XSF Discussion - 2019-11-22

  1. karoshi has left

  2. alexis has joined

  3. debacle has left

  4. mukt2 has joined

  5. Calvin has joined

  6. matkor has left

  7. andy has left

  8. matkor has joined

  9. mukt2 has left

  10. stpeter has joined

  11. Calvin has left

  12. calvin has joined

  13. stpeter has left

  14. stpeter has joined

  15. Calvin has joined

  16. stpeter has left

  17. pdurbin has joined

  18. neshtaxmpp has joined

  19. pdurbin has left

  20. calvin has left

  21. calvin has joined

  22. Daniel has left

  23. Calvin has left

  24. krauq has left

  25. krauq has joined

  26. stpeter has joined

  27. Calvin has joined

  28. Daniel has joined

  29. UṣL has left

  30. alexis has left

  31. alexis has joined

  32. lskdjf has left

  33. Calvin has left

  34. Calvin has joined

  35. stpeter has left

  36. Calvin has left

  37. Calvin has joined

  38. Daniel has left

  39. neshtaxmpp has left

  40. neshtaxmpp has joined

  41. matkor has left

  42. Daniel has joined

  43. matkor has joined

  44. andrey.g has joined

  45. Yagiza has joined

  46. Calvin has left

  47. Calvin has joined

  48. pdurbin has joined

  49. pdurbin has left

  50. Daniel has left

  51. matkor has left

  52. matkor has joined

  53. Calvin has left

  54. Calvin has joined

  55. calvin has left

  56. alexis has left

  57. alexis has joined

  58. pdurbin has joined

  59. pdurbin has left

  60. pdurbin has joined

  61. Daniel has joined

  62. Calvin has left

  63. Calvin has joined

  64. Calvin has left

  65. Calvin has joined

  66. matkor has left

  67. matkor has joined

  68. Nekit has joined

  69. adiaholic has left

  70. adiaholic has joined

  71. Daniel has left

  72. Calvin has left

  73. andy has joined

  74. Daniel has joined

  75. Douglas Terabyte has left

  76. waqas has joined

  77. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  78. adiaholic has left

  79. adiaholic has joined

  80. pdurbin has left

  81. lorddavidiii has joined

  82. pdurbin has joined

  83. Nekit has left

  84. Nekit has joined

  85. Nekit has left

  86. Nekit has joined

  87. sonny has left

  88. sonny has joined

  89. j.r has left

  90. sonny has left

  91. sonny has joined

  92. j.r has joined

  93. winfried has left

  94. winfried has joined

  95. rion has left

  96. rion has joined

  97. Daniel has left

  98. pdurbin has left

  99. winfried has left

  100. winfried has joined

  101. Daniel has joined

  102. winfried has left

  103. winfried has joined

  104. pdurbin has joined

  105. j.r has left

  106. j.r has joined

  107. adiaholic has left

  108. adiaholic has joined

  109. wurstsalat has joined

  110. Daniel has left

  111. mimi89999 has left

  112. karoshi has joined

  113. mimi89999 has joined

  114. jubalh has joined

  115. adiaholic has left

  116. adiaholic has joined

  117. lorddavidiii has left

  118. Douglas Terabyte has left

  119. winfried has left

  120. winfried has joined

  121. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  122. kokonoe has left

  123. sonny has left

  124. sonny has joined

  125. kokonoe has joined

  126. winfried has left

  127. winfried has joined

  128. adiaholic has left

  129. adiaholic has joined

  130. Daniel has joined

  131. alameyo has left

  132. alameyo has joined

  133. lorddavidiii has joined

  134. adiaholic has left

  135. adiaholic has joined

  136. UṣL has joined

  137. Daniel has left

  138. Daniel has joined

  139. mathijs has left

  140. mathijs has joined

  141. Seve

    I 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!

  142. debacle has joined

  143. Guus

    On 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 😆

  144. Guus

    (I didn't miss anyone on that list, did I?)

  145. Guus

    MattJ 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?

