated there - but it probably has various constraints.

  565. ralphm

    David Cridland: particularly § 12A-107, so arguably we don't need pep.'s change

  566. waqas has joined

  567. David Cridland

    Ah, good spot.

  568. waqas has left

  569. ralphm

    And there are similar provisions in Dutch law, and I'm sure in most other modern jurisdictions.

  570. Yagiza has left

  571. pdurbin has left

  572. stpeter has joined

  573. Nekit has left

  574. emus has joined

  575. mukt2 has joined

  576. ralphm

    pep.: I reviewed both changes, and consider them unneeded.

  577. ralphm

    (and recorded that on the respective PRs)

  578. Kev

    Well, one's possibly unneeded, the other is wrong, isn't it? Having just checked the typo one myself.

  579. ralphm

    proviso is just a word that means what it is supposed to

  580. Kev

    Right - I mean that changing it to provision isn't simply unneeded, it isn't the right word for the intention there.

  581. Kev

    I've done the negatives thing again, haven't I.

  582. Kev

    "provision is the wrong word"

  583. mukt2 has left

  584. 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

  585. Kev


  586. pep.

    They can only say so during a vote, no?

  587. Kev

    It's Board, not the members, you need to take this to.

  588. pep.


  589. Kev

    Because that's what the Bylaws require.

  590. Kev

    The Board makes changes to the bylaws, with the Members' approval.

  591. jubalh has joined

  592. pep.

    Members can override this right?

  593. Kev

    I don't see where the Bylaws say that - which bit are you looking at?

  594. pep.

    I'm not at the moment

  595. pep.

    If so, that is missing, IMO. I don't want one person to be able to veto everything going through

  596. jubalh has left

  597. Kev

    Where's the veto coming from?

  598. Kev

    I don't see that bit, either.

  599. ralphm

    You can initiate the removal of a board member

  600. ralphm

    Or all of them.

  601. pep.

    Kev: ok I read ralphm's message above too fast

  602. ralphm

    The power is ultimately still with the membership.

  603. mathijs has left

  604. mathijs has joined

  605. Zash

    Removing all of them via new elections or just rm -rf board/ ?

  606. Steve Kille has left

  607. Kev

    Either can be done by the Members.

  608. jubalh has joined

  609. 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.")

  610. Kev

    Well, 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.

  611. Steve Kille has joined

  612. mukt2 has joined

  613. pep.

    I'm not saying that's not what it is currently

  614. Kev

    What 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.

  615. Kev

    And if you remove Board from the equation that's what you get.

  616. Kev

    Now, 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.

  617. pep.

    Kev: which is why I would increase member quorum, rather than leaving this to 5 (potentially non-)members

  618. Kev

    But this isn't left to 5.

  619. Zash

    Kev, maybe that's why it's common to have two readings of changes to the bylaws here.

  620. Kev

    Zash: There's two for the XSF too, essentially. One is that the Board must approve the change, then the Members must also approve it.

  621. pep.

    Kev: ok. My original point was that I don't want board blocking changes

  622. Zash

    Also usually any (member?) usually get to propose any changes to any document.

  623. Zash

    Works I suppose

  624. debxwoody has left

  625. Zash

    Kinda like how the govt proposes laws and parliment votes on them

  626. Kev

    Zash: 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).

  627. pep.

    Kev: in any case I agree with you that the way to propose agenda items should be clarified.

  628. moparisthebest

    could 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?

  629. Kev

    moparisthebest: No, because the Board must make the change to the Bylaws"

  630. Kev

    If you fire the Board you need a new one before that can happen.

  631. Zash

    Which is in a way also two votes by members, first for a Board positive to the change, then for the change itself

  632. moparisthebest

    "Fire current board. Hire Y as board providing they immediatly amend bylaws to do X. Fire Y. Rehire current board."

  633. jubalh has left

  634. Kev

    They can't *immediately* amend the Bylaws.

  635. waqas has joined

  636. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  637. moparisthebest

    if they are all in the meeting they can't?

  638. Kev


  639. pep.

    *providing they agree with our bylaws change

  640. Kev

    I suggest, possibly unreasonably, that everyone currently proposing that we change our Bylaws in some way, goes away and reads the Bylaws first.

  641. Zash

    Can I request them in writing? 😛

  642. pep.

    When I was saying bylaws are not easy to understand..

