SeveI was not able to be here for yesterday's meeting due to my work, much to my regret. I would like to congratulate new Council&Board! Hope they give the best of them! :) Also thank you very much Alex!
debaclehas joined
GuusOn that note: Zash Daniel pep. I have created separate issues for each of you to provide a bio for our website. Be fast, or run the risk of me making one up for you 😆
Guus(I didn't miss anyone on that list, did I?)
GuusMattJ If you haven't thought about that yet: could you make sure that the relevant mailing lists (board@ is one, unsure if we have others) and github permissions are updated?
MattJYes, I have some time this afternoon, I'll do it then
Guusthanks!
Guuspep. can you confirm your Trello username? I'll add that to the Trello board for Board
MattJWhile I'm in mailman I'll see to removing the footer from standards@ unless someone has a sensible objection
Ge0rGGuus: you might be able to retrieve Daniel's bio from git history
GuusGe0rG I already suggested that in the issue
Guusunsure if Daniel wants to see it updated.
Ge0rGAh, perfect
Guusbut I provided the old text for him
Guusis trying to think of other things that need an update
Guusoh, wikipedia lists people too, I believe
goffihas joined
Guusupdated Wikipedia
Guus... anything else?
GuusUnrelated, but trying to benefit from MattJ's window of opportunity: This issue seems worthy of a redirect of sorts https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/651
lorddavidiiihas left
MattJI'll see :)
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Steve Killehas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
flowfeels like this election would have benefited from condorcet voting, something like https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/
Steve Killehas joined
flowalthough it wouldn't automtically help with ties, I think it would have helped people to express their opinion and especially from preventing them from strategic voting (cast less than 5 votes), which may be one reason why we have so many 'No' votes
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
jonas’flow, what?
jonas’I thought No just means "did not explicitly vote for them"
jonas’seems to be confirmed by yes+no always being equal to 39
jonas’(which is the number of folks who voted
jonas’(which is the number of folks who voted)
Ge0rGI was also under the impression that you only can say "yes" or "no", and not None
jonas’Ge0rG, you can "abstain" for one or more of your votes
jonas’which probably counts as one less "yes"
jonas’(and one more "no")
flowjonas’, that
flowyou are not forced to cast 5 yes votes
Ge0rGbut if "abstain" means "no", what's the difference?
jonas’Ge0rG, when you abstain, you discard one of your "yes" votes
Ge0rGaaah!
jonas’flow, ah, indeed, not everyone used their five votes
Ge0rGso you could just vote "no" for everybody
jonas’specifically, we have 12 abstainations(?!) for Board
jonas’Ge0rG, correct
jonas’and even 21 for Council
jonas’now I wonder whether I’m doing this wrong
jonas’39*5 - sum(yes votes for body)?
GuusCounting is fun.
jonas’flow, irrespective of that, yes, I also thought that we should maybe use a different system for the body elections
jonas’I’m not sure if a process geared towards finding the (one) best choice of a set of choices is correct for a thing where we elect the top N choices
jonas’voting is hard
GuusI suggest you make your case on the mailinglist, outlining benefits over the current process.
flowI just voted in the Jenkins election and they use for example civs.cs.cornell.edu
jonas’ah, they support the Schulze method
jonas’and MAM :-X
jonas’(sorry)
flowI am not saying that we should use that particular system from cornell, but condorcet voting sure seems desirable
Ge0rGIs it just me, or is every system that we usually only tangentially need, infinitely complex when looked at?
flowIt's just you and the other guy
Ge0rGPhew.
Ge0rGWho's the other guy?
Dele (Mobile)has joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
DanielYeah I suggested ranked voting *before* we actually voted
DanielAnd I'd be fine switching to something like that. Probably something new board can decide on
jonas’FTR, I have pondered this for a while and this is not in response to current results. More in response to the difficulty of casting votes though.
DanielThat said I don't see the problem with not giving away all five yes votes. If you only think four people can do the job
Daniel(yes I brought this up when we were talking about ties)
lorddavidiiihas left
flowDaniel, I don't think the rationale for casting less than five votes is not that people believe that only <5 people can do the job, but that you really want those 3 people in council
lorddavidiiihas joined
AlexGuus: have you updated mailing lists for board & council?
AlexOr should I take care of that? Not sure if I have the keys to them ;-)
COM8has joined
GuusAlex I have no access. If you can, please! If you can't either, MattJ will have a look later today.
larmahas left
ralphmI agree the 'no' counts are not really proper.
larmahas joined
kokonoehas left
pep."flow> feels like this election would have benefited from condorcet voting", I'm also in favor of Ranked-choice voting fwiw.
pep.Atm there's no way to distinguish between no and absent
Kevralphm: Not 'proper' in what sense?
