XSF Discussion - 2019-11-14

Neustradamus please give full access to ralphm at least

there, I tried it, we'll see what happens: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6600654130799304704

That's not visible without submitting to LinkedIn

submit what?

you mean that's another Walled Garden? yes, it is... but the people we want to reach out to are there

nyco, submit yourself

right

I once got a contact invitation from a person I was very interested in a business contact with. After registering on LI and actually talking to them it turned out that we both fell for LI dark patterns

Most of the people who "are there" aren't there by active choice but because they were tricked into it. Just saying. No action required.

Ge0rG: LI is like an international xing?

!XSF_Martin: yes, but less ethical.

Xing is ethical?

!XSF_Martin: that's not what I said

If it is more ethical than something else means it's not not ethical. 😃

Dunno, didn't log in in years I guess.

Now I want to hear 'eaten' 'my one desire my only wish is to be EAATEEEEN'

I thought Xing was "eaten" by LinkedIn ✏

!XSF_Martin: your conclusion is wrong. Even among two unethical entities, one can be less ethical than the other.

-10000 < -1000 is true, not just -10000 < 2

It's not a binary property, unless you are part of a fundamental religious group (which is unethical in its own ways)

If you mean that ethics are fluid and subjective, sure.

Ge0rG, jonas’: Than I would rather say xing is less unethical than li if both are negative. 😃

!XSF_Martin: which would mean that xing is better, whereas what I said means that LI is worse.

https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/981/is-double-positive-meaning-negative-a-common-phenomenon

Ge0rG, "even less ethical" would’ve worked to convey that

jonas’: thanks, didn't think of that

jonas’: That's the best way to express this I think. 😃

FYI: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Social_Media

How would clients using multi-item PEP nodes (such as for Bookmarks 2) handle the case where the number of bookmarks exceeds the max pubsub#max_items value the server accepts? "Dear user, you can't add this room without ditching another?"

badly, for sure

But then you're asking for infinite storage? (if it's not for bookmarks2 it'll be for something else)

Think pubsub nodes in movim/sàt (communities)

edhelas, goffi ^ (how) do you handle that?

Holger: the server should refuse adding new items in such a case, with a proper error, and clients should display that to the user

I would've thought this is not just an academic issue as many (non-recent?) servers won't accept pubsub#max_items > 1 or > 10 or so. Movim/Sàt always required servers with good PubSub support, clients joining rooms didn't.

Ge0rG: Awesome UX.

Holger, anybody can use a movim instance.. I can join with my crappy server config and still be able to post something on microblog :P

Also https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-October/036503.html

pep.: I forgot whether

Holger: not sure if sarcastic

pep.: I forgot whether Movim uses PEP nodes (at least for comments), where the limits are often way more restrictive.

Holger, it depends on the user's account

For communities it depends on the pubsub server that's being used?

Ge0rG: I'm just unsure whether the advantages of Bookmarks 2 really outweigh this downside right now. But I get how multi-item PEP is the new hot thing, and I get how it's nicer in theory.

Holger: yes

Holger, I would expect clients to not use bookmarks 2 before servers expose the urn:xmpp:bookmarks:0#compat disco#info feature.

And servers with a limit of ten bookmarks shouldn’t advertise this feature.

Prosody’s current limit is 255 items, which does feel low (I’m at 100+ already) but should be usable for most people.

What Holger asks though doesn't just apply to bookmarks2

People only using XMPP as chat are just now starting to realize it's an issue but it has always been there

Any news for an XMPP planet and that I have requested since several years ago?

Any news about Linkedin?

scroll up

What is the request? Change the name?

Yes, I remember ten years ago when I was working on a blogging engine and had to write my own PubSub component because Ejabberd’s didn’t provide me the features I needed.

pep.: If you follow here, you have seen ;)

wow, stuff happened

January 1999: Jabber is born October 2004: Jabber has been renamed to XMPP: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920 October 2006: Jabber Enhancement Proposals (JEPs) -> XMPP Extension Protocols (XEPs) January 2007: Jabber Software Foundation -> XMPP Standards Foundation Now, maybe after several years of battle, planet.jabber.org will be move to planet.xmpp.org?

and jabber.org... what should happen to that?

CNAME it to matrix.org

jabber.org is not XSF, isn't it

Nor is planet.jabber.org

Correct (to both)

Then Neustradamus the request would be to ask the XSF to have its own planet

which duplicates one that already exists, so I'm guessing the XSF will decide not to :)

Planet X?

There's one already!

Does it help facilitate discussion or manage XEP development? If not, hard to see how it should be run by the XSF.

Weeell, that could be debatable, but I see your point.

There is a difference between jabber and xmpp that nobody wants to acknowledge

Who's this 'nobody'?

