XSF Discussion - 2019-11-07

00:05:28 moparisthebest has joined
00:08:24 pep. Ok email sent to members.
00:09:10 pep. moparisthebest, you might want to show up for that meeting, your wish about council members might be granted :p
00:10:19 neshtaxmpp has joined
00:13:04 debacle has left
00:14:51 vanitasvitae has left
00:14:55 jubalh has joined
00:15:14 vanitasvitae has joined
00:19:12 mukt2 has joined
00:27:21 kokonoe has left
00:28:41 kokonoe has joined
00:31:26 mukt2 has left
00:38:22 jubalh has left
00:43:03 Daniel has left
00:44:13 Daniel has joined
00:54:18 remko has joined
00:59:29 matkor has left
01:00:08 matkor has joined
01:03:10 Douglas Terabyte has left
01:10:46 aj has joined
01:14:14 Chobbes has left
01:15:31 kokonoe has left
01:15:56 kokonoe has joined
01:19:16 Chobbes has joined
01:20:56 moparisthebest has left
01:27:03 krauq has joined
01:28:07 Daniel has left
01:28:52 Daniel has joined
01:31:18 pdurbin has joined
01:34:22 Daniel has left
01:39:13 pdurbin has left
01:42:18 adiaholic has joined
01:43:42 remko has left
01:44:14 moparisthebest has joined
01:47:54 Daniel has joined
01:54:51 adiaholic has left
01:55:48 Chobbes has left
01:55:50 Chobbes has joined
02:02:13 Chobbes has left
02:02:23 Chobbes has joined
02:04:56 moparisthebest pep.: Oh I'll be there :)
02:10:27 Daniel has left
02:10:44 Chobbes has left
02:11:03 Chobbes has joined
02:16:35 stpeter has joined
02:17:54 Daniel has joined
02:19:13 mukt2 has joined
02:20:59 kokonoe has left
02:21:12 kokonoe has joined
02:27:37 mukt2 has left
02:28:24 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...
02:28:34 lskdjf has left
02:31:56 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.
02:32:54 Daniel has left
02:33:31 pdurbin has joined
02:37:55 Daniel has joined
02:52:47 stpeter For completeness, I posted to the members@ email list on these matters.
02:53:42 kokonoe has left
02:54:42 kokonoe has joined
03:03:21 neshtaxmpp has left
03:03:22 neshtaxmpp has joined
03:07:21 Chobbes has left
03:17:11 strypey has joined
03:21:10 Douglas Terabyte has joined
03:28:46 Daniel has left
03:33:15 Daniel has joined
03:36:47 strypey has left
03:38:34 strypey has joined
03:48:47 stpeter has left
03:59:01 Daniel has left
04:03:15 Daniel has joined
04:06:48 adiaholic has joined
04:06:56 waqas has joined
04:08:18 andy has joined
04:09:45 matkor has left
04:10:15 matkor has joined
04:11:41 strypey has left
04:11:42 strypey has joined
04:19:13 mukt2 has joined
04:25:21 krauq has left
04:26:01 krauq has joined
04:27:04 mukt2 has left
04:30:16 Nekit has joined
04:31:09 Yagiza has joined
04:33:48 strypey has left
04:34:32 strypey has joined
04:40:31 neshtaxmpp has left
04:52:48 adiaholic has left
04:56:33 adiaholic has joined
04:57:22 waqas has left
05:06:18 strypey has left
05:08:12 strypey has joined
05:14:40 karoshi has joined
05:15:00 mimi89999 has left
05:15:02 mimi89999 has joined
05:16:26 neshtaxmpp has joined
05:22:13 strypey has left
05:22:15 strypey has joined
05:24:39 mathijs has left
05:24:39 mathijs has joined
05:25:33 adiaholic has left
05:34:24 Shell has joined
05:46:03 Tobias has joined
05:46:53 rainslide has joined
05:49:42 Daniel has left
05:50:18 strypey has left
05:51:26 Shell has left
05:54:04 rainslide has left
05:55:27 adiaholic has joined
06:02:47 Daniel has joined
06:09:08 j.r has left
06:10:39 wurstsalat has joined
06:11:30 strypey has joined
06:11:38 j.r has joined
06:13:18 strypey has left
06:16:22 rainslide has joined
06:18:51 emus has joined
06:19:16 mukt2 has joined
06:19:58 eevvoor has joined
06:23:05 rainslide has left
06:23:09 rainslide has joined
06:24:47 Daniel has left
06:28:10 mukt2 has left
06:28:14 mukt2 has joined
06:30:14 rainslide has left
06:32:10 Douglas Terabyte has left
06:32:11 Douglas Terabyte has joined
06:32:17 Daniel has joined
06:40:37 debxwoody has left
06:40:46 DebXWoody has joined
06:47:56 remko has joined
06:48:43 remko has left
06:56:50 debxwoody has joined
06:59:15 pdurbin has left
07:02:54 debxwoody has left
07:05:20 Douglas Terabyte has left
07:20:01 marc_ has joined
07:22:45 COM8 has joined
07:22:57 COM8 has left
07:24:21 COM8 has joined
07:27:22 COM8 has left
07:34:41 rainslide has joined