  643. larma

    Kev, not sure how these things work in Delaware law, but usually the members can instruct the board to do specific things.

  644. Kev

    You may request many things in writing, as stated in the Bylaws :p

  645. ralphm

    I feel this discussion is what you get when software developers think legal documents are like code.

  646. larma

    Also bylaws are just bylaws, laws override them, so even if bylaws now say members can't do anything, it's just factually not true

  647. Kev

    larma: I think we're a long way off anything that would require the Members to get into a legal battle with the Board.

  648. ralphm

    I don't think there's an actual problem here and we're talking a many hypotheticals.

  649. Kev

    ralphm: I think there *is* a problem here, it's just not the one being discussed.

  650. pep.

    ralphm: ask lawyers to volunteer under a legal working group at the xsf?

  651. ralphm


  652. ralphm

    pep.: To solve what?

  653. moparisthebest

    that probably happens when approx 100% of the members are software developers :) I know I'm guilty

  654. Kev

    The problem, I think, being that it's not clear how to get something onto the Agenda, and who then votes on it :)

  655. ralphm

    A legal team *wrote* this text.

  656. 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

  657. Dele (Mobile) has left

  658. pep.

    Which tbh, was mostly what was I was expecting from all this. To figure out how to do it

  659. ralphm

    A good first step is: ask Board.

  660. Kev

    I'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.

  661. Zash

    Legal team gonna legalese

  662. ralphm

    Or, if you want to bypass them, ask the Secretary.

  663. Kev

    (Which Dave's (a) reading leads to, I think)

  664. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  665. ralphm

    Kev: yes, I think that notion is false.

  666. Kev

    ralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would do, if it came to it.

  667. Kev

    ralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would go, if it came to it.

  668. ralphm

    Intent is the most important thing in legal terms.

  669. Zash

    While y'all are reading the Bylaws, is there anything in there that would prevent someone from being a member without their name being public?

  670. Kev

    That is, I don't agree with Dave's (a), but I don't think it's a completely unreasonable reading, either.

  671. Zash

    IIRC this came up last Summit

  672. ralphm

    Memberbot clearly lets you proxy specific *votes*, not a carte blanche to represent members in new matters.

  673. Kev


  674. pep.

    Zash: I don't think so? And if required I'm sure only the secretary could be told

  675. Kev

    But 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.

  676. Kev

    What 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.

  677. ralphm

    I don't read it that way, per my email.

  678. Kev

    Which would mean that anyone proxy voting can be represented, and all is good, with minimal change to our process or bylaws.

  679. stpeter


  680. Zash

    pep., 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

  681. ralphm

    Kev: makes sense

  682. zach has left

  683. ralphm

    stpeter: hi!

  684. pep.

    Zash: we already trust the secretary with our proxy votes

  685. larma

    Actually the laws also only require the secretary to know

  686. emus has left

  687. kokonoe has left

  688. 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.

  689. Seve

    Kev: I agree

  690. larma

    I wonder where the secretary got my phone and facsimile number from?

  691. Kev

    larma: Except that members can request those records, IIRC. (That's from memory, I haven't checked)

  692. stpeter

    In practice we have never gathered that information, nor have we gathered physical address.

  693. Kev

    stpeter: Probably we should either start, or amend the Bylaws.

  694. moparisthebest

    maybe the secretary is just extremely good at doxing people

  695. pep.

    I say amend.

  696. stpeter

    Kev: yes, amend.

  697. Kev

    I think start. I don't see why every Member shouldn't be required to have a fax number.

  698. ralphm

    Surprising 🤣

  699. pep.

    Kev, :)

  700. stpeter

    I have to say, this conversation includes wild speculation and some unnecessarily harsh language.

  701. mukt2 has left

  702. pep.

    stpeter, if the world was all flowers and rainbows..

  703. stpeter

    At least append jokey emojis if you're not serious about some of the claims and assertions here. No one, for instance, is doxing anyone.

  704. ralphm

    stpeter: quite

  705. stpeter

    Doxing is a violent act, in my opinion.

  706. pep.

    (I don't even know what that means.. /me looking for his translator)

  707. mukt2 has joined

  708. pep.


  709. ralphm

    The act of researching a person and expose private details, like address, phone...

  710. pep.

