thanks ralphm https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/private/members.mbox/members.mbox worked
archas left
archas joined
stpeterhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
Yagizahas joined
vanitasvitaehas joined
Nekithas joined
archas left
archas joined
moparisthebest
the term "Open Standard" is only mentioned once in XEP-0001, and never defined, does anyone know if the definition the XSF uses is actually defined anywhere? is it the same one the IEEE/IETF/W3C etc use? https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/ ?
pdurbinhas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
lskdjfhas left
mukt2has left
Danielhas joined
andyhas joined
subpubhas left
subpubhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
!XSF_Martinhas left
Tobiashas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
karoshihas joined
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Danielhas left
paulhas left
paulhas joined
emushas joined
lovetoxhas joined
mukt2has joined
wurstsalathas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
mukt2has left
matkorhas joined
matkorhas left
Danielhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lovetoxhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
ajhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
ajhas left
matkorhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lovetoxhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
emushas left
Douglas Terabytehas left
Douglas Terabytehas joined
paulhas left
paulhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Nekithas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
emushas joined
Douglas Terabytehas left
Douglas Terabytehas joined
Shellhas left
sonnyhas left
goffihas joined
nyco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
nyco
there is a lot of different definitions
genofirehas left
genofirehas joined
sonnyhas joined
pdurbinhas left
ralphm
Indeed. Interesting table. I'll have a look later today to see where we currently would be exactly.
remkohas joined
sonnyhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Nekithas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
pep.
if we currently don't have an official definition I guess that's something members should have a say about (through board or not, there should be a thread for that at least)
Guushas left
Guushas joined
madhur.garghas joined
sonnyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
rionhas left
rionhas joined
Guus
ralphm with the excitement going on in the last few weeks, it might be good to, beforehand, have a clear expectation on what we will discuss (and possibly vote on) in todays board meeting. The Trello board only references the PR that was made by moparisthebest - I feel that that doesn't cover nearly all related things that we could discuss. To avoid having the meeting going off the rails, maybe it'd be good to have a specific agenda. By preparing one, we can prepare for the meeting too.
pep.
Agreed
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
debaclehas joined
sonnyhas left
Guus
In the back of my mind is that we could use the upcoming summit to discuss this with a broader audience, if we feel that we could use feedback from a larger group of people than the select few that have been speaking up online.
lorddavidiiihas left
Guus
(which might reduce the load on todays agenda)
pep.
I wouldn't describe "online" as "select"
pep.
I'd rather qualify Summit as "select"
Ge0rG
But you can webex in!
lorddavidiiihas joined
Guus
What I ment to express: I've only seen a handful of people give their feedback online. Putting this on the agenda for the summit would allow us to explicitly invite even more people to discuss it. That only adds to the discussion that has also been going on online.
pep.
I get what you mean, but I think it adds to the discussion only for those who will be able to attend
lorddavidiiihas left
Guus
Yes, obviously.
lorddavidiiihas joined
pep.
Thus I'd lean towards not limiting this discussions for summit
pep.
It will inevitably be discussed at summit, maybe not officially, but I'd encourage people to express their opinion on the list
Guus
I never implied limiting the discussion. Quite the opposite: I was wondering if we should put off deciding on anything until after we also addressed it at the summit.
pep.
fwiw I'm less comfortable discussing things like that in real time (online or offline)
pdurbinhas joined
genofirehas left
genofirehas joined
Guus
You personally, or us as a group?
pep.
me
Guus
That's fine, of course. The opposite might be true for others though.
pep.
Well we're doing real-time just here :p
lskdjfhas joined
Guus
Also, I'm not saying we _need_ to postpone decisions. I'm just offering it something we could consider.
pep.
I agree we might want to spend a bit more time on this one tbh
lorddavidiiihas left
pep.