  146. MattJ

    Yes, I have some time this afternoon, I'll do it then

  147. Guus


  148. Guus

    pep. can you confirm your Trello username? I'll add that to the Trello board for Board

  149. MattJ

    While I'm in mailman I'll see to removing the footer from standards@ unless someone has a sensible objection

  150. Ge0rG

    Guus: you might be able to retrieve Daniel's bio from git history

  151. Guus

    Ge0rG I already suggested that in the issue

  152. Guus

    unsure if Daniel wants to see it updated.

  153. Ge0rG

    Ah, perfect

  154. Guus

    but I provided the old text for him

  155. Guus is trying to think of other things that need an update

  156. Guus

    oh, wikipedia lists people too, I believe

  157. goffi has joined

  158. Guus

    updated Wikipedia

  159. Guus

    ... anything else?

  160. Guus

    Unrelated, 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

  161. lorddavidiii has left

  162. MattJ

    I'll see :)

  163. Tobias has left

  164. Tobias has joined

  165. Steve Kille has left

  166. lorddavidiii has joined

  167. flow

    feels like this election would have benefited from condorcet voting, something like https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/

  168. Steve Kille has joined

  169. flow

    although 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

  170. mathijs has left

  171. mathijs has joined

  172. jonas’

    flow, what?

  173. jonas’

    I thought No just means "did not explicitly vote for them"

  174. jonas’

    seems to be confirmed by yes+no always being equal to 39

  175. jonas’

    (which is the number of folks who voted

  176. jonas’

    (which is the number of folks who voted)

  177. Ge0rG

    I was also under the impression that you only can say "yes" or "no", and not None

  178. jonas’

    Ge0rG, you can "abstain" for one or more of your votes

  179. jonas’

    which probably counts as one less "yes"

  180. jonas’

    (and one more "no")

  181. flow

    jonas’, that

  182. flow

    you are not forced to cast 5 yes votes

  183. Ge0rG

    but if "abstain" means "no", what's the difference?

  184. jonas’

    Ge0rG, when you abstain, you discard one of your "yes" votes

  185. Ge0rG


  186. jonas’

    flow, ah, indeed, not everyone used their five votes

  187. Ge0rG

    so you could just vote "no" for everybody

  188. jonas’

    specifically, we have 12 abstainations(?!) for Board

  189. jonas’

    Ge0rG, correct

  190. jonas’

    and even 21 for Council

  191. jonas’

    now I wonder whether I’m doing this wrong

  192. jonas’

    39*5 - sum(yes votes for body)?

  193. Guus

    Counting is fun.

  194. jonas’

    flow, irrespective of that, yes, I also thought that we should maybe use a different system for the body elections

  195. 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

  196. jonas’

    voting is hard

  197. Guus

    I suggest you make your case on the mailinglist, outlining benefits over the current process.

  198. flow

    I just voted in the Jenkins election and they use for example civs.cs.cornell.edu

  199. jonas’

    ah, they support the Schulze method

  200. jonas’

    and MAM :-X

  201. jonas’


  202. flow

    I am not saying that we should use that particular system from cornell, but condorcet voting sure seems desirable

  203. Ge0rG

    Is it just me, or is every system that we usually only tangentially need, infinitely complex when looked at?

  204. flow

    It's just you and the other guy

  205. Ge0rG


  206. Ge0rG

    Who's the other guy?

  207. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  208. adiaholic has left

  209. adiaholic has joined

  210. Daniel

    Yeah I suggested ranked voting *before* we actually voted

  211. Daniel

    And I'd be fine switching to something like that. Probably something new board can decide on

  212. 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.

  213. Daniel

    That 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

  214. Daniel

    (yes I brought this up when we were talking about ties)

  215. lorddavidiii has left

  216. flow

    Daniel, 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

  217. lorddavidiii has joined

  218. Alex

    Guus: have you updated mailing lists for board & council?

  219. Alex

    Or should I take care of that? Not sure if I have the keys to them ;-)

  220. COM8 has joined

  221. Guus

    Alex I have no access. If you can, please! If you can't either, MattJ will have a look later today.

  222. larma has left

  223. ralphm

    I agree the 'no' counts are not really proper.

  224. larma has joined

  225. kokonoe has left

  226. pep.

    "flow> feels like this election would have benefited from condorcet voting", I'm also in favor of Ranked-choice voting fwiw.

  227. pep.

