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 thanks!
  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 aaah!
  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’ (sorry)
  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 Phew.
  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 Yes.
  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. always
  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 Ahem
  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 No
  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 probably
  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 enjoy
  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. non-standard?
  565. Holger Yeah.
  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 https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0313.html#query-form
  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