XSF Discussion - 2019-12-12

Hehe

> Making it non-public and having a long random name works like a password With the difference that a password coule easily be changed whereas the group name not

marc_: changing a MUC password will throw everybody out

Oh

Sounds broken :)

Anyway, the #disco thing looks useful

Is this supported by ejabberd?

https://fosstodon.org/web/statuses/103293746877193364

https://fosstodon.org/web/statuses/103290294377276459 is this for iTeam?

Which RSS feed?

that's my doubt: could be our blog, or the planet that's why I ask

https://xmpp.org/feeds/all.atom.xml has eg `<link href="/" rel="alternate"/>`

I wonder if this isn't a bug in the respective feed readers instead.

nyco: Maybe ask them where exactly they're seeing that?

If I miss the Board meeting today, it means I've finally beaten jetlag. Bear with me 🤣

Say hi to Bear! 😉

<reaction>🤣</reaction>

U wut m8?

Guus, ralphm, I cannot join today unfortunately.

🎶 No more monkeys jumping on the bed

Guus: 😂

Is it now?

Or in an hour? I haven't got my timezones right

I love it when an Experimental XEP gets published, discussion happens on-list, and genuinely significant improvements can then be made because of the community suggestions.

it's now.

poke MattJ

Time for the board meeting. Paging pep. MattJ ralphm - Seve mentioned he wasn't going to be here.

ralphm, not here then? Seve not here that we know

hmm

just you and me?

indeed

No quorum then.

I can help you with one of the things that you added to the agenda: https://trello.com/c/nAXUNr47/378-google-mentor-summit-expenses

I don't think we need to discuss this.

that'd be great

We've already agreed.

poke peter and get money back?

So you can simply talk to the Treasurer (Peter)

He'll ask you for an expense sheet.

but yeah. There's no board decision to be made here - unless I'm missing something?

larma, ^

I don't think so, I was just unsure

As you helpfully linked on Trello: board already voted in favor of this.

As for the other items, (made the list public and open history), we can continue discussing this on-list. I guess we could also vote on-list? Does something prevent this?

So, unless Peter has concerns that I'm unaware of, you should be good.

Does everything have to be done in meetings?

No - but if you want to discuss on list, you probably should do it on the member list, not board - for reasons you expressed yourself.

It seems to me absent's opinions are just discarded otherwise if they haven't expressed them beforehand

(that board list is mostly used for basic "sorry, can't make it" type of comms)

Guus, well board hasn't decided anything wrt. these. I'd be happy to start doing it though

without Quorum, there's no vote.

without quorum "at a specific point in time during the week"?

we can discuss on list, but a vote should be called in a meeting, I think.

Anyway I'll raise this point as well

Details will be in the bylaws.

I guess we can leave this here

ok. Back to work with me!

ttyl

thanks

Sorry, unexpectedly can't make it today

We've already closed for the day, please come back next week :P

I don't think you actually need to make decisions at meeting. See XSF Bylaws §5.8 which seems to explicitly cover this.

Yep, looks good to me

Though it *appears* to read as if only unanimous decisions can be made that way.

hmm. I'd like to have meetings be an extension of "action without a meeting" and not the opposite. (Just a place to sync up if required, not something you have to attend or be ignored. I extrapolate but this doesn't seem to far from the truth to me)

I suspect an effective way for the Board to operate would be to vote on things on list, and only hold meetings when things are conetntious (ie, not unanimous). That appears to conform to the bylaws, and you can make such a rule of procedure under §5.10 should you wish.

Or at least, only vote at things at meetings.

What do you mean with that last message?

I would suggest making 'the list' be members@ rather than board@ though (which is Board policy anyway, instituted a few Boards ago, to do business on members@ unless something has to be out of camera (sic)).

Kev, "in camera", not "out of camera". "Camera" here is the Latin word for room.

Indeed.

That's why the (sic) to show I knew what I was doing and it wasn't a mistake :p

Kev, Ah, yes.

Kev, yep that's more or less what is being discussed on board@ atm. I'd want that as well.

pep.: It's already Board policy, FWIW.

Well I'm not even sure where to find this information anyway..