07:36:45 COM8 has joined
07:37:13 COM8 has left
07:41:45 rainslide has left
07:41:55 debacle has joined
07:43:36 Dele (Mobile) has joined
07:43:59 mukt2 has left
07:46:22 COM8 has joined
07:46:33 lskdjf has joined
07:46:51 COM8 has left
07:47:29 COM8 has joined
07:48:33 COM8 has left
07:48:44 kokonoe has left
07:49:59 adiaholic has left
07:50:17 kokonoe has joined
07:50:21 COM8 has joined
07:51:25 COM8 has left
07:52:25 COM8 has joined
07:53:04 COM8 has left
07:55:30 COM8 has joined
07:55:54 COM8 has left
07:56:27 emus has left
07:57:22 COM8 has joined
07:57:42 COM8 has left
07:59:15 mathijs has left
07:59:15 mathijs has joined
08:02:17 COM8 has joined
08:06:21 COM8 has left
08:06:27 COM8 has joined
08:09:37 karoshi has left
08:09:50 COM8 has left
08:10:05 adiaholic has joined
08:10:07 karoshi has joined
08:10:24 Douglas Terabyte has joined
08:11:00 COM8 has joined
08:11:55 COM8 has left
08:12:10 COM8 has joined
08:12:29 mathijs has left
08:12:30 mathijs has joined
08:12:49 Steve Kille has left
08:13:36 COM8 has left
08:14:15 COM8 has joined
08:15:05 marc_ has left
08:15:51 Steve Kille has joined
08:17:00 COM8 has left
08:17:30 COM8 has joined
08:17:36 debacle has left
08:18:48 COM8 has left
08:23:04 COM8 has joined
08:23:18 mukt2 has joined
08:24:25 COM8 has left
08:24:36 aj has left
08:24:58 mathijs has left
08:24:58 mathijs has joined
08:25:11 COM8 has joined
08:27:34 COM8 has left
08:30:17 rainslide has joined
08:31:48 rainslide has left
08:33:08 COM8 has joined
08:33:43 COM8 has left
08:34:24 COM8 has joined
08:35:10 COM8 has left
08:35:32 debxwoody has joined
08:35:43 Dele (Mobile) has left
08:36:30 debacle has joined
08:38:34 COM8 has joined
08:38:54 eevvoor has left
08:40:07 mathijs has left
08:40:07 mathijs has joined
08:42:35 COM8 has left
08:42:41 COM8 has joined
08:44:23 COM8 has left
08:48:46 COM8 has joined
08:49:27 COM8 has left
08:49:41 COM8 has joined
08:49:57 COM8 has left
08:50:44 remko has joined
08:51:05 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?
08:51:16 goffi has joined
08:53:46 pdurbin has joined
08:54:49 COM8 has joined
08:55:17 lskdjf has left
08:55:40 Daniel rion, in the compliance suite?
08:55:47 COM8 has left
08:56:00 rion Daniel: yep
08:56:56 emus has joined
08:57:15 Ge0rG rion: I don't think OOB forbids adding multiple elements
08:57:30 Ge0rG rion: also you should be happy that the latest change demoted OOB and SIMS from required to noteworthy
08:58:01 jubalh has joined
08:58:13 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
08:58:39 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.
08:59:00 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
09:00:07 Daniel i really like what sims is trying to do. i really don’t like how it is doing that
09:00:27 pdurbin has left
09:01:50 rion Daniel: do you mean missing encryption for metadata?
09:01:59 COM8 has joined
09:02:12 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
09:02:30 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
09:02:32 Ge0rG and that can be part of a message like OOB or attached-to a different message
09:02:35 rainslide has joined
09:02:45 Daniel rion, no. i'm worried about references
09:02:46 Kev I don't think we need SIMS2, SIMS can just be updated can't it?
09:03:44 Ge0rG Kev: shouldn't somebody™ update References first?
09:04:27 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.
09:04:33 Kev Ge0rG: Yes, ^
09:04:50 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
09:05:31 mathijs has left
09:05:32 mathijs has joined
09:05:44 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.
09:05:57 Kev Daniel: Probably thinking of a different use case. What's the case for the 'stand alone' use?
09:06:14 Ge0rG Kev: sending a single file as a message
09:06:16 Daniel and when i mean stand alone i mean without referenceing a body
09:06:24 Daniel i don’t care about the syntax
09:06:38 Daniel just send a file without a body
09:06:41 Kev Ah, so you still want it to be 'part of the conversation', just that there's no text attached?
09:06:47 mathijs has left
09:06:47 mathijs has joined
09:06:50 Daniel yes
09:07:13 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?
