XSF Discussion - 2019-12-12


  1. marc_ Hehe
  2. marc_ > 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
  3. Ge0rG marc_: changing a MUC password will throw everybody out
  4. marc_ Oh
  5. marc_ Sounds broken :)
  6. marc_ Anyway, the #disco thing looks useful
  7. marc_ Is this supported by ejabberd?
  8. nyco https://fosstodon.org/web/statuses/103293746877193364
  9. nyco https://fosstodon.org/web/statuses/103290294377276459 is this for iTeam?
  10. Zash Which RSS feed?
  11. nyco that's my doubt: could be our blog, or the planet that's why I ask
  12. Zash https://xmpp.org/feeds/all.atom.xml has eg `<link href="/" rel="alternate"/>`
  13. Ge0rG I wonder if this isn't a bug in the respective feed readers instead.
  14. Zash nyco: Maybe ask them where exactly they're seeing that?
  15. ralphm If I miss the Board meeting today, it means I've finally beaten jetlag. Bear with me ๐Ÿคฃ
  16. Guus Say hi to Bear! ๐Ÿ˜‰
  17. dwd <reaction>๐Ÿคฃ</reaction>
  18. Zash U wut m8?
  19. Seve Guus, ralphm, I cannot join today unfortunately.
  20. Guus ๐ŸŽถ No more monkeys jumping on the bed
  21. DebXWoody Guus: ๐Ÿ˜‚
  22. pep. Is it now?
  23. pep. Or in an hour? I haven't got my timezones right
  24. Kev 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.
  25. Guus it's now.
  26. pep. poke MattJ
  27. Guus Time for the board meeting. Paging pep. MattJ ralphm - Seve mentioned he wasn't going to be here.
  28. pep. ralphm, not here then? Seve not here that we know
  29. Guus hmm
  30. Guus just you and me?
  31. pep. indeed
  32. Guus No quorum then.
  33. Guus 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
  34. Guus I don't think we need to discuss this.
  35. pep. that'd be great
  36. Guus We've already agreed.
  37. pep. poke peter and get money back?
  38. Guus So you can simply talk to the Treasurer (Peter)
  39. Guus He'll ask you for an expense sheet.
  40. Guus but yeah. There's no board decision to be made here - unless I'm missing something?
  41. pep. larma, ^
  42. pep. I don't think so, I was just unsure
  43. Guus As you helpfully linked on Trello: board already voted in favor of this.
  44. pep. 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?
  45. Guus So, unless Peter has concerns that I'm unaware of, you should be good.
  46. pep. Does everything have to be done in meetings?
  47. Guus 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.
  48. pep. It seems to me absent's opinions are just discarded otherwise if they haven't expressed them beforehand
  49. Guus (that board list is mostly used for basic "sorry, can't make it" type of comms)
  50. pep. Guus, well board hasn't decided anything wrt. these. I'd be happy to start doing it though
  51. Guus without Quorum, there's no vote.
  52. pep. without quorum "at a specific point in time during the week"?
  53. Guus we can discuss on list, but a vote should be called in a meeting, I think.
  54. pep. Anyway I'll raise this point as well
  55. Guus Details will be in the bylaws.
  56. pep. I guess we can leave this here
  57. Guus ok. Back to work with me!
  58. Guus ttyl
  59. pep. thanks
  60. MattJ Sorry, unexpectedly can't make it today
  61. pep. We've already closed for the day, please come back next week :P
  62. dwd I don't think you actually need to make decisions at meeting. See XSF Bylaws ยง5.8 which seems to explicitly cover this.
  63. pep. Yep, looks good to me
  64. dwd Though it *appears* to read as if only unanimous decisions can be made that way.
  65. pep. 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)
  66. dwd 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 ยง5.10 should you wish.
  67. dwd Or at least, only vote at things at meetings.
  68. pep. What do you mean with that last message?
  69. Kev 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)).
  70. dwd Kev, "in camera", not "out of camera". "Camera" here is the Latin word for room.
  71. Kev Indeed.
  72. Kev That's why the (sic) to show I knew what I was doing and it wasn't a mistake :p
  73. dwd Kev, Ah, yes.