    Atm there's no way to distinguish between no and absent

  228. Kev

    ralphm: Not 'proper' in what sense?

  229. Kev

    Not optimal, or actually improper by our bylaws?

  230. pep.

    Kev, in the current system there's no difference between "I don't want that person" and "I don't know"

  231. pep.

    (no / blank)

  232. Kev

    I think that's consistent with the bylaws at the moment.

  233. pep.

    Sure, that doesn't excuse it

  234. Kev

    Well, it does excuse the voting system, yes.

  235. pep.

    That doesn't excuse the fact that we're not looking for something better

  236. Kev

    The 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.

  237. Kev

    And yes, the current approach is daft, given the joint requirements of 5 people, and each having a majority vote.

  238. lorddavidiii has left

  239. kokonoe has joined

  240. larma

    I 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

  241. COM8 has left

  242. COM8 has joined

  243. 8311 has joined

  244. 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.

  245. 8311 has left

  246. 8311 has joined

  247. Alex

    larma: Thanks for bringing it up here

  248. Kev

    larma: Yes, that's the daftness.

  249. Alex

    This section of the bylways can be an issue when we have a large pool of applicants

  250. Kev


  251. ralphm

    Kev: I mean that we only vote 'yes' for candidates. Not 'no'.

  252. ralphm

    Kev: so I'd display it differently, not change the outcome.

  253. pep.

    I would be willing to change it for the next elections

  254. Kev

    Actually, I take back my previous assessment. The bylaws continue to function, it's the memberbot that's not right.

  255. Kev

    The bylaws don't say that an individual is only allowed to vote 'yes' to the maximum number of people on Board/Council.

  256. Kev

    If you remove that restriction from memberbot, the system continues to function with a large pool.

  257. ralphm

    That is true, we could totally have a range voting system.

  258. Kev

    You don't need range voting for it to work.

  259. Kev

    Just an unlimited number of 'Yes' votes.

  260. ralphm

    With choices like 0 and 1, or even -1, 0, 1

  261. Kev

    Then 'pick the ones with the most votes, with not less than half' works.

  262. ralphm

    I would personally like to have the option of explicitly expressing my disapproval of a candidate.

  263. Kev

    Although I admit that range voting might make it better.

  264. lorddavidiii has joined

  265. Alex

    Kev: how do you define less than half?

  266. Kev

    I 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.

  267. ralphm

    Alex: if you have to vote -1, 0, or 1 for each candidate, less than half is the tally going below 0.

  268. Kev

    Alex: Under the current system, it's half the number of members voting.

  269. pep.

    Is there any record of member not voting btw? Alex. I'm looking at §2.6

  270. Kev vanishes back to work.

  271. larma

    It 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

  272. ralphm

    We have indeed expelled people for not voting thrice in a row. But I think that was a long time ago.

  273. Alex

    pep., 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

  274. pep.

    I don't mind this rule. It asks for a minimum of contribution, which is really not much

  275. ralphm

    The 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.

  276. ralphm

    However, 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.

  277. ralphm

    (voting for Council, Board, *and Members*)

  278. 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.

  279. larma

    What ralphm said 😀

  280. ralphm

    Well, I think it is sufficient to notify the Members mailing list.

  281. ralphm

    I don't think we should maintain a naughty list.

  282. ralphm

    Also, as I said, it has been a while since this happened.

  283. pep.

    Maybe not a naughty list

  284. pep.

    But a list of people who voted would make sense, alongside with the results, in small print or sth :)

  285. ralphm

    Meeting minutes include a list of those present, so that should suffice.

  286. ralphm

    (it includes people that voted by proxy)

  287. pep.

    ah ok

  288. ralphm

    E.g. see https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2019-11-21

  289. ralphm

    Just for my understanding. Does anyone want to contest the current results, or are we just discussing possible improvements for future Council, Board elections?

  290. ralphm

    If the former, please let me know, so I can look into it.

  291. COM8 has left

  292. Douglas Terabyte has left

  293. pep.

    ralphm, ok these minutes are enough to me (the list of people). And personally I'm speaking about improvements for the next elections.

  294. lskdjf has joined

  295. Alex

    board and council election only? or are there also concerns for our quarterly membership votes?