09:07:28 Kev So just https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0385.html#usecases-sending-photo Example 1 without the <body/> would do for your case Daniel?
09:07:54 Ge0rG Kev: in that case, wrapping it in <reference> doesn't make any sense
09:07:56 Daniel Kev, yes. but then there is no reference.
09:07:58 Zash Or cry a tear of backwards compat and stick some fallback text there?
09:08:09 Daniel because what is begin and end refering to?
09:08:20 Daniel and you can’t have a reference without those attributes
09:08:45 Ge0rG Daniel: are there any open issues with SIMS that won't be solved by making <media-sharing> a direct child of <message>?
09:08:46 Zash Implied entire <body>?
09:08:53 Daniel i mean i don’t really care about the syntax. but semantically it doesn’t make sense
09:09:09 Daniel Ge0rG, not that i'm aware of
09:09:32 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
09:09:34 Ge0rG Speaking of semantics. You will want <body> to contain the original URL for legacy clients.
09:09:59 mathijs has left
09:09:59 Ge0rG But then you also need a mechanism to tell modern clients that it can remove all of the body.
09:09:59 mathijs has joined
09:10:02 Daniel Ge0rG, yes. but then the reference thing becomes more problematic
09:10:18 Daniel because of what you just said
09:10:18 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
09:10:28 Ge0rG Daniel: just the opposite. Let me draft an XML example.
09:11:28 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'>  <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>
09:11:49 Ge0rG Daniel: make the reference reference the full body, that way a modern client will just replace the full body with the inline image
09:11:58 Daniel Ge0rG, where is it encoded that the body is just a fallback
09:12:06 Daniel and not a 'link' to show the image
09:12:12 Daniel like in example 1 of sims
09:12:14 Ge0rG We just need to mandate that in the XEP
09:12:22 Ge0rG that example doesn't make sense in that regard
09:12:43 Ge0rG maybe we need a new reference type / mode, "replace"
09:12:43 Daniel so when ever i reference the entire body it's a fallback?
09:12:50 rion s/all the SIMS links are removed from body/replaced with media elements/
09:12:52 Daniel when i reference just 90% of the body it's a link?
09:13:21 Daniel also that link usecase is super weird
09:13:24 Ge0rG rion: do you replace the referenced text with an inline representation of the media?
09:13:29 Ge0rG Daniel: I agree
09:13:29 Daniel who is going to enter that as a user like that
09:13:32 rion Ge0rG: yes
09:13:37 Daniel how would the ui even look like
09:14:01 Ge0rG Daniel: the only UI that makes sense is not to use link text but to place the media inline
09:14:33 Daniel so it will be rendered as "Look at the nice [picture] from the summit?"
09:14:34 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'>  <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>
09:14:34 Daniel wtf?
09:14:45 Ge0rG > Look at this nice view! [Image]
09:14:54 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.
09:14:56 Daniel that's not what the examples says
09:15:00 Ge0rG Daniel: yes, the example doesn't make sense.
09:15:17 Ge0rG (am I repeating myself)
09:15:46 Ge0rG I mean, there is "Inline" in SIMS
09:16:00 kokonoe has left
09:16:04 Daniel Ge0rG, in your example will it be mandated that the text you are 'linking' must be an url?
09:17:13 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
09:17:32 Ge0rG Daniel: making it an URL makes sense for legacy clients, if you use HTTP Upload
09:17:48 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
09:17:48 kokonoe has joined
09:18:10 aj has joined
09:18:10 Ge0rG if you use JFT, it would be something like "[the file I just shared]"
09:18:37 Ge0rG Daniel: looks like everybody here agrees that hot-linking doesn't make sense
09:19:00 Daniel so we agree that the xep isn’t ready yet?
09:19:06 Daniel that's all i said
09:19:54 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.
09:20:02 COM8 has left
09:20:20 Ge0rG + recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text
09:20:28 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.
09:20:45 Kev A client can then choose how to render it.
09:20:57 Daniel > + recommend to use the URI of the media in the referenced text that too
09:21:12 Ge0rG Kev: oh god no.
09:22:37 rion > mandate that the referenced text is replaced by the inline media. Done PR?
09:22:41 MattJ Kev, what are the client's other options in your mind?
09:23:02 MattJ I don't like open-choice standards
09:23:13 Kev To show the message, including the link, with the image below it, for example.
09:23:20 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
09:23:25 Kev A la Slack, Discord etc.
09:23:39 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
09:24:02 Kev MattJ: I think mandating UI behaviour in protocol standards is usually not right. It's not needed for interop.
09:24:27 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.
09:24:36 MattJ In this case the semantics are clear - the text is a fallback for the media
09:25:17 Kev Ah. I don't agree there.
09:25:33 Kev It's more than a fallback when it's the URI identifying the media.
09:25:42 Daniel also did we cover rions mulitple files use case yet?
09:25:50 Kev You might click it to open it in your browser, for example, or copy it to share with someone else.