KevNot optimal, or actually improper by our bylaws?
pep.Kev, in the current system there's no difference between "I don't want that person" and "I don't know"
pep.(no / blank)
KevI think that's consistent with the bylaws at the moment.
pep.Sure, that doesn't excuse it
KevWell, it does excuse the voting system, yes.
pep.That doesn't excuse the fact that we're not looking for something better
KevThe voting system does what the bylaws require of it. It's the bylaws that we want to change for a different approach, not just memberbot.
KevAnd yes, the current approach is daft, given the joint requirements of 5 people, and each having a majority vote.
lorddavidiiihas left
kokonoehas joined
larmaI tried to explain Alex yesterday why I think the voting was not conducted in compliance with bylaws. He didn't agree with my assessment on bylaws compliance but he did agree that the voting system breaks when you start to have significantly more than 5 candidates, so imo we definitely should change it before next election
COM8has left
COM8has joined
8311has joined
Alex Third, the individuals elected shall be those receiving the highest percentage of votes cast, up to the limit set by the Members and with the proviso that no individual receiving less than a majority of votes cast shall be elected.
8311has left
8311has joined
Alexlarma: Thanks for bringing it up here
Kevlarma: Yes, that's the daftness.
AlexThis section of the bylways can be an issue when we have a large pool of applicants
KevYes.
ralphmKev: I mean that we only vote 'yes' for candidates. Not 'no'.
ralphmKev: so I'd display it differently, not change the outcome.
pep.I would be willing to change it for the next elections
KevActually, I take back my previous assessment. The bylaws continue to function, it's the memberbot that's not right.
KevThe bylaws don't say that an individual is only allowed to vote 'yes' to the maximum number of people on Board/Council.
KevIf you remove that restriction from memberbot, the system continues to function with a large pool.
ralphmThat is true, we could totally have a range voting system.
KevYou don't need range voting for it to work.
KevJust an unlimited number of 'Yes' votes.
ralphmWith choices like 0 and 1, or even -1, 0, 1
KevThen 'pick the ones with the most votes, with not less than half' works.
ralphmI would personally like to have the option of explicitly expressing my disapproval of a candidate.
KevAlthough I admit that range voting might make it better.
lorddavidiiihas joined
AlexKev: how do you define less than half?
KevI think there's two questions. 1) What would make the current system non-broken (and I think it's a memberbot change, not a bylaws change) 2) what would the most appropriate system be.
ralphmAlex: if you have to vote -1, 0, or 1 for each candidate, less than half is the tally going below 0.
KevAlex: Under the current system, it's half the number of members voting.
pep.Is there any record of member not voting btw? Alex. I'm looking at §2.6
Kevvanishes back to work.
larmaIt is my interpretation of the bylaws that I must be able to vote on each candidate or decide to not vote (abstain) from the vote of each candidate
ralphmWe have indeed expelled people for not voting thrice in a row. But I think that was a long time ago.
Alexpep., yes, some where removed in the past for not voting. I don't like this rule either. Its a lot of admin work with little value for me. Because they can just get voted in again the next quarter, and this happened before
pep.I don't mind this rule. It asks for a minimum of contribution, which is really not much
ralphmThe idea here was that voting for Council, Board is just about the only obligation Members have, and if you can't even be bothered to do that three times in a row, maybe you should not be a member.
ralphmHowever, for that to work, it needs to be made visible that people did indeed get removed, so that in such next elections, voters can weigh that in their choices.
ralphm(voting for Council, Board, *and Members*)
larma> Because they can just get voted in again the next quarter
We should have a "blame list" then, so that people are aware that they were removed for that reason.
larmaWhat ralphm said 😀
ralphmWell, I think it is sufficient to notify the Members mailing list.
ralphmI don't think we should maintain a naughty list.
ralphmAlso, as I said, it has been a while since this happened.
pep.Maybe not a naughty list
pep.But a list of people who voted would make sense, alongside with the results, in small print or sth :)
ralphmMeeting minutes include a list of those present, so that should suffice.
ralphm(it includes people that voted by proxy)
pep.ah ok
ralphmE.g. see https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2019-11-21
ralphmJust for my understanding. Does anyone want to contest the current results, or are we just discussing possible improvements for future Council, Board elections?
ralphmIf the former, please let me know, so I can look into it.