    I took that as a joke anyway

  711. larma

    Kev, 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

  712. moparisthebest

    oh sorry I meant the doxing comment as a joke :)

  713. stpeter

    In general, yes, we should review the bylaws to ensure that they are consistent with our existing practices (and of course Delaware law).

  714. stpeter

    moparisthebest: thanks for the clarification.

  715. debxwoody has joined

  716. stpeter

    We once had someone ("Solarius") who applied to be a member without providing their real name. We'd discussed this matter before.

  717. larma

    stpeter, consider that not only Delaware law applies. As we have EU citizin members, some EU laws also apply (at least for those members)

  718. pep.

    stpeter, it's come up again when passing 345 to draft. (Which is still isn't. slack off editors.)

  719. Kev

    larma: 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).

  720. stpeter

    EU 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.

  721. Kev


  722. stpeter is off to another meeting

  723. Kev

    Enjoy! :)

  724. pep.


  725. larma

    Some EU laws apply if the organization is actively operating in EU, and that is obviously the case.

  726. zach has joined

  727. sonny has left

  728. Kev

    larma: 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.

  729. stpeter


  730. eevvoor has joined

  731. larma

    Yeah, but we should better make sure the bylaws don't effectively prohibit the XSF to interact with EU folks 😉

  732. Dele (Mobile) has left

  733. Kev


  734. larma

    I don't think they do, whereas our current implementation might

  735. mukt2 has left

  736. Zash

    IANAL 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

  737. mukt2 has joined

  738. larma

    Zash, it's not about keeping records, it's about publishing them

  739. debacle has left

  740. sonny has joined

  741. mukt2 has left

  742. j.r has left

  743. Chobbes has left

  744. mukt2 has joined

  745. sonny has left

  746. sonny has joined

  747. j.r has joined

  748. kokonoe has joined

  749. mukt2 has left

  750. mukt2 has joined

  751. marc_ has left

  752. waqas has left

  753. pdurbin has joined

  754. mukt2 has left

  755. mukt2 has joined

  756. Nekit has joined

  757. pdurbin has left

  758. mukt2 has left

  759. mukt2 has joined

  760. aj has left

  761. krauq has joined

  762. mukt2 has left

  763. mukt2 has joined

  764. rion has left

  765. rion has joined

  766. marc_ has joined

  767. kokonoe has left

  768. mukt2 has left

  769. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  770. Dele (Mobile) has left

  771. mukt2 has joined

  772. stpeter has left

  773. Douglas Terabyte has left

  774. kokonoe has joined

  775. mukt2 has left

  776. Chobbes has joined

  777. mukt2 has joined

  778. mathijs has left

  779. mathijs has joined

  780. mathijs has left

  781. mathijs has joined

  782. DebXWoody has left

  783. DebXWoody has joined

  784. mukt2 has left

  785. LNJ has left

  786. mathijs has left

  787. mathijs has joined

  788. mukt2 has joined

  789. Nekit has left

  790. waqas has joined

  791. waqas has left

  792. waqas has joined

  793. waqas has left

  794. waqas has joined

  795. waqas has left

  796. waqas has joined

  797. waqas has left

  798. eevvoor has left

  799. pdurbin has joined

  800. waqas has joined

  801. pdurbin has left

  802. Maranda has left

  803. Maranda has joined

  804. Chobbes has left

  805. Chobbes has joined

  806. stpeter has joined

  807. DebXWoody has left

  808. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  809. Dele (Mobile) has left

  810. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  811. alameyo has left

  812. alameyo has joined

  813. mukt2 has left

  814. debacle has joined

  815. mukt2 has joined

  816. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  817. Dele (Mobile) has left

  818. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  819. Dele (Mobile) has left

  820. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  821. Douglas Terabyte has left

  822. mukt2 has left

  823. mukt2 has joined

  824. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  825. Chobbes has left

  826. Chobbes has joined

  827. matkor has left

  828. matkor has joined

  829. debacle has left

  830. mimi89999 has left

  831. mimi89999 has joined

  832. mukt2 has left

  833. wurstsalat has left

  834. mukt2 has joined

  835. lovetox has left

  836. goffi has left

  837. Dele (Mobile) has left

  838. kokonoe has left

  839. karoshi has left

  840. kokonoe has joined

  841. marc_ has left

  842. Tobias has left

  843. andy has left

  844. Zash has left

  845. kokonoe has left