09:26:25 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).
09:26:31 Ge0rG Kev: if we define the semantics as "the referenced text is supposed to be replaced by the media", I would agree.
09:27:00 Ge0rG Kev: if we define the semantics as "this could be a URL, a link text or the verbatim string 'yaddayadda'", then good luck
09:32:17 LNJ has joined
09:34:03 rainslide has left
09:43:53 rainslide has joined
09:50:57 rainslide has left
10:00:52 DebXWoody has left
10:10:37 rainslide has joined
10:15:32 lskdjf has joined
10:16:37 karoshi has left
10:16:52 karoshi has joined
10:17:39 rainslide has left
10:22:22 Syndace has left
10:53:48 pdurbin has joined
11:11:25 pdurbin has left
11:15:04 kokonoe has left
11:15:11 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
11:16:04 pep. ~~I guess we can add another agenda item yo clarify this :)~~ ✎
11:16:10 pep. I guess we can add another agenda item to clarify this :) ✏
11:16:30 Ge0rG dwd: very nice Special Meeting Agenda mail! 👍
11:19:26 kokonoe has joined
11:22:25 karoshi has left
11:22:36 karoshi has joined
11:24:32 mukt2 has left
11:25:28 kokonoe has left
11:25:42 mukt2 has joined
11:28:51 kokonoe has joined
11:29:20 mathijs has left
11:29:21 mathijs has joined
11:29:58 mathijs has left
11:29:58 mathijs has joined
11:30:51 kokonoe has left
11:32:43 kokonoe has joined
11:40:38 mukt2 has left
11:46:15 strypey has joined
11:50:49 strypey has left
11:52:10 DebXWoody has joined
11:58:26 mukt2 has joined
12:05:38 adiaholic has left
12:05:40 adiaholic has joined
12:12:23 mukt2 has left
12:14:53 remko has left
12:21:18 gav has left
12:25:45 adiaholic has left
12:25:52 gav has joined
12:26:12 adiaholic has joined
12:30:10 mukt2 has joined
12:34:04 kokonoe has left
12:37:02 kokonoe has joined
12:43:41 adiaholic has left
12:46:56 mukt2 has left
12:47:34 mukt2 has joined
12:49:36 adiaholic has joined
13:00:21 stpeter has joined
13:01:24 jubalh has left
13:09:35 Syndace has joined
13:10:40 Chobbes has joined
13:13:20 stpeter has left
13:23:01 mukt2 has left
13:23:33 mukt2 has joined
13:27:22 marc_ has joined
13:37:05 mukt2 has left
13:47:40 mukt2 has joined
13:53:16 mukt2 has left
13:53:16 MattJ I managed to double-book myself (thank DST) and I won't be able to make the board meeting today, sorry!
13:54:51 Seve We will miss you <3
13:55:36 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)
13:55:46 pep. §3.1.2
13:56:09 pep. I'm mostly curious about the usefulness of the MUST NOT
13:58:54 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)
14:14:20 krauq has left
14:17:13 Guus Fellow board members: I'm faced with an emergency at work, and can't attend the meeting.
14:21:22 Chobbes has left
14:27:19 nyco no worries
14:30:09 nyco time
14:30:54 Seve time is it
14:32:35 nyco ok... :)
14:32:54 Seve ralphm, are you around?
14:32:59 Seve (Maybe we are not enough)
14:34:38 ralphm I'm at a company event all week, as mentioned last week. Sorry!
14:34:50 Seve Ohh right
14:34:52 Seve my bad
14:35:15 nyco so no quorum
14:35:55 andy has left
14:36:08 Seve Then I will say just thanks nyco for the newsletter!
14:36:59 nyco welcome, not finished though
14:37:27 andy has joined
14:37:55 mukt2 has joined
14:53:45 pdurbin has joined
14:59:27 krauq has joined
14:59:31 mukt2 has left
15:02:56 strypey has joined
15:04:41 mukt2 has joined
15:07:41 pdurbin has left
15:10:32 Chobbes has joined
15:10:56 jubalh has joined
15:11:00 Chobbes has left
15:11:01 Chobbes has joined
15:12:41 mukt2 has left
15:14:12 lovetox has joined
15:17:52 Dele (Mobile) has joined
15:18:38 adiaholic has left
15:18:41 adiaholic has joined
15:19:45 mukt2 has joined
15:33:09 mukt2 has left
15:33:14 Chobbes has left
15:34:51 mukt2 has joined
15:35:55 Chobbes has joined
15:39:50 strypey has left
15:39:53 mukt2 has left
15:40:11 strypey has joined
15:40:50 mukt2 has joined
15:45:16 david has left
15:45:16 david has joined
15:49:06 neshtaxmpp has left
15:49:41 David Cridland has joined
15:49:51 David Cridland has left
15:50:20 neshtaxmpp has joined
15:50:21 David Cridland has joined
15:57:20 strypey has left
15:58:17 jubalh has left
15:58:26 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"
15:59:31 Kev Summary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.