  296. Alex

    next voting is starting soon

  297. Zash

    Is now a good time to do a switcharoo with the xmpp.org Prosody?

  298. pep.


  299. larma

    I 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).

  300. pep.

    Well I could also see a different voting system for members, someone might still want to say no explicitely

  301. ralphm

    You already choose yes or no for each member application

  302. pep.

    (do I? I had my mind mixed up in council/board stuff..)

  303. ralphm


  304. larma

    I 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.

  305. ralphm


  306. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  307. 8311

    hello world

  308. 8311 has left

  309. ralphm

    If 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.

  310. ralphm

    And of course someone needs to change the code.

  311. Tracer(Traceur) has left

  312. Tracer aka SpaceFreak has left

  313. debacle has left

  314. Alex

    Yes, 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

  315. SpaceFreak has left

  316. SpaceFreak has joined

  317. pdurbin has left

  318. larma

    I 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?

  319. Yagiza has left

  320. Zash

    Needing to bring up things for voting way in advance is a good thing

  321. larma

    Zash, 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

  322. debacle has joined

  323. ralphm

    larma: I don't any of this as a problem

  324. ralphm

    I don't see

  325. Alex

    only 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

  326. pep.

    Alex, there are different ways to do proxy voting

  327. ralphm

    larma: 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.

  328. larma

    Alex, "small percentage", more than attend the member meetings right now

  329. 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)

  330. ralphm

    Also, 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.

  331. debacle has left

  332. ralphm

    pep. I have not yet seen a case where this has been a problem, and I prefer addressing problems after we've actually identified them.

  333. ralphm

    Or rather, actually encountered them.

  334. Ge0rG

    We do have five membership votes each year. It would be easy to add things to vote on into the next one.

  335. gav has left

  336. Ge0rG

    And to discuss them in advance on members@

  337. jubalh has left

  338. Alex

    ya, 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

  339. pep.

    3 months is a bit long tbh :/

  340. ralphm

    come on

  341. pep.

    isn't it?

  342. ralphm

    what thing needs changing that runs into this

  343. ralphm

    I've followed a bunch of discussions in here lately, and I feel people are in search for problems where there aren't any.

  344. 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

  345. Zash

    Issues of the sort you need to get through a member vote should not be rushed

  346. ralphm

    This takes up a lot of time, without a clear benefit. We don't have to strife for perfection, just because we can.

  347. gav has joined

  348. pep.

    Also I don't see a point in attaching votes to regular meetings, as mentioned above it's not necessary

  349. ralphm

    Well, I'd certainly don't see a reason to have *more* meetings, especially for the hypothetical cases we seem to be discussing.

  350. ralphm

    Let's first have an actual problem?

  351. lskdjf has left

  352. lskdjf has joined

  353. SpaceFreak

    > much room rooms

  354. jubalh has joined

  355. fippo has left

  356. winfried has left

  357. winfried has joined

  358. lorddavidiii has left

  359. fippo has joined

  360. waqas has left

  361. SpaceFreak has left

  362. flow

    Alex, 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

  363. flow

    and I assume memberbot has that list already

  364. ralphm

    flow: which problem are we solving?

  365. flow

    ralphm, make it easier for everyone to determine if the rule is followed

  366. flow

    right 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

  367. flow

    that I have to do for the last three times, and see if a name/jid appears all three times

  368. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    > ralphm, make it easier for everyone to determine if the rule is followed

  369. ralphm

    Is it because you think we have missed expelling people?

  370. flow

    ralphm, no, I just like transparency and verify things, not to blame anyone, mistakes happens

  371. flow

    and this seems like a low hanging fruit to increase the XSF's tranparency

  372. sonny has left

  373. flow

    as the list probably exists in memberbot already, it should be easy to add it to the meeting minutes

  374. flow

    and it's also not leaking any data, as the data to construct the list exists publicly already

  375. ralphm

    Transparency 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.

  376. ralphm

    Transparency 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.

  377. lorddavidiii has joined

  378. Alex

    flow, 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

  379. flow

    surely 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

  380. jubalh has left

  381. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    Alex: i dint want that my JID is public on the web

  382. flow

    Alex, so memberbot does currently not run with the complete list of member JIDs?