Jabber is the company name that was sold to Cisco, and XMPP is the protocol name? :p

zash: that is unclear but he shot jack beauregard

Ge0rG, enlighten us

Seve: jabber is the federated IM network based on the XMPP protocol. Also a Cisco trademark

Something something "jabber" more community than the protocol

I'd limit Jabber to Jabber Inc. fwiw, and XMPP to the protocol. The rest is just confusion to me ✏

pep.: because you are not part of the huge jabber user base, which mainly happens on other continents

not sure I understand

Ge0rG, even in France there are a lot of Jabber users.

People who will look at you as if you spoke Greek to them if you tell them about XMPP.

There's no battle over Planet Jabber, by the way. Just a difference of opinion, Neustradamus.

pep.: play a bit with https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=xmpp,jabber

Ge0rG, yes, confusion :P

Ge0rG the problem is "jabber" is a common language term

People saying Jabber when they're actually using XMPP

pep.: in Russia for example, almost nobody knows "xmpp" but many tech people know "jabber"

pep.: you "are using xmpp" when you develop an IoT middleware. You "are using jabber" when you do XMPP-federated IM

I've had the "Oh! You mean Jabber" response multiple times

there is confusion indeed, that's why I often use both, as "Jabber/XMPP" or "XMPP/Jabber", and afaik it kind of works

MattJ, I have too. That doesn't mean..

from a range of different people

Jabber? that old thing for chat?

Is what people tell me

That ^

pep., trying to define these words in this chatroom is like writing a dictionary that doesn't reflect real world language

Speaking of hosting. Our MLs are hosted on mail.jabber.org, is that wrong as well?

Many people still actively use Jabber, and yes, as far as they are concerned it is a 20 year-old thing (but still functional)

and generally Pidgin is the best way to connect to it, in my experience

MattJ, sure it's not what I'm saying

pep.: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2017-July/008586.html didn't went very far, unfortunately

Luckily, this is all off-topic for the XSF, and there is no other organization tasked with making XMPP-based IM more popular.

So the whole discussion is moot.

Unless, you know, somebody founds a Jabber Software Foundation and gets appropirate permits from the XSF.

that's just a can of worms

With Jabber in the name

Agreed

I'd love to revive Jabber as an end-user term, but I don't think it can happen

Or funds a giant marketing campaign to let everybody and their aunt know that XMPP-based IM is now known as Xubber.

When I'm talking with technical persons, I prefer to use XMPP. If I talk with "normal" users, I prefer to use jabber, because I have the feeling it is easier from them.

Ge0rG, I'd vote for that rather (name TBD)

DebXWoody: it's also easier to pronounce

for me: XMPP is to Jabber what HTTP+HTML+JS+CSS is to the web

pep.: I said "fund", not "vote"

reality is, most users of xmpp IM actually know it as "jabber"

And jabber has all that bagage that I'm not ready to take on (esp. Cisco)

we can face that reality and do the best we can with the trademark rights we have, or abandon all the brand value

Everytime somebody pronounces jabber that's one more coin for the trademark jar

pep.: you can buy a license once you've got 500 coins together.

Or the free advertizing for Cisco. However you want to call it

Cisco doesn't have exclusive rights. We are just all too RMSsy to use our part

'Normal people' usually know neither jabber nor xmpp. Only one guy said 'oh no, you're using Cisco jabber' as he is forced to use that at work.

They do have a product named Jabber. And they also have unlimited resources* (compared to the XSF or anybody in this room) ✏

pep.: yes. Let's use "Ex-Em-Pee-Pee based federated Eye-Am chat network" as our end-user-facing term then.

Ge0rG, I understand all you're saying. This is not being RMSsy this is being cautious

(whatever RMSsy would mean)

(I guess it doesn't mean "cautious")

pep.: religious about FLOSS-style Openness of everything

I don't think that's the reason

Ge0rG, yeah no that's not my reason, at least

MattJ: https://www.jabber.org/: Jabber.org is the original IM service based on XMPP and one of the key nodes on the XMPP network. It is based on Isode M-Link, you know it ;) I hope an upgrade too, like the OS, there are some tickets about compatibility problems.

And please note that the planet.jabber.org speaks about XMPP.

For French people, the problem is that some people speak always about Jabber instead of XMPP. Example, in 2012, the creation of a french "Loi 1901" association for the XMPP promotion with the old name. -> http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/association/index.php?ctx=eJxtyjEKwyAUANB*FHHt4FeqaLcQKGRphriL2F9SSNUaW!jte4G8!YUNHg3CN0Pc95IgvCGVVkuLnURvRBfuSxVjuZNf6UUCUSMiZ!yo!V8lFnMuOZEYlmUep8FP840fbQ4hwUmi0xbPShptjXESrXIQ1me*frYNlIY*3JMyIg__&page=15&JTH_ID=005000&JTY_ID=ASSOCIATION

well, there is JabberFr.org, and still no xmppFr.org :)

The way French people speak is weird either way.