As we've seen developping on the list, it's not that obvious, and our process probably needs clarification in any case
lskdjfhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
jonas’
Guus, I agree with pep. that summit is more select than the members list
lorddavidiiihas left
pep.
fwiw that's what I'm been trying to do in sprints in the past. We've been criticised enough that sprints were quite opaque and decisions were made with no context. I've been trying to move away from that since then. (it's never easy). Of course people talk when they meet and that's fine, but I encourage them to also post to regular channels to allow others to contribute as well
lorddavidiiihas joined
lskdjfhas joined
Alex
the XSF newsletter always end up in my SPAM folder. Is it only me? Otherwise we should investigate why it ends up there
eevvoorhas joined
pdurbinhas left
mukt2has joined
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
Guus
Alex: the newsletter arrived in my regular inbox. No oddities there for me.
Alex
Ok, will blame office365 then where I host my email
eevvoor: yes M$, Google already owns too much of my data, this is why I switched a while ago. Still wanna get away from MS as well soon
eevvoor
Alex I am relieved to hear that. mailbox.org or similar are worth their money: XSF newsletter goes to inbox :D.
remkohas left
remkohas joined
Alex
eevvoor: yes, already have an account there,and it's my plan to move everything there
eevvoor
Alex emus opened a lot of tickets for their XMPP-Server. You can support those tickets. I stopped using the jid from their due to problems with tor.✎
eevvoor
Alex emus opened a lot of tickets for their XMPP-Server. You can support those tickets. I stopped using the jid from their due to problems with tor on android. ✏
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Alex
XMPP I will still self host. Its only for email and maybe calender
Wojtekhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
remkohas left
mukt2has left
remkohas joined
Shellhas joined
mukt2has joined
lovetoxhas joined
andrey.ghas left
lovetoxhas left
lovetoxhas joined
serge90has left
serge90has joined
Wojtekhas left
jonas’
what iOS client to use if you don’t need OMEMO?
jonas’
(but MUC and reliable message delivery)
flow
jonas’, android
flow
SCNR ;)
jonas’
yeah...
jonas’
that’s what I told them ;)
MattJ
jonas’, Monal or Siskin
jonas’
thanks
jonas’
what’s the difference?
MattJ
Stay well away from ChatSecure in my experience (limited personal experience from years ago, the rest is based on what I've heard from others)
MattJ
I've never used either in earnest, I've spent about 20 minutes playing with each... I don't know really, they're different
Seve
It is funny, ChatSecure is the only solution we found for an iOS user friend
pep.
Siskin doesn't do push notifications from what I understand?
MattJ
Both are a bit buggy
MattJ
pep., I saw something to the contrary about recently (today?)
("should improve #siskinim #xmpp #ios push notifications as well")
jonas’
MattJ, they’re amused by Monal marketing on the website at least :)
jonas’
> Privacy like it’s 1999
that’s objectively funny
MattJ
Heh
jonas’
MattJ, can Monal do MUC?
MattJ
Yes
jonas’
because it claims to be able to do OMEMO, and my impression was that on iOS, you have MUC <-> OMEMO: pick one.
jonas’
oh neat
MattJ
Don't use a '/' in your nick, but I expect most people wouldn't
jonas’
that scares me
MattJ
Yes
jonas’
a lot
MattJ
Indeed, now you begin to get the idea :)
MattJ
I found that bug right away, and I also had trouble with Siskin (it just hung while trying to join a MUC)
MattJ
I think that was without a '/', I'm not sure
jonas’
this smells like a bad JID parser
MattJ
Yes
jonas’
and I’m scared of those
jonas’
I should head home
MattJ
.split() probably
jonas’
split would be good
jonas’
seems like rsplit more likely
MattJ
It was matching and displaying only on the part before the /
MattJ
I joined as MattJ/foo and it thought I was MattJ, as far as I could tell
MattJ
I also found a few UI quirks that seemed a bit weird (that bug might have been the cause)
MattJ
When you join a MUC it doesn't open the chat log, it just added it to the 'chats' tab
andrey.ghas joined
sonnyhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
mukt2has left
pdurbinhas joined
mukt2has joined