  383. Alex

    and this is where the transparency stops ;-)

  384. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    ade` transpiranyc cuz any random kek can get my jid out of the web

  385. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    Alex: my words

  386. flow

    I 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

  387. Alex

    flow, no, memberbot does not have the capability to compile this list. You can find memberbots code here: https://github.com/legastero/memberbot

  388. ralphm

    flow: 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.

  389. ralphm

    I'd much rather focus on XMPP itself, then get multiple people bogged down to solve cosmetic issues in our procedures.

  390. ralphm

    I'd much rather focus on XMPP itself, than get multiple people bogged down to solve cosmetic issues in our procedures.

  391. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    ralphm: i count that Jabber is 1A for communications

  392. Alex

    ralphm, 👍

  393. lorddavidiii has left

  394. Guus

    For 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.

  395. flow

    ralphm, 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?

  396. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    flow: because no one asked for improvement

  397. jubalh has joined

  398. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    may be its ok how it is now

  399. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    get some other topic flow

  400. flow

    Open 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

  401. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    > no one asked for improvement

  402. Guus

    That's not quite right, SpaceFreak aka Tracer - I've seen various members suggest changes.

  403. Guus

    so it's definitely not 'no-one' that asks for this

  404. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    Guus: well users arent admins so :fart:

  405. flow

    So if we have consensus how this can be improved, and someone is willing to put effort into it and improve it, why stop him?

  406. Guus

    I 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.

  407. Guus

    flow - 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.

  408. jonas’

  409. jonas’


  410. jonas’

    (sorry, that was me trying to get ssh to disconnect because wifi outage)

  411. gav has left

  412. flow

    Guus, 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?

  413. Guus

    flow 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.

  414. Guus

    in other words: I'll happily carry out the wishes of the membership, even if I don't think certain changes are needed.

  415. Guus

    but 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.

  416. lorddavidiii has joined

  417. Guus

    (I'm happy and comfortable to recognize that I sometimes disagree with others)

  418. flow

    Ok, 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.

  419. Guus

    I'm not sure if I understand that last sentence 🙂

  420. mukt2 has joined

  421. gav has joined

  422. Guus

    If I see _harm_ in doing so, I'll try and stop whatever it is, or step down from board.

  423. flow

    Guus, I feel it's normal and nothing that needed to be stated explicitly that you agree to stuff that you do not disagree with

  424. Guus

    What we're talking about here is not something that I think is harmful - it's rather a poor return on investment.

  425. flow

    exactly, so you have no incentive to block it, and if someone else feels like it is helpful and does the work, why stop him

  426. Guus

    I'm thinking we're basically saying the same thing, but misunderstanding each-others words?

  427. flow


  428. Guus

    good. Back to work with me then 🙂

  429. Kev

    I hear that people in the XSF tend to use very complicated English. That's probably why.

  430. sonny has joined

  431. Guus

    What, no tripple negatives? Who are you and what did you do to Kev?

  432. Kev

    It's a good question.

  433. Guus

    I have _the best_ questions

  434. Guus

    (ok, back to work with me)

  435. winfried has left

  436. winfried has joined

  437. pep.

    "cosmetic issues", ralphm, I'd like have this piece of mind and think that's just comestic issues.

  438. COM8 has joined

  439. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  440. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  441. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    Kev: or complicated formulation + deepl.com translate ;-) (no shit)

  442. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    > good. Back to work with me then 🙂 zurück zur arbeit mit mir? sounds exactly like german right?

  443. 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.)

  444. COM8 has left

  445. COM8 has joined

  446. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    pep., flow: you can(should) take part but not like : "use my code now"

  447. mathijs has left

  448. mathijs has joined

  449. COM8 has left

  450. mathijs has left

  451. mathijs has joined

  452. flow

    I 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)

  453. LNJ has joined

  454. Ge0rG

    that is a good summary

  455. pep.