I pushed Board on it a number of years ago, and they agreed. So unless a subsequent Board have overturned that (I'm not aware of this)... ✏

So who knows what policy board has now

Kev, I don't know that Boards bind subsequent boards as to rules of procedure. Nor do I know how a Board would even know about previous rules of procedure.

I'd assume that Board decisions are lasting until overturned.

To do otherwise doesn't make sense in most cases.

So I don't see why rules of procedure should be different really.

But, at least, there's no pratical way of knowing this as Boards' continuity isn't always the best.

(As you say)

It might indeed be useful to gather such decisions and write them up in one place. Maybe even as simple as wiki page.

yep. I suggested that to council the other day. We should do the same ✏

But indeed, unless confidentiality is required, everything should really go to members@

ralphm, can you put that in writing on the list? So far only Guus from board expressed an opinion

pep. this is already happening. It's kind of weird to announce that we're not going to do anything in private, if we're not doing anything in private anyways.

Guus, You could announce youre continuing to do so. You never know, it might generate a bit of interest in what the Board is up to.

*shrug*

Kev, i fear if we dont work out exactly how fastening should be used with MAM, this will end in failure.

Even if it is its own XEP, if it ends not working with MAM perfectly its probably useless

> Kev, i fear if we dont work out exactly how fastening should be used with MAM, this will end in failure. <reaction>👍️</reaction>

I disagree on that. Fastening adds a semantic relationship to messages. That's more than we have now, and I'm sure it's enough for fetching messages that belong together

yeah kind of the point, we dont have it now so no problems

afterwards everyone starts fastening X stuff together

then you get problems

lovetox: do you have a specific problem in mind?

mostly reactions

joining 20 groupchats already takes much time with querying 20 archives, it will become a pain if i have to download 1000 message reactions

and this is surley just the first new thing someone invents that uses fastening

overall i expect it will result in much more messages sent

like chatstates and markers already did

lovetox: but with the current state of affairs, things like LMC from MAM are already broken

right now its bearable traffic wise, but i feel its on the edge

lovetox: so you are opposed to more messages, and not to messages being semantically linked?

lovetox: MAM2 is planned to provide all reactions inline for a given message

im opposed to inventing tools to raise traffic without at the same time specifing methods to deal with it in a sane manner

That will vastly reduce your traffic problem

Ge0rG, thats the point "its planned" is not good enough

lovetox: then you should oppose reactions, not fastening

I think right now it only works because few send read markers in larger MUCs... It's basically already "broken"

I don't think he is opposing fastening

just lets think this through to the end, thats all im saying ✏

lovetox, would you prefer something like "all the meta-stuff (reactions, lmc, etc.) is requested separately"?

i was just throwing ideas out, i dont know if this is the best solution

but yeah, some MAM filter like, give me all messages that are not fastening

then afterwards, query the meta stuff, but the problem here is

not all fastening messages are meta

as i think dave mentioned on the list

there are 3 categorys

reactions is just one, if we put lmc, markers, quotes, comments in this

then we need real smart logic on the server to make these decisions

> there are 3 categorys > reactions is just one, if we put lmc, markers, quotes, comments in this > then we need real smart logic on the server to make these decisions Yeah. Fastening is really complex right now. That's why I want proof that MAM will be able to handle that

Or else we might have to reduce complexity

I'm only catching up on the "Resurrecting Fastening" thread. And I see Xabber people saying "with aggregated counter, where message is returned with a number of attachments it currently has. Possibly, aggregated on type (6 😂 3 😡 1 👍 1 💩), *without *authorship of those attachments". Is anybody actually on board with this? Because I don't like that I'd be missing authorship info :/

("on-board" as in, "agrees with this")

reactions without authorship is the most useless thing i heard

someone like my comment but i dont know who, great

:D

Feature! Anonymous voting!

I may or may not be fine with it for the special case of reactions. But if fastening has a general aggregation mechanism there will certainly be cases where we need authorship

yeah reactions without authorship don't make sense at all. Every messenger I know that can do reactions provides the information about who reacted.