15:59:34 patrick has joined
15:59:40 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
15:59:57 Kev It's a general problem, but from what people keep saying I'm the worst offender.
16:00:14 jonas’ something about hithertofore
16:00:39 Zash jonas’, that word made me retroactively confused about everything said in the last hour
16:00:41 Kev hitherto is one of the few unhelpful words that I /don't/ use, I think.
16:00:56 emus has left
16:01:22 Kev I do try, when I remember, I just often forget.
16:01:31 Kev (And I like the way I speak :( )
16:01:42 pep. "Kev> Summary: Instead of lawyering a way to get votes through, work on a way to maximise potential participation.", I agree
16:01:48 emus has joined
16:02:24 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.
16:08:25 Dele (Mobile) has left
16:09:12 waqas has joined
16:09:24 Dele (Mobile) has joined
16:10:27 waqas has left
16:10:29 !XSF_Martin has left
16:11:01 !XSF_Martin has joined
16:12:44 Dele (Mobile) has left
16:13:32 David Cridland To quote Kev, I do not disagree.
16:13:39 Dele (Mobile) has joined
16:13:50 MattJ Neither me also
16:14:20 pep. British and their fancy language
16:15:56 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.
16:17:30 mukt2 has left
16:22:05 Dele (Mobile) has left
16:30:01 winfried has left
16:30:02 winfried has joined
16:30:42 emus has left
16:32:15 winfried has left
16:32:18 winfried has joined
16:32:21 Maranda has left
16:32:26 Maranda has joined
16:35:20 pep. David Cridland, Kev, maybe this needs to be brought as an agenda item for the next annual meeting? :-°
16:37:37 winfried has left
16:37:37 winfried has joined
16:38:22 winfried has left
16:38:26 winfried has joined
16:38:36 lovetox has left
16:39:34 Zash Bylaws overhaul?
16:39:47 pep. Well we have identified a problem
16:39:54 lovetox has joined
16:39:55 pep. When I tried to correct a typo..
16:40:02 pep. So yeah
16:40:06 adiaholic has left
16:40:30 pep. ~~The process is unclear an definitely not used often enough :)~~ ✎
16:40:43 ralphm well, I think that is a bit strong
16:41:03 pep. The process is unclear and definitely not used often enough :) ✏
16:45:55 David Cridland In fairness, it's the kind of process we shouldn't be using opften at all.
16:46:07 pep. David Cridland: why not?
16:46:23 David Cridland Changing our bylaws?
16:46:36 ralphm I agree
16:46:41 pep. Tbh, bylaws are quite hard to read. I'd be happy yo have a more understandable language being used
16:46:44 lovetox has left
16:47:06 lovetox has joined
16:47:10 mathijs has left
16:47:10 mathijs has joined
16:47:13 Zash pep., legalese tho
16:47:43 pep. Sure, we can get that reviewed
16:47:57 Zash Bylaws /should/ be hard to change, so that you don't accidentally let something bad trough.
16:48:13 pep. I disagree
16:48:22 winfried has left
16:48:26 pep. With the "should be hard to change"
16:48:30 winfried has joined
16:49:01 ralphm I personally believe that your particular changes aren't pressing enough to be classified as a problem.
16:49:26 pep. These bylaws have obviously not been written for this era with all the "in writing" appearing in there
16:49:30 pep. ~~ralphm: surr~~ ✎
16:49:32 ralphm If the Secretary is willing to accept e-mails over handwritten letters as
16:49:38 pep. ralphm: sure ✏
16:49:53 ralphm 'writing', and there's an actual meeting subsequentially, that's perfectly fine.
16:50:14 Zash I'm personally wondering if it's not too easy to change the bylaws.
16:50:55 krauq has left
16:52:10 ralphm Zash: well, the corporation == the body ofmembers. If there's a majority for a change, you can change things.
16:52:38 pep. Zash: dunno about that. Maybe member quorum can be changed to more members or sth.
16:52:56 pep. Majority of 1/3 does seem low
16:53:45 pdurbin has joined
16:54:19 ralphm That's a valid point. I dont' remember why that number was chosen.
16:55:25 Zash I'd find it more normal to require 2/3 majority on two consecutive members meetings.
16:56:09 ralphm Well, we're not writing the Constitution here.
16:57:49 Zash ralphm: It's kinda standard for random gameing associations here.
16:58:28 Zash Random non-profit organizations for any purpsoe even
16:58:57 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.
16:59:01 ralphm I think that our Bylaws actually require Board to suggest changes, which then have to be approved by the membership.
16:59:07 Kev I think the other concerns are secondary, really.
16:59:08 j.r has left
16:59:12 patrick has left
16:59:25 j.r has joined
16:59:35 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.
17:00:45 Kev But Ralph is right that only the Board can change the Bylaws.