    There is still a foundation to run though :/

  456. pep.

    flow, I agree with you for the most part, minus ^

  457. flow

    pep., 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

  458. flow

    and, 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

  459. SpaceFreak aka Tracer

    deepl.com deep translate

  460. SpaceFreak aka Tracer


  461. lorddavidiii has left

  462. kokonoe has left

  463. pdurbin has joined

  464. krauq has left

  465. krauq has joined

  466. pdurbin has left

  467. Nekit has left

  468. Nekit has joined

  469. kokonoe has joined

  470. mukt2 has left

  471. kokonoe has left

  472. mukt2 has joined

  473. j.r has left

  474. j.r has joined

  475. lorddavidiii has joined

  476. debacle has joined

  477. mukt2 has left

  478. kokonoe has joined

  479. mukt2 has joined

  480. mukt2 has left

  481. Nekit has left

  482. adiaholic has left

  483. adiaholic has joined

  484. lorddavidiii has left

  485. j.r has left

  486. APach has left

  487. j.r has joined

  488. mukt2 has joined

  489. Calvin has joined

  490. adiaholic has left

  491. adiaholic has joined

  492. adiaholic has left

  493. adiaholic has joined

  494. mukt2 has left

  495. lorddavidiii has joined

  496. mukt2 has joined

  497. Calvin has left

  498. Calvin has joined

  499. Calvin has left

  500. Calvin has joined

  501. lorddavidiii has left

  502. mukt2 has left

  503. Calvin has left

  504. Calvin has joined

  505. UṣL has left

  506. adiaholic has left

  507. adiaholic has joined

  508. lorddavidiii has joined

  509. Calvin has left

  510. Calvin has joined

  511. Nekit has joined

  512. lorddavidiii has left

  513. lorddavidiii has joined

  514. calvin has joined

  515. mukt2 has joined

  516. winfried has left

  517. winfried has joined

  518. Calvin has left

  519. pdurbin has joined

  520. mukt2 has left

  521. pdurbin has left

  522. lorddavidiii has left

  523. Calvin has joined

  524. mukt2 has joined

  525. lovetox has joined

  526. lorddavidiii has joined

  527. mukt2 has left

  528. winfried has left

  529. winfried has joined

  530. Calvin has left

  531. Calvin has joined

  532. calvin has left

  533. Calvin has left

  534. Calvin has joined

  535. david has left

  536. zukzuk has joined

  537. Calvin has left

  538. Calvin has joined

  539. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  540. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  541. Nekit has left

  542. Nekit has joined

  543. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  544. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  545. Calvin has left

  546. waqas has joined

  547. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  548. jubalh has left

  549. Calvin has joined

  550. mathijs has left

  551. mathijs has joined

  552. edhelas

    Funny detail https://gitlab.linphone.org/BC/public/linphone/merge_requests/474/diffs#cabe58cc52506439c27d6eca77272251f3e53ac4_55_59

  553. Calvin has left

  554. sonny has left

  555. sonny has joined

  556. pep.

    urn:xmpp:ephemeral:0. Fortunately it's not like this namespace needed to be registered somewhere

  557. jonas’

    relevant: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/ephemeral-messages.html

  558. pep.

    Ah I remember the discussion around that

  559. patrick has joined

  560. 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"

  561. Zash has left

  562. Zash has joined

  563. Holger

    ejabberd has an additional field to search the body text FWIW.

  564. pep.


  565. Holger


  566. Holger

    There's no standard field for that purpose.

  567. MattJ

    I didn't know that. I was planning to write a XEP for search

  568. jonas’

    search for "This message is OMEMO encrypted"?

  569. lovetox

    pep., yes its standard

  570. lovetox

    there is no need to register fields

  571. MattJ

    The problem is that plain text search is boring, and advanced search varies by implementation

  572. lovetox


  573. Holger

    jonas': Yup.

  574. Holger

    MattJ: Yup.

  575. patrick has left

  576. Holger

    ejabberd just has boring search.

  577. calvin has joined

  578. MattJ

    Good to know

  579. jonas’

    Holger, your client is incorrectly completing my nickname (assuming that you used features of your client to generate that `jonas'`)

  580. MattJ

    I think registering something standard for boring search would be a good start

  581. Zash

    "how to buy a tunnel boring machine"

  582. Holger

    jonas': You told me so in the past, and we still haven't switched to UTF-8.