Oui baguette.

das ist "true"

And please do not forget that I have requested the XMPPFR name for this association before the creation ;)

we may forget :)

Neustradamus, this association exists since 2003.

It was just a de facto association until 2012, at which point we officialised it to give us more resources (notably a bank account).

and the right to go to jail... :/

(we'll bring you oranges, don't worry...)

Board meeting time

Hello, how are you?

The domain name jabberfr.org can exist but without to be an association ;)

/bangs gavel

0. Welcome + Agenda

Hi all

Who do we have

o/

🙋

.

Any additional items?

None here

I would like to add an item

specifically the "Post-Election Hand-Over Phase" email to members@ from 2019-11-07

https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2019-November/009028.html

Noted

1. Minute taker

...

sorry, I have to leave in a minute

I'm explicitly not volunteering, I don't have time today

:'(

ok

give it to me

but one "minute", not more... :)

Thank you nyco.

2. Post-Election Hand-Over Phase

Just moving the date of the hand-over phase is a bit silly: we should define what we expect to happen between the election, and the handover.

I think this is a good idea in itself.

I don't really see the need for it, myself

Practically, one of the issues is that it requires modification of our Bylaws, I believe.

The start of a term currently coincides with the annual meetings

And in previous years where this has come up, we said that this time of year is better to start work than January 1

please follow and contribute: https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/qn9jumhvzk-2019-11-14-xsf-board-weekly-meeting

I can see how Jan 1st would have a lot of people absent.

Well, it could be the start of the period

I'm a bit ambiguous. What's the pragmatic solution we're looking for? What does this solve exactly?

Jan 1st is a bad idea: in northern hemispehere, it's cold, motivation down, nights are long, and... hangover

I guess a handover is more needed in the Council

There have been 20 handovers now? Did we ever run into issues, or anticipate issues in the future?

Not really.

Usually there's a bunch of overlap.

Also, old Directors have been more than willing to help resolve ongoing issues.

I don't really mind changing it (although I'd dislike having to go through the hoops of getting the Bylaws changed), but I'm not seeing a need for it myself.

a handover/overlap does not have to be strict

FWIW, the main problem the Council has with "zero handover" is that some votes are terminated and re-run. I'd have thought that continuity in Board is a more pressing issue with the abrupt handover.

isn't it good to restart a vote with a new council?

But it's not like it's a surprise, the election date is set far in advance

I meant overlap as in the diff between Directors in subsequent terms being small.

So don't start votes before the election date?

To be clear, the Council situation is not a problem for me.

yes, I remember, but I may be wrong, that we discussed in the past avoiding 100% of the board renewed at a new election, rigth?

Generally, in all orgs I have served with, people tend to not take on larger things as their term nears completion.

If this solves an issue that we're suffering for, we should apply changes. If this is more of a theoretical exercise, I'm not in favor of spending effort on it.

MattJ: Last Calls have a very dynamic runtime, depending on how soon Council members cast their votes

Guus: agreed

yes, the cost of changing the bylaws is quite high

Ge0rG, they are limited in length though, right? 2 weeks?

Ge0rG: this is current practice, not what it is supposed to be. AFAIK, Council has 2 weeks to make judgement?

Maybe Council could discuss this issue?

As I can't talk for them

MattJ: a Last Call vote is cast, and can go up to two weeks. Then there is the at-least-two-weeks Last Call period, and then there is a Council vote to advance, which can take up to two weeks

Seve: maybe, but procedurally, XEP-0001 makes Board responsible for Council's process. Of course with their imput.

input

MattJ, 2 weeks of Last Call plus 2 weeks of vote.

so we are speaking of something between three and seven weeks.

I don't see how a handover period helps

Right

This is all a good argument for Council getting their votes in quicker, of course.

Indeed

You propse that ex-Council should still be entitled to vote?

Ge0rG has this actually lead to issues before, or do we foresee issues with that?

What if new stuff comes up during handover period? Who votes on that?

> You propse that ex-Council should still be entitled to vote? Does not sound right :)

Guus: yes, Last Calls fell under the carpet multiple times in the past

sorry, I'm in a work meeting right now

>> You propse that ex-Council should still be entitled to vote? > Does not sound right :) seems fair to me as well: like in "finish stuff"?

Ge0rG: well, Council not following their own process is something we can regret, but I don't feel that we have to change procedures at this point.

Finish it before the election, or accept that the new Council takes over

I've heard a bunch of opinions, and think we can put this to a motion.

nyco: I feel is a job for the new board/council to decide on following up with past and unfinished work or not, as opinions may change with elections

-1

-1

0 is effectively -1, right?

0 is a valid choice distinct from -1

but a majority of proponents is needed to carry, right?