17:00:49 waqas has joined
17:00:54 ralphm Zash: does that give you more assurance?
17:00:56 Kev (And need the members approval)
17:01:44 moparisthebest that's not at all what dwd said yesterday
17:01:45 Kev And that couldn't happen e.g. during a members meeting, because of periods of notice for Board meetings.
17:02:07 David Cridland You might find, BTW, that the "in writing" bits result from Delaware law.
17:02:11 waqas has left
17:02:42 ralphm deposing board is not necessarily easy
17:03:25 Zash ralphm: Some, as long as Board can't do it without support from the Members
17:03:29 ralphm David Cridland: ah yes. So this may apply: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c012a/index.shtml
17:03:44 ralphm Zash: it can't
17:04:09 Zash Good
17:04:38 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.
17:05:31 ralphm David Cridland: particularly § 12A-107, so arguably we don't need pep.'s change
17:05:31 waqas has joined
17:06:42 David Cridland Ah, good spot.
17:06:58 waqas has left
17:07:13 ralphm And there are similar provisions in Dutch law, and I'm sure in most other modern jurisdictions.
17:09:50 Yagiza has left
17:11:33 pdurbin has left
17:14:14 stpeter has joined
17:15:09 Nekit has left
17:17:37 emus has joined
17:19:12 mukt2 has joined
17:19:41 ralphm pep.: I reviewed both changes, and consider them unneeded.
17:20:26 ralphm (and recorded that on the respective PRs)
17:21:08 Kev Well, one's possibly unneeded, the other is wrong, isn't it? Having just checked the typo one myself.
17:21:55 ralphm proviso is just a word that means what it is supposed to
17:22:57 Kev Right - I mean that changing it to provision isn't simply unneeded, it isn't the right word for the intention there.
17:23:20 Kev I've done the negatives thing again, haven't I.
17:23:24 Kev "provision is the wrong word"
17:24:45 mukt2 has left
17:25:31 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
17:25:52 Kev None.
17:25:57 pep. They can only say so during a vote, no?
17:26:05 Kev It's Board, not the members, you need to take this to.
17:26:13 pep. Why
17:26:19 Kev Because that's what the Bylaws require.
17:26:35 Kev The Board makes changes to the bylaws, with the Members' approval.
17:26:37 jubalh has joined
17:26:58 pep. Members can override this right?
17:27:11 Kev I don't see where the Bylaws say that - which bit are you looking at?
17:27:20 pep. I'm not at the moment
17:27:54 pep. If so, that is missing, IMO. I don't want one person to be able to veto everything going through
17:28:04 jubalh has left
17:28:12 Kev Where's the veto coming from?
17:28:21 Kev I don't see that bit, either.
17:28:26 ralphm You can initiate the removal of a board member
17:28:46 ralphm Or all of them.
17:29:10 pep. Kev: ok I read ralphm's message above too fast
17:29:12 ralphm The power is ultimately still with the membership.
17:29:30 mathijs has left
17:29:30 mathijs has joined
17:30:06 Zash Removing all of them via new elections or just rm -rf board/ ?
17:30:19 Steve Kille has left
17:31:18 Kev Either can be done by the Members.
17:31:20 jubalh has joined
17:32:53 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.")
17:34:45 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.
17:34:54 Steve Kille has joined
17:34:59 mukt2 has joined
17:35:26 pep. I'm not saying that's not what it is currently
17:35:27 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.
17:35:43 Kev And if you remove Board from the equation that's what you get.
17:36:16 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.
17:36:27 pep. Kev: which is why I would increase member quorum, rather than leaving this to 5 (potentially non-)members
17:36:42 Kev But this isn't left to 5.
17:36:54 Zash Kev, maybe that's why it's common to have two readings of changes to the bylaws here.
17:37:23 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.
17:37:27 pep. Kev: ok. My original point was that I don't want board blocking changes
17:37:31 Zash Also usually any (member?) usually get to propose any changes to any document.
17:37:53 Zash Works I suppose
17:37:57 debxwoody has left
17:38:27 Zash Kinda like how the govt proposes laws and parliment votes on them
17:39:04 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).
17:39:04 pep. Kev: in any case I agree with you that the way to propose agenda items should be clarified.
17:39:14 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?
17:39:34 Kev moparisthebest: No, because the Board must make the change to the Bylaws"
17:39:43 Kev If you fire the Board you need a new one before that can happen.
17:40:03 Zash Which is in a way also two votes by members, first for a Board positive to the change, then for the change itself
17:40:14 moparisthebest "Fire current board. Hire Y as board providing they immediatly amend bylaws to do X. Fire Y. Rehire current board."
17:40:21 jubalh has left
17:40:28 Kev They can't *immediately* amend the Bylaws.
17:40:32 waqas has joined
17:40:34 Dele (Mobile) has joined
17:40:43 moparisthebest if they are all in the meeting they can't?
17:40:49 Kev No.