  583. Holger

    All I can do is try my best not to talk to you in the meantime :-)

  584. pep.

    lovetox, I see. That disrupts my plans a bit..

  585. MattJ

    pep., what plans?

  586. Zash

    What what

  587. pep.

    One struct to rule them all

  588. jonas’

    Holger, ah, I knew I told someone, but I didn’t know whom :)

  589. pep.

    If I can't statically know in advance

  590. MattJ

    You can if the additional fields have disco features too

  591. pep.

    MattJ, you tell my compiler to do the disco to run against your code? :P

  592. pep.

    So it generates a struct that matches and then every client use it

  593. lovetox

    MattJ, for what if i can request them via IQ?

  594. pep.

    I'll have to do that differently

  595. MattJ

    pep., you can't implement what you don't understand in that kind of system anyway, so why bother?

  596. lovetox

    these are custom searches, you are not going to request mam messages automatically on connect

  597. MattJ

    Just implement the standard ones in your struct

  598. pep.

    MattJ, but I don't want to prevent people from querying more

  599. MattJ

    Well you do

  600. pep.

    So I'll need to allow for optional fields

  601. MattJ

    or you wouldn't be trying to define such things at compile time :)

  602. pep.

    it's a matter of adding another attribute `moar_fields: Vec<Field>`, but that's a bit ugly

  603. david has joined

  604. 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

  605. jonas’

    (including stuff like validation)

  606. pep.

    hmm. I could do that I guess

  607. 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)

  608. jonas’

    and if you make the declarative layer easy enough, it’s also extensible for proprietary (or simply new) extensions

  609. winfried has left

  610. winfried has joined

  611. j.r has left

  612. j.r has joined

  613. pep.

    https://dpaste.de/Zyeq that's what I have in mind. Or a mix of both or..

  614. pep.

    The current design is meh because most used options aren't validated

  615. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  616. paul has joined

  617. APach has joined

  618. mukt2 has joined

  619. winfried has left

  620. winfried has joined

  621. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  622. Calvin has joined

  623. APach has left

  624. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  625. mukt2 has left

  626. alexis has left

  627. Calvin has left

  628. mathijs has left

  629. mathijs has joined

  630. Zash has left

  631. Calvin has joined

  632. pdurbin has joined

  633. Calvin has left

  634. Calvin has joined

  635. debacle has left

  636. pdurbin has left

  637. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  638. kokonoe has left

  639. david has left

  640. Zash has joined

  641. Calvin has left

  642. Calvin has joined

  643. 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.

  644. COM8 has joined

  645. Tobias has left

  646. Dele (Mobile) has left

  647. Tobias has joined

  648. kokonoe has joined

  649. COM8 has left

  650. Calvin has left

  651. Calvin has joined

  652. mathijs has left

  653. mathijs has joined

  654. Daniel has left

  655. COM8 has joined

  656. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  657. zukzuk has left

  658. Nekit has left

  659. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  660. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  661. mathijs has left

  662. mathijs has joined

  663. mukt2 has joined

  664. Daniel has joined

  665. mathijs has left

  666. mathijs has joined

  667. COM8 has left

  668. mathijs has left

  669. mathijs has joined

  670. COM8 has joined

  671. Calvin has left

  672. Calvin has joined

  673. calvin has left

  674. mathijs has left

  675. mathijs has joined

  676. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  677. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  678. APach has joined

  679. Calvin has left

  680. Calvin has joined

  681. calvin has joined

  682. mathijs has left

  683. mathijs has joined

  684. marc_ has joined

  685. mathijs has left

  686. mathijs has joined

  687. calvin has left

  688. calvin has joined

  689. sonny has left

  690. sonny has joined

  691. COM8 has left

  692. Calvin has left

  693. goffi has left

  694. mathijs has left

  695. mathijs has joined

  696. calvin has left

  697. edhelas

    it's crazy the amount of <presences> messages that a client is receiving overall

  698. edhelas

    compared to <iq> and <message>

  699. marc_ has left

  700. mukt2 has left

  701. calvin has joined

  702. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  703. Steve Kille has left

  704. APach has left

  705. Steve Kille has joined

  706. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  707. mathijs has left

  708. mathijs has joined

  709. Tobias has left

  710. Tobias has joined

  711. calvin has left

  712. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  713. Calvin has joined