  74. pep. Kev, yep that's more or less what is being discussed on board@ atm. I'd want that as well.
  75. Kev pep.: It's already Board policy, FWIW.
  76. pep. Well I'm not even sure where to find this information anyway..
  77. Kev 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).
  78. Kev 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)...
  79. pep. So who knows what policy board has now
  80. dwd 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.
  81. Kev I'd assume that Board decisions are lasting until overturned.
  82. Kev To do otherwise doesn't make sense in most cases.
  83. Kev So I don't see why rules of procedure should be different really.
  84. Kev But, at least, there's no pratical way of knowing this as Boards' continuity isn't always the best.
  85. Kev (As you say)
  86. ralphm It might indeed be useful to gather such decisions and write them up in one place. Maybe even as simple as wiki page.
  87. pep. yep. I suggested that to board the other day. We should do the same
  88. pep. yep. I suggested that to council the other day. We should do the same
  89. ralphm But indeed, unless confidentiality is required, everything should really go to members@
  90. pep. ralphm, can you put that in writing on the list? So far only Guus from board expressed an opinion
  91. Guus 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.
  92. dwd 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.
  93. Guus *shrug*
  94. lovetox Kev, i fear if we dont work out exactly how fastening should be used with MAM, this will end in failure.
  95. lovetox Even if it is its own XEP, if it ends not working with MAM perfectly its probably useless
  96. lskdjf > Kev, i fear if we dont work out exactly how fastening should be used with MAM, this will end in failure. <reaction>๐Ÿ‘๏ธ</reaction>
  97. Ge0rG 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
  98. lovetox yeah kind of the point, we dont have it now so no problems
  99. lovetox afterwards everyone starts fastening X stuff together
  100. lovetox then you get problems
  101. Ge0rG lovetox: do you have a specific problem in mind?
  102. lovetox mostly reactions
  103. lovetox joining 20 groupchats already takes much time with querying 20 archives, it will become a pain if i have to download 1000 message reactions
  104. lovetox and this is surley just the first new thing someone invents that uses fastening
  105. lovetox overall i expect it will result in much more messages sent
  106. lovetox like chatstates and markers already did
  107. Ge0rG lovetox: but with the current state of affairs, things like LMC from MAM are already broken
  108. lovetox right now its bearable traffic wise, but i feel its on the edge
  109. Ge0rG lovetox: so you are opposed to more messages, and not to messages being semantically linked?
  110. Ge0rG lovetox: MAM2 is planned to provide all reactions inline for a given message
  111. lovetox im opposed to inventing tools to raise traffic without at the same time specifing methods to deal with it in a sane manner
  112. Ge0rG That will vastly reduce your traffic problem
  113. lovetox Ge0rG, thats the point "its planned" is not good enough
  114. Ge0rG lovetox: then you should oppose reactions, not fastening
  115. larma I think right now it only works because few send read markers in larger MUCs... It's basically already "broken"
  116. Daniel I don't think he is opposing fastening
  117. lovetox just lets thing this through to the end, thats all im saying
  118. lovetox just lets think this through to the end, thats all im saying
  119. pep. lovetox, would you prefer something like "all the meta-stuff (reactions, lmc, etc.) is requested separately"?
  120. lovetox i was just throwing ideas out, i dont know if this is the best solution
  121. lovetox but yeah, some MAM filter like, give me all messages that are not fastening
  122. lovetox then afterwards, query the meta stuff, but the problem here is
  123. lovetox not all fastening messages are meta
  124. lovetox as i think dave mentioned on the list
  125. lovetox there are 3 categorys
  126. lovetox reactions is just one, if we put lmc, markers, quotes, comments in this
  127. lovetox then we need real smart logic on the server to make these decisions
  128. Daniel > 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
  129. Daniel Or else we might have to reduce complexity
  130. pep. 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 ๐Ÿ˜‚ 3 ๐Ÿ˜ก 1 ๐Ÿ‘ 1 ๐Ÿ’ฉ), *without *authorship of those attachments". Is anybody actually on board with this? Because I don't like that I'd be missing authorship info :/
  131. pep. ("on-board" as in, "agrees with this")
  132. lovetox reactions without authorship is the most useless thing i heard
  133. lovetox someone like my comment but i dont know who, great
  134. lovetox :D
  135. Zash Feature! Anonymous voting!
  136. Daniel 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
  137. lskdjf yeah reactions without authorship don't make sense at all. Every messenger I know that can do reactions provides the information about who reacted.