-1, unless a clearer proposal is drawn up, with a list of concrete benefits

It is /not/ affirmative, however, so indeed 0s don't attribute to a motion being passed

Happy to discuss my objection with anyone who still thinks this is a necessary thing to have

Seve, Guus?

It is a bit abstract in some cases, I do think as MattJ

I'm 0, with the same argument as MattJ.

-1

With 4x -1, 1x 0, this motion is rejected.

Thanks for everyone's input!

3. Web team

This was discussed in the xsf@ room earlier this week.

It basically comes down to unclarity of permissioning in GitHub

I don't think an XSF WorkTeam exists that is 'web team'. 'web team' is a group of users on Github only.

AFAIR, MattJ was going to have a look at the current GitHub teams defined for the xsf org, and adjust according to XSF Work Teams, Council, Board.

and the technical process between GitHub repo and the live website

There used to be a time where there was no comms team, and we did have people working on the web site

the website content, as far as I see it, does not belong only to commteam

Yeah

I think it'd make sense to have at least everyone in the comms team to have the ability to change the website.

This is already the case

I think it would be fair to say that we'd at least want Comms Team, Board, and other Officers, to be able to alter the website.

we're officially 4 in the commteam, two are active these days

ralphm I have no objections to that either.

Agree ralphm

And I believe that's entirely in line with instructions given to iteam in the past

Do we explicitly want to limit access to those groups though?

(eg: I got in webteam before I was on board)

open to iTeam as well

I am happy for iteam to make decisions on (temporary) exceptions, or ask board when in doubt.

nyco: iteam has access to all the things, right now, and I think that's fine

(nyco: this lists three, not four people for Comms : https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/comm-team.html)

Guus, as I said the other day, if someone wants to contribute, I don't see why they shouldn't be in commteam

ok, thx

We still accept PRs from non-members anyway, but only commteam would be able to merge them

oops

MattJ: after appointment by Board, obviously.

MattJ: indeed

Matt: I don't mind doing the occasional merge, but I don't want to be in commsteam.

Guus: nor do I :-)

(as that implies more responsibilities than that I care to take on)

MattJ (with his iteam hat on): is this sufficient instruction?

Guus, I think you should be in commteam, or not merge, or we agree that Board also has website powers

and if you lose your Board seat, you can't merge

huh... please: it's commteam, not commsteam, that may be read as "comm steam", which is wrong :)

I don't think we should have an ambiguous web team

nyco: whatever

MattJ: make it so

MattJ I don't mind having an ambiguous web team, but won't object to that no longer being the case in the future.

We agreed commteam+iteam, what about board?

I mentioned Board above. I think they should have access, but generally let the Communications Team handle PRs

Board should have I think. To speed up processes as well.

board is not ment to be an operational entity, is it?

Guus, access and responsibilities are different in my opinion

Hmmm

I don't think it should be needed to have board be able to merge, but as it's in their mandate to apply changes, I'm not against them having access either.

I think people we trust to steer the organisation we should also trust enough to give repo access to our website

Board should be able to change the website without the consent of the Communications Team, should that need arise.

Yes

Guus, note that you lose your ability to merge if we don't

:-)

I know

Ok

I think the alternative is an explicit webteam, approved by Board, chartered, whatever.

but that shouldn't drive my vote.

ok, so I think we're good

And this seems easier than that :)

Indeed

4. AOB

we already have iteam, board, commteam, let them merge PRs

(as we're already past 16:00)

commteam manages website repo, iteam and board also have permissions

wfm. Maybe ask iteam to have an explicit check/update of permissions after elections?

Expectation being that iteam generally won't, unless it's a technical thing, but have the ability, right?

(I think that currently fails)

Oh, the Mediawiki item is something for iteam, not Board.

ok

Kev: I'd say so, yes.

where should I report it then?

with iteam, MattJ is their lead

ok

5. Date of Next

+1W

+1

wfm

6. Close Thanks all!

wfm

Thanks

Super, thank you!

thx all

MattJ: our current Mediawiki version is unsupported, it would be nice to upgrade soon-ish, no pressure, no hurry, just to avoid some worries

Yeah, thanks, it's on my radar

thx

please review the minutes draft before I send it: https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/qn9jumhvzk-2019-11-14-xsf-board-weekly-meeting?lang=fr

So it's great stuff gets decided etc., as a newbie where can I learn about all that (starting in the xsf). Should we task each team or board or.. To write this down somewhere when something gets changed? ✏

(I'm happy the website situation got "clarified" :))

Hi. regarding Jingle XEP. If some action doesn't explicitly state "action is used to add one or more new content definitions to the session", does it mean it's applicable to just one content definition?

Who is behind @xmpp@fosstodon.org on mastodon?

MattJ: i guess the 404 guy

404.city

nyco? https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Social_Media#Mastodon_.28experiment.29

Ah, good