COM8has left
Douglas Terabytehas left
pep.ralphm, ok these minutes are enough to me (the list of people). And personally I'm speaking about improvements for the next elections.
lskdjfhas joined
Alexboard and council election only? or are there also concerns for our quarterly membership votes?
Alexnext voting is starting soon
ZashIs now a good time to do a switcharoo with the xmpp.org Prosody?
pep.always
larmaI don't see a reason to contest the results. I brought up this issue in private to Alex after election to not mess with this election, but Alex told that without any decision from members being taken, he does not plan to change the procedure (I hope that summarizes it correctly).
(3.13) "Second, the Members shall vote on the candidates standing for election in accordance with Section 3.9 of these Bylaws." (3.9) "Each current Member of the Corporation (other than Emeritus Members) shall be entitled to one (1) vote on each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting of the Members". -> This is what makes me assume one should be able to vote on each candidate not just a set of up to 5 candidates. Also if one votes on each candidate, each candidate becomes a matter so it should be possible to abstain from voting for each candidate.
And Alex, this only affects board/council elections, I think membership votes are perfectly fine (it's clear that every member is one matter to vote on).
pep.Well I could also see a different voting system for members, someone might still want to say no explicitely
ralphmYou already choose yes or no for each member application
pep.(do I? I had my mind mixed up in council/board stuff..)
ralphmAhem
larmaI think the main issue is that the memberbot does not give the full flexibility of voting. But legally it is not required to, because Alex as a proxy can legally only accept whatever he wants and also he can legally completely ignore your memberbot wishes and instead vote something else for you.
ralphmNo
Douglas Terabytehas joined
8311hello world
8311has left
ralphmIf the Membership would like to change how memberbot works for Board, Council elections, they can take a vote on this, and then Alex will happily comply.
ralphmAnd of course someone needs to change the code.
Tracer(Traceur)has left
Tracer aka SpaceFreakhas left
debaclehas left
AlexYes, I am also happy to use some other services like CIVS if we think they are a better solution for us. Or Webforms or whatever we come up with
SpaceFreakhas left
SpaceFreakhas joined
pdurbinhas left
larmaI personally would rather prefer to get rid of memberbot for voting and instead
a) have people vote during the meeting as it is intended
b) have people pick any proxy to vote for them during the meeting if they cannot attend. This can be any other member that is present during the meeting, we don't need to bother Alex with that.
Our member meetings are basically useless because they cannot be used for what they are intended (you cannot bring up things for discussion or vote during the meeting, but have to bring up every matter to vote on before the memberbot started). It shouldn't be the default to vote by proxy, it should be the exception for when people are not able to make it to the members meeting (which only happens one time a year and is announced way in advance, so most should be able to make it even in different timezones). Member meetings should be where members meet (and not only 10% of them)
Maybe we should even have the annual members meeting during the XSF Summit so that many members are already at the same physical location?
Yagizahas left
ZashNeeding to bring up things for voting way in advance is a good thing
larmaZash, I agree, but it still should be possible to do so in the meeting. Also the exact thing to vote on could be the result of a discussion in the meeting
debaclehas joined
ralphmlarma: I don't any of this as a problem
ralphmI don't see
Alexonly a small percentage of the members attend the summit. Members are distrubuted all over the world, and also are busy in their day jobs. I do not expect them all to join the meeting. This is also why we have proxy voting
pep.Alex, there are different ways to do proxy voting
ralphmlarma: I agree with Zash here. It would be *very* good to plan ahead if you need to bring something up with the membership. Also, if needed, we can have additional meetings for topics during the year.
larmaAlex, "small percentage", more than attend the member meetings right now
pep.ralphm, while I agree that bringing matters early is good, I don't like that the current implementation prevents bringing anything at all while memberbot is started. (Maybe not "at all", but it's impractical)
ralphmAlso, we don't need the annual meeting to bring up topics. This is why we have a members mailinglist, and this room, and why our board meetings are open for all, etc.
debaclehas left
ralphmpep. I have not yet seen a case where this has been a problem, and I prefer addressing problems after we've actually identified them.
ralphmOr rather, actually encountered them.