  138. pep. 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
  139. larma the idea is that you get the summary without authorship, but also have the ability to request the details with authorship
  140. pep. larma, that's quite specific to one kind of UI possibility though
  141. larma yes, that is really specific about reactions
  142. pep. Even for reactions I mean
  143. pep. 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
  144. larma 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).
  145. larma pep., I think that's fine for reactions, everyone probably agrees that you don't want to display authorship directly in the message history
  146. pep. That's a valid statement in our circles
  147. Daniel 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
  148. lovetox exactly.
  149. larma I think there is two different kinds of aggregation and people like to mix these two
  150. Daniel There are multiple kinds of aggregation because fasting mixes multiple kind of references
  151. larma summary style / processed aggregation (6 ๐Ÿ˜‚ 3 ๐Ÿ˜ก 1 ๐Ÿ‘ 1 ๐Ÿ’ฉ) and message-based aggregation (where you basically get the original message details without further modification)
  152. Daniel I think we might be able to do without the processed ones
  153. Daniel Just give me all the wrapped raw data
  154. Daniel With the message that they were fastened to
  155. Daniel I can count them myself
  156. Daniel But either way. It just further drives home the point that we need to think that together
  157. Daniel And not just come up with a new attach-to/reference/fasten element
  158. Daniel That is the boring part of it
  159. larma Totally agree
  160. Zash Are there some kind of stats on ratio of "normal" messages to reactions?
  161. Daniel Reactions specifically?
  162. Daniel Or all kind of references?
  163. Zash That "query MAM, get 1 messagage and 19 reactions" scenario sounds a bit exaggerated
  164. pep. Zash, s/reactions/chatstates/ ?
  165. Zash No chatstates in MAM
  166. lovetox really? just look at facebook, one post can have 1000 reactions
  167. Zash Weren't we going to send chat states over presence?
  168. Zash Facebook isn't chat
  169. lovetox Conversations room has 200+ joined people
  170. lovetox if Daniel, says C is for free for the next 5 days
  171. lovetox probably 70+ people give thumbs up
  172. lovetox i pull these numbers out of my ass
  173. lovetox but it will be more than 19
  174. Zash Yeah but how often are there that kind of reaction-triggering messages?
  175. lovetox the thing is if you give people the UI to react with one click
  176. lovetox they will use it
  177. Daniel 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
  178. Zash I'm not sure designing something based on numbers you got from *where* is the best.
  179. Zash Hence stats.
  180. lovetox Zash are you aware that reactions dont exist?
  181. lovetox how would we gather stats about a feature that does not exist
  182. Zash I'm perfectly aware that they do exist, just not in XMPP.
  183. lovetox lets just say we have experience with chat markers
  184. lovetox and chatstates
  185. lovetox and before you say they are not stored in MAM
  186. lovetox yes there was a time prosody stored them
  187. Daniel I don't know. There is an angry Twitter post from the xabber people about read markers being in mam or what ever
  188. Zash And most rooms aren't the 200+ conversations@ room.
  189. Daniel Go ask them for stats ๐Ÿ˜‰
  190. pep. Zash, find a somewhat popular mattermost instance, I think they can easily get you a ratio?
  191. pep. Running queries in the db
  192. Zash pep., that's what I'm talking about
  193. lovetox 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
  194. Zash Designing something to scale by making up imaginary numers?
  195. Ge0rG We have designed XEPs in the past to cover all potential use cases. PEP, Message Archival and MIX come to mind.
  196. Daniel I'm not really sure I understand Zash's argument here. That we don't need fastening at all?
  197. Daniel I mean to me it doesn't matter if we are aggregating 5 or 100 reactions
  198. lovetox this does also mean a lot more load for servers
  199. lovetox i would implement this like, query all reaction authors on mouse over of the reaction
  200. lovetox i bet many servers will not be able to handle that
  201. Kev 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.
  202. Arc 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
  203. Arc 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.
  204. Arc 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