17:40:55 pep. *providing they agree with our bylaws change
17:41:10 Kev I suggest, possibly unreasonably, that everyone currently proposing that we change our Bylaws in some way, goes away and reads the Bylaws first.
17:41:43 Zash Can I request them in writing? 😛
17:42:02 pep. When I was saying bylaws are not easy to understand..
17:42:05 larma Kev, not sure how these things work in Delaware law, but usually the members can instruct the board to do specific things.
17:42:19 Kev You may request many things in writing, as stated in the Bylaws :p
17:42:29 ralphm I feel this discussion is what you get when software developers think legal documents are like code.
17:42:42 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
17:43:22 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.
17:43:26 ralphm I don't think there's an actual problem here and we're talking a many hypotheticals.
17:43:43 Kev ralphm: I think there *is* a problem here, it's just not the one being discussed.
17:43:48 pep. ralphm: ask lawyers to volunteer under a legal working group at the xsf?
17:43:50 ralphm Hah
17:44:01 ralphm pep.: To solve what?
17:44:02 moparisthebest that probably happens when approx 100% of the members are software developers :) I know I'm guilty
17:44:04 Kev The problem, I think, being that it's not clear how to get something onto the Agenda, and who then votes on it :)
17:44:13 ralphm A legal team *wrote* this text.
17:44:25 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
17:45:06 Dele (Mobile) has left
17:45:09 pep. Which tbh, was mostly what was I was expecting from all this. To figure out how to do it
17:45:15 ralphm A good first step is: ask Board.
17:45:17 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.
17:45:19 Zash Legal team gonna legalese
17:45:31 ralphm Or, if you want to bypass them, ask the Secretary.
17:45:39 Kev (Which Dave's (a) reading leads to, I think)
17:45:56 Dele (Mobile) has joined
17:46:06 ralphm Kev: yes, I think that notion is false.
17:46:34 Kev ~~ralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would do, if it came to it.~~ ✎
17:46:44 Kev ralphm: I think I would not want to bet anything substantial on how a legal reading would go, if it came to it. ✏
17:46:59 ralphm Intent is the most important thing in legal terms.
17:47:06 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?
17:47:09 Kev That is, I don't agree with Dave's (a), but I don't think it's a completely unreasonable reading, either.
17:47:14 Zash IIRC this came up last Summit
17:47:43 ralphm Memberbot clearly lets you proxy specific *votes*, not a carte blanche to represent members in new matters.
17:47:49 Kev Indeed.
17:48:05 pep. Zash: I don't think so? And if required I'm sure only the secretary could be told
17:48:49 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.
17:49:15 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.
17:49:16 ralphm I don't read it that way, per my email.
17:49:32 Kev Which would mean that anyone proxy voting can be represented, and all is good, with minimal change to our process or bylaws.
17:49:42 stpeter +1
17:49:52 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
17:49:59 ralphm Kev: makes sense
17:49:59 zach has left
17:50:15 ralphm stpeter: hi!
17:50:17 pep. Zash: we already trust the secretary with our proxy votes
17:50:41 larma Actually the laws also only require the secretary to know
17:50:42 emus has left
17:50:46 kokonoe has left
17:50:50 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.
17:51:15 Seve Kev: I agree
17:51:25 larma I wonder where the secretary got my phone and facsimile number from?
17:52:11 Kev larma: Except that members can request those records, IIRC. (That's from memory, I haven't checked)
17:52:13 stpeter In practice we have never gathered that information, nor have we gathered physical address.
17:52:41 Kev stpeter: Probably we should either start, or amend the Bylaws.
17:52:42 moparisthebest maybe the secretary is just extremely good at doxing people
17:52:57 pep. I say amend.
17:53:02 stpeter Kev: yes, amend.
17:53:12 Kev I think start. I don't see why every Member shouldn't be required to have a fax number.
17:53:19 ralphm Surprising 🤣
17:53:26 pep. Kev, :)
17:53:47 stpeter I have to say, this conversation includes wild speculation and some unnecessarily harsh language.
17:54:00 mukt2 has left
17:54:19 pep. stpeter, if the world was all flowers and rainbows..
17:55:03 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.
17:55:09 ralphm stpeter: quite
17:55:27 stpeter Doxing is a violent act, in my opinion.
17:55:57 pep. (I don't even know what that means.. /me looking for his translator)
17:56:05 mukt2 has joined
17:56:31 pep. oh
17:56:38 ralphm The act of researching a person and expose private details, like address, phone...
17:57:06 pep. I took that as a joke anyway
17:57:09 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
17:57:10 moparisthebest oh sorry I meant the doxing comment as a joke :)
17:57:32 stpeter In general, yes, we should review the bylaws to ensure that they are consistent with our existing practices (and of course Delaware law).
17:57:40 stpeter moparisthebest: thanks for the clarification.
17:57:54 debxwoody has joined
17:58:19 stpeter We once had someone ("Solarius") who applied to be a member without providing their real name. We'd discussed this matter before.