Ge0rGWe do have five membership votes each year. It would be easy to add things to vote on into the next one.
gavhas left
Ge0rGAnd to discuss them in advance on members@
jubalhhas left
Alexya, this is wat we have done in the past. At max it takes 3 month to get a change approved and into a vote. 3 month should not be an issue
pep.3 months is a bit long tbh :/
ralphmcome on
pep.isn't it?
ralphmwhat thing needs changing that runs into this
ralphmI've followed a bunch of discussions in here lately, and I feel people are in search for problems where there aren't any.
pep.It will depend on the issue for sure, but once there is some kind of consensus on list I don't see why 3 months is required. If somebody has an issue they can reply to the thread before a vote is decided
ZashIssues of the sort you need to get through a member vote should not be rushed
ralphmThis takes up a lot of time, without a clear benefit. We don't have to strife for perfection, just because we can.
gavhas joined
pep.Also I don't see a point in attaching votes to regular meetings, as mentioned above it's not necessary
ralphmWell, I'd certainly don't see a reason to have *more* meetings, especially for the hypothetical cases we seem to be discussing.
ralphmLet's first have an actual problem?
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
SpaceFreak> much room
rooms
jubalhhas joined
fippohas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
fippohas joined
waqashas left
SpaceFreakhas left
flowAlex, may I suggest to also put the list of members who did *not* vote into the meeting minutes? That would increase transparency and allow easier checking for a three-times not voted streak. This information is already publicly available, just not in a single place
flowand I assume memberbot has that list already
ralphmflow: which problem are we solving?
flowralphm, make it easier for everyone to determine if the rule is followed
flowright now I have to get a list of the members at the time (from the website, out of the git, not sure if this is accurate), then the list of the members who voted from the minutes and create the list of members who did not vote
flowthat I have to do for the last three times, and see if a name/jid appears all three times
SpaceFreak aka Tracer> ralphm, make it easier for everyone to determine if the rule is followed
ralphmIs it because you think we have missed expelling people?
flowralphm, no, I just like transparency and verify things, not to blame anyone, mistakes happens
flowand this seems like a low hanging fruit to increase the XSF's tranparency
sonnyhas left
flowas the list probably exists in memberbot already, it should be easy to add it to the meeting minutes
flowand it's also not leaking any data, as the data to construct the list exists publicly already
ralphmTransparency is great. I also think there is a) underestimation on what fixing such hanging fruit means in terms on work, b) a lot of actual work that that volunteer time could actually be put to use for.
ralphmTransparency is great. I also think there is a) underestimation on what fixing such hanging fruit means in terms of work, b) a lot of actual work that that volunteer time could actually be put to use for.
lorddavidiiihas joined
Alexflow, in order to do that we would more data in the memberlist which we maintain in the website repo. Jids would have to be added. People have multiple jids, and sometimes vote from difefrent ids
flowsurely the memberbot has a list of jids allowed to vote, and definelty a list of jids who voted, so creating the complement should be trivial
jubalhhas left
SpaceFreak aka TracerAlex: i dint want that my JID is public on the web
flowAlex, so memberbot does currently not run with the complete list of member JIDs?
Alexand this is where the transparency stops ;-)
SpaceFreak aka Tracerade` transpiranyc cuz any random kek can get my jid out of the web
SpaceFreak aka TracerAlex: my words
flowI would assumed that there is a single memberlist including one jid per member acting as truth somewhere, which is used as input for the memberbot
Alexflow, no, memberbot does not have the capability to compile this list. You can find memberbots code here: https://github.com/legastero/memberbot
ralphmflow: my point is that the XSF doesn't need to be perfect, IMHO. The information is out there, but maybe not in an optimal form. If you really care about it, write a script to compile the information in a way you think is better.
ralphmI'd much rather focus on XMPP itself, then get multiple people bogged down to solve cosmetic issues in our procedures.
ralphmI'd much rather focus on XMPP itself, than get multiple people bogged down to solve cosmetic issues in our procedures.
SpaceFreak aka Tracerralphm: i count that Jabber is 1A for communications
Alexralphm, 👍
lorddavidiiihas left
GuusFor the record, I'm agreeing with ralphm largely. If we're not suffering from serious ill effects, we should consider limiting the amount of effort that goes into changing/optimizing processes.
flowralphm, well I don't intent to add extra work on other people, but if someone motiviated to put effort into this, why not make it better?
SpaceFreak aka Tracerflow: because no one asked for improvement
jubalhhas joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracermay be its ok how it is now
SpaceFreak aka Tracerget some other topic flow
flowOpen source development is largely about first finding consensus how to approach, and then finding someone to implement it, not about having other people fix your issues if they don't want to
SpaceFreak aka Tracer> no one asked for improvement
GuusThat's not quite right, SpaceFreak aka Tracer - I've seen various members suggest changes.