I mean I would understand applications not displaying authorship info right away (at first glance) but yeah I don't want to lose that info

the idea is that you get the summary without authorship, but also have the ability to request the details with authorship

larma, that's quite specific to one kind of UI possibility though

yes, that is really specific about reactions

Even for reactions I mean

Not that I have other UI suggestions right now, but I wouldn't want to see optimisations for every single possible UI in the protocol

That's why I wrote in one of my mails: > I can hardly imagine summarizing to work in a generic way. The only thing that makes sense to me is to have the procedure to summarize a certain fastening defined with that specific fastening (e.g. in the reactions XEP for reactions) and not generically. This also implies that servers may not be aware of how to summarize certain fastenings and thus clients would always have to be ready to ask for the raw messages for these if they want to display them (obviously servers should announce via disco which they do support).

pep., I think that's fine for reactions, everyone probably agrees that you don't want to display authorship directly in the message history

That's a valid statement in our circles

I think aggregation can work. But since MAM and aggregation is 90% of the reason we are doing fastening in the first place i don't think it makes sense to release fastening without that

exactly.

I think there is two different kinds of aggregation and people like to mix these two

There are multiple kinds of aggregation because fasting mixes multiple kind of references

summary style / processed aggregation (6 😂 3 😡 1 👍 1 💩) and message-based aggregation (where you basically get the original message details without further modification)

I think we might be able to do without the processed ones

Just give me all the wrapped raw data

With the message that they were fastened to

I can count them myself

But either way. It just further drives home the point that we need to think that together

And not just come up with a new attach-to/reference/fasten element

That is the boring part of it

Totally agree

Are there some kind of stats on ratio of "normal" messages to reactions?

Reactions specifically?

Or all kind of references?

That "query MAM, get 1 messagage and 19 reactions" scenario sounds a bit exaggerated

Zash, s/reactions/chatstates/ ?

No chatstates in MAM

really? just look at facebook, one post can have 1000 reactions

Weren't we going to send chat states over presence?

Facebook isn't chat

Conversations room has 200+ joined people

if Daniel, says C is for free for the next 5 days

probably 70+ people give thumbs up

i pull these numbers out of my ass

but it will be more than 19

Yeah but how often are there that kind of reaction-triggering messages?

the thing is if you give people the UI to react with one click

they will use it

Yeah. You don't know. I mean you probably won't hit an average of 19:1. But it's annoying if the last message sent was one that received a 100 up votes. Than you have two mam pages of just garbage

I'm not sure designing something based on numbers you got from *where* is the best.

Hence stats.

Zash are you aware that reactions dont exist?

how would we gather stats about a feature that does not exist

I'm perfectly aware that they do exist, just not in XMPP.

lets just say we have experience with chat markers

and chatstates

and before you say they are not stored in MAM

yes there was a time prosody stored them

I don't know. There is an angry Twitter post from the xabber people about read markers being in mam or what ever

And most rooms aren't the 200+ conversations@ room.

Go ask them for stats 😉

Zash, find a somewhat popular mattermost instance, I think they can easily get you a ratio?

Running queries in the db

pep., that's what I'm talking about

we have to design the XEPs still in a way that they are able to scale, even if xmpp is not big at the moment

Designing something to scale by making up imaginary numers?

We have designed XEPs in the past to cover all potential use cases. PEP, Message Archival and MIX come to mind.

I'm not really sure I understand Zash's argument here. That we don't need fastening at all?

I mean to me it doesn't matter if we are aggregating 5 or 100 reactions

this does also mean a lot more load for servers

i would implement this like, query all reaction authors on mouse over of the reaction

i bet many servers will not be able to handle that

For the record (and it's late and I'm not going to get into a big discussion right now - send it to list), I am onboard with the summary being a summary (e.g. just the reaction counts per reaction), and if you want further information, including the senders, that you do a further query to ask for it.

Ok I really hate being the kind of person who laughs at someone's misfortune, but https://www.zdnet.com/article/russian-police-raid-nginx-moscow-office/ has really brightened my day

NGINX Inc - the company who's CEO is a former rugby teammate - who's excited mood for hiring me soured over their non-competition clause extending to /all/ FOSS development.

NGINX Inc - who's employee contract claims ownership over every FOSS contribution you make as an employee even on your own time, and forbids you from submitting patches to other FOSS projects without permission, now ironically raided by russian police after their lead developer's former employer claims ownership over NGINX because their employee contract has the same clause