17:58:30 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)
17:59:09 pep. stpeter, it's come up again when passing 345 to draft. (Which is still isn't. slack off editors.)
17:59:16 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).
17:59:56 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.
18:00:12 Kev Right.
18:00:19 stpeter is off to another meeting
18:00:23 Kev Enjoy! :)
18:00:31 pep. (not?)
18:01:23 larma Some EU laws apply if the organization is actively operating in EU, and that is obviously the case.
18:01:26 zach has joined
18:01:39 sonny has left
18:02:44 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.
18:03:12 stpeter Correct.
18:03:32 eevvoor has joined
18:03:50 larma Yeah, but we should better make sure the bylaws don't effectively prohibit the XSF to interact with EU folks 😉
18:04:03 Dele (Mobile) has left
18:04:38 Kev Yes.
18:05:17 larma I don't think they do, whereas our current implementation might
18:05:34 mukt2 has left
18:06:02 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
18:08:04 mukt2 has joined
18:10:18 larma Zash, it's not about keeping records, it's about publishing them
18:12:26 debacle has left
18:19:49 sonny has joined
18:23:24 mukt2 has left
18:24:04 j.r has left
18:24:10 Chobbes has left
18:28:25 mukt2 has joined
18:29:28 sonny has left
18:29:35 sonny has joined
18:30:27 j.r has joined
18:37:38 kokonoe has joined
18:39:18 mukt2 has left
18:40:25 mukt2 has joined
18:50:37 marc_ has left
18:53:34 waqas has left
18:53:45 pdurbin has joined
18:54:29 mukt2 has left
18:55:31 mukt2 has joined
18:58:57 Nekit has joined
19:04:01 pdurbin has left
19:09:34 mukt2 has left
19:10:36 mukt2 has joined
19:20:43 aj has left
19:21:19 krauq has joined
19:24:39 mukt2 has left
19:25:40 mukt2 has joined
19:25:49 rion has left
19:25:51 rion has joined
19:30:45 marc_ has joined
19:33:47 kokonoe has left
19:34:15 mukt2 has left
19:35:06 Dele (Mobile) has joined
19:36:10 Dele (Mobile) has left
19:40:47 mukt2 has joined
19:42:21 stpeter has left
19:47:07 Douglas Terabyte has left
19:54:41 kokonoe has joined
20:01:20 mukt2 has left
20:06:32 Chobbes has joined
20:07:25 mukt2 has joined
20:14:44 mathijs has left
20:14:52 mathijs has joined
20:15:40 mathijs has left
20:15:40 mathijs has joined
20:20:43 DebXWoody has left
20:23:53 DebXWoody has joined
20:28:00 mukt2 has left
20:28:59 LNJ has left
20:29:30 mathijs has left
20:29:58 mathijs has joined
20:31:47 mukt2 has joined
20:31:47 Nekit has left
20:34:37 waqas has joined
20:34:45 waqas has left
20:34:56 waqas has joined
20:35:18 waqas has left
20:35:32 waqas has joined
20:36:32 waqas has left
20:37:09 waqas has joined
20:37:15 waqas has left
20:51:50 eevvoor has left
20:53:45 pdurbin has joined
20:58:44 waqas has joined
20:58:52 pdurbin has left
21:02:22 Maranda has left
21:02:26 Maranda has joined
21:03:44 Chobbes has left
21:05:39 Chobbes has joined
21:15:06 stpeter has joined
21:17:30 DebXWoody has left
21:34:53 Dele (Mobile) has joined
21:35:55 Dele (Mobile) has left
21:40:17 Douglas Terabyte has joined
21:53:15 alameyo has left
21:53:16 alameyo has joined
21:56:26 mukt2 has left
22:03:57 debacle has joined
22:07:25 mukt2 has joined
22:11:54 Dele (Mobile) has joined
22:13:06 Dele (Mobile) has left
22:14:29 Dele (Mobile) has joined
22:16:40 Dele (Mobile) has left
22:17:00 Dele (Mobile) has joined
22:19:05 Douglas Terabyte has left
22:23:37 mukt2 has left
22:27:24 mukt2 has joined
22:30:23 Douglas Terabyte has joined
22:31:43 Chobbes has left
22:35:02 Chobbes has joined
22:38:10 matkor has left
22:38:12 matkor has joined
22:40:32 debacle has left
22:49:45 mimi89999 has left
22:49:49 mimi89999 has joined
22:53:39 mukt2 has left
22:54:53 wurstsalat has left
22:57:24 mukt2 has joined
22:58:31 lovetox has left
23:04:36 goffi has left
23:21:18 Dele (Mobile) has left
23:21:39 kokonoe has left
23:26:57 karoshi has left
23:28:00 kokonoe has joined
23:28:17 marc_ has left
23:36:44 Tobias has left
23:45:27 andy has left
23:53:11 Zash has left
23:59:49 kokonoe has left