Guusso it's definitely not 'no-one' that asks for this
SpaceFreak aka TracerGuus: well users arent admins so :fart:
flowSo if we have consensus how this can be improved, and someone is willing to put effort into it and improve it, why stop him?
GuusI think it's important to listen to everyone - even more so as the people that I've seen ask stuff are members of the XSF, and highly active members at that.
Guusflow - for my part, we don't spend any effort on it. If there's a strong feeling amongst membership that we should, then I'll happily oblige.
jonas’
jonas’~
jonas’(sorry, that was me trying to get ssh to disconnect because wifi outage)
gavhas left
flowGuus, I probably didn't express myself very well, I am sorry for that. My point was mostly that people don't have to oblige to anything, or spend time doing someting. You do not even have to particpate in the discussion(s). But as soon as we have consensus that e.g., the list if non-votes in the meeting minutes is desirable, and someone is willing to put in some effort/time and make the necessary adjustments, then there is no reason to not do it. Or am I wrong?
Guusflow I was just saying that if it were up to me, we'd not apply many of the changes that I feel are maybe an improvement, but don't really add value. If a good deal of the membership thinks differently, then (board hat on) I'd happily conform to the wishes of the membership.
Guusin other words: I'll happily carry out the wishes of the membership, even if I don't think certain changes are needed.
Guusbut as I don't see much added value in some of the things that have been discussed recently, I'll not spend to much time on it, unless instructed to.
lorddavidiiihas joined
Guus(I'm happy and comfortable to recognize that I sometimes disagree with others)
flowOk, I wasn't expecting that board members need to state that they will carry out whishes of the membership if they do not see any harm in doing so.
GuusI'm not sure if I understand that last sentence 🙂
mukt2has joined
gavhas joined
GuusIf I see _harm_ in doing so, I'll try and stop whatever it is, or step down from board.
flowGuus, I feel it's normal and nothing that needed to be stated explicitly that you agree to stuff that you do not disagree with
GuusWhat we're talking about here is not something that I think is harmful - it's rather a poor return on investment.
flowexactly, so you have no incentive to block it, and if someone else feels like it is helpful and does the work, why stop him
GuusI'm thinking we're basically saying the same thing, but misunderstanding each-others words?
flowprobably
Guusgood. Back to work with me then 🙂
KevI hear that people in the XSF tend to use very complicated English. That's probably why.
sonnyhas joined
GuusWhat, no tripple negatives? Who are you and what did you do to Kev?
KevIt's a good question.
GuusI have _the best_ questions
Guus(ok, back to work with me)
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pep."cosmetic issues", ralphm, I'd like have this piece of mind and think that's just comestic issues.
COM8has joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas left
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas joined
SpaceFreak aka TracerKev: or complicated formulation + deepl.com translate ;-) (no shit)
SpaceFreak aka Tracer> good. Back to work with me then 🙂
zurück zur arbeit mit mir? sounds exactly like german right?
pep.Also, "lot of actual work that that volunteer time could actually be put to use for", maybe we could make it so that "The Secretary" is a team instead. (as in bring in more people, or people with more time, or actually pay people.)
COM8has left
COM8has joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracerpep., flow: you can(should) take part but not like : "use my code now"
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
COM8has left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
flowI guess the takeway is that it does not matter (as board member) if you think something is not worth the effort, but not really harmful either, if it is someone else who is volunteering to do the work. And I guess board shouldn't try to manage the volunteer resources, because in volunteer organizations you can't instruct people how to spend their time, they will spend their time as they wish anyways (which usually yields the best results)
LNJhas joined
Ge0rGthat is a good summary
pep.There is still a foundation to run though :/
pep.flow, I agree with you for the most part, minus ^
flowpep., to be frank, I have to idea how much time and effort goes into running the foundation. could be a bank account and a post box somewhere which one person once in a while checks
flowand, as far as I can tell, and while we had and have some issues, e.g., finding a treasurer, running the foundation seems to work
pep.https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0313.html#filter is anything extending these 3 fields already? "Other fields may be used, but are not defined in this document"
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
Holgerejabberd has an additional field to search the body text FWIW.
pep.non-standard?
HolgerYeah.
HolgerThere's no standard field for that purpose.