  714. adiaholic has left

  715. adiaholic has joined

  716. marc_ has joined

  717. mukt2 has joined

  718. lorddavidiii has left

  719. Calvin has left

  720. lorddavidiii has joined

  721. adiaholic has left

  722. kokonoe has left

  723. MattJ

    It would be nice to do some analysis some time and figure out what the stanzas are, at a high level

  724. MattJ

    e.g. what percentage of them are actual user-initiated presence changes (my guess is a very small fraction)

  725. MattJ

    and of the rest, figure out if they can be reduced

  726. waqas

    What do you expect them to be?

  727. MattJ

    Stupid noise, disconnects/reconnects and stuff

  728. jubalh has joined

  729. MattJ

    CSI makes it less of a problem, but fixing issues at the source would be better

  730. MattJ

    Maybe there isn't a problem. But I bet there is :)

  731. MattJ

    There's rarely a time I look at a real-life XMPP stream and don't find something weird happening

  732. MattJ

    That's the reality of such a diverse network, but it would be good to fix any obvious issues

  733. pdurbin has joined

  734. APach has joined

  735. waqas

    I suspect in practice the fix would be servers selectively dropping/merging stanzas

  736. kokonoe has joined

  737. waqas

    And the tradeoff would be more state for the server, and slightly more expensive stanza processing, leading to less bandwidth/battery usage for clients.

  738. mukt2 has left

  739. mukt2 has joined

  740. pdurbin has left

  741. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  742. mukt2 has left

  743. jubalh has left

  744. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  745. marc_ has left

  746. kokonoe has left

  747. calvin has joined

  748. kokonoe has joined

  749. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  750. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  751. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  752. patrick has joined

  753. kokonoe has left

  754. patrick has left

  755. calvin has left

  756. calvin has joined

  757. jubalh has joined

  758. sonny has left

  759. sonny has joined

  760. winfried has left

  761. winfried has joined

  762. winfried has left

  763. winfried has joined

  764. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  765. david has joined

  766. kokonoe has joined

  767. winfried has left

  768. winfried has joined

  769. debacle has joined

  770. waqas has left

  771. calvin has left

  772. lorddavidiii has left

  773. kokonoe has left

  774. waqas has joined

  775. calvin has joined

  776. jubalh has left

  777. debacle has left

  778. pdurbin has joined

  779. mukt2 has joined

  780. winfried has left

  781. winfried has joined

  782. pdurbin has left

  783. mathijs has left

  784. mathijs has joined

  785. mukt2 has left

  786. david has left

  787. calvin has left

  788. calvin has joined

  789. debacle has joined

  790. andrey.g has left

  791. alexis has joined

  792. mathijs has left

  793. krauq has left

  794. krauq has joined

  795. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  796. calvin has left

  797. calvin has joined

  798. mathijs has joined

  799. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  800. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  801. SERGE90 has left

  802. SERGE90 has joined

  803. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  804. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  805. calvin has left

  806. lovetox has left

  807. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  808. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  809. marc_ has joined

  810. krauq has left

  811. krauq has joined

  812. karoshi has left

  813. karoshi has joined

  814. kokonoe has joined

  815. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  816. marc_ has left

  817. UṣL has joined

  818. marc_ has joined

  819. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has joined

  820. pdurbin has joined

  821. pdurbin has left

  822. mukt2 has joined

  823. Tobias has left

  824. mukt2 has left

  825. kokonoe has left

  826. andy has left

  827. mukt2 has joined

  828. andy has joined

  829. kokonoe has joined

  830. Calvin has joined

  831. mukt2 has left

  832. Alex has left

  833. SpaceFreak aka Tracer has left

  834. kokonoe has left

  835. Calvin has left

  836. Calvin has joined

  837. kokonoe has joined

  838. Calvin has left

  839. Calvin has joined

  840. kokonoe has left

  841. paul has left

  842. kokonoe has joined

  843. !XSF_Martin has left

  844. !XSF_Martin has joined

  845. andy has left

  846. Calvin has left

  847. Calvin has joined

  848. Daniel has left

  849. Daniel has joined