MattJI didn't know that. I was planning to write a XEP for search
jonas’search for "This message is OMEMO encrypted"?
lovetoxpep., yes its standard
lovetoxthere is no need to register fields
MattJThe problem is that plain text search is boring, and advanced search varies by implementation
jonas’Holger, your client is incorrectly completing my nickname (assuming that you used features of your client to generate that `jonas'`)
MattJI think registering something standard for boring search would be a good start
Zash"how to buy a tunnel boring machine"
Holgerjonas': You told me so in the past, and we still haven't switched to UTF-8.
HolgerAll I can do is try my best not to talk to you in the meantime :-)
pep.lovetox, I see. That disrupts my plans a bit..
MattJpep., what plans?
ZashWhat what
pep.One struct to rule them all
jonas’Holger, ah, I knew I told someone, but I didn’t know whom :)
pep.If I can't statically know in advance
MattJYou can if the additional fields have disco features too
pep.MattJ, you tell my compiler to do the disco to run against your code? :P
pep.So it generates a struct that matches and then every client use it
lovetoxMattJ, for what if i can request them via IQ?
pep.I'll have to do that differently
MattJpep., you can't implement what you don't understand in that kind of system anyway, so why bother?
lovetoxthese are custom searches, you are not going to request mam messages automatically on connect
MattJJust implement the standard ones in your struct
pep.MattJ, but I don't want to prevent people from querying more
MattJWell you do
pep.So I'll need to allow for optional fields
MattJor you wouldn't be trying to define such things at compile time :)
pep.it's a matter of adding another attribute `moar_fields: Vec<Field>`, but that's a bit ugly
davidhas joined
jonas’pep., in aioxmpp, there are two layers: you can either access the raw fields (Vec<Field>) with helper methods, or you can use a declarative form wrapper around the original data to access it more sanely
jonas’(including stuff like validation)
pep.hmm. I could do that I guess
jonas’this type of two-layer approach also helps with applications which need to operate on things more generically (since it provides an individual uniform interface on both layers)
jonas’and if you make the declarative layer easy enough, it’s also extensible for proprietary (or simply new) extensions
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
pep.https://dpaste.de/Zyeq that's what I have in mind. Or a mix of both or..
pep.The current design is meh because most used options aren't validated
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas joined
paulhas joined
APachhas joined
mukt2has joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas left
Calvinhas joined
APachhas left
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas joined
mukt2has left
alexishas left
Calvinhas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Zashhas left
Calvinhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
Calvinhas left
Calvinhas joined
debaclehas left
pdurbinhas left
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas left
kokonoehas left
davidhas left
Zashhas joined
Calvinhas left
Calvinhas joined
pep.In the end I think I'll have almost the same design as the original, with `form: Option<Into<DataForm>>`, providing a helper struct with common options.
COM8has joined
Tobiashas left
Dele (Mobile)has left
Tobiashas joined
kokonoehas joined
COM8has left
Calvinhas left
Calvinhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Danielhas left
COM8has joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas joined
zukzukhas left
Nekithas left
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas left
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
mukt2has joined
Danielhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
COM8has left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
COM8has joined
Calvinhas left
Calvinhas joined
calvinhas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas left
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas joined
APachhas joined
Calvinhas left
Calvinhas joined
calvinhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
marc_has joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
COM8has left
Calvinhas left
goffihas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
calvinhas left
edhelasit's crazy the amount of <presences> messages that a client is receiving overall
edhelascompared to <iq> and <message>
marc_has left
mukt2has left
calvinhas joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas left
Steve Killehas left
APachhas left
Steve Killehas joined
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
calvinhas left
SpaceFreak aka Tracerhas left
Calvinhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
marc_has joined
mukt2has joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Calvinhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
adiaholichas left
kokonoehas left
MattJIt would be nice to do some analysis some time and figure out what the stanzas are, at a high level
MattJe.g. what percentage of them are actual user-initiated presence changes (my guess is a very small fraction)
MattJand of the rest, figure out if they can be reduced
waqasWhat do you expect them to be?
MattJStupid noise, disconnects/reconnects and stuff
jubalhhas joined
MattJCSI makes it less of a problem, but fixing issues at the source would be better
MattJMaybe there isn't a problem. But I bet there is :)
MattJThere's rarely a time I look at a real-life XMPP stream and don't find something weird happening
MattJThat's the reality of such a diverse network, but it would be good to fix any obvious issues
pdurbinhas joined
APachhas joined
waqasI suspect in practice the fix would be servers selectively dropping/merging stanzas
kokonoehas joined
waqasAnd the tradeoff would be more state for the server, and slightly more expensive stanza processing, leading to less bandwidth/battery usage for clients.
XSF Discussion - 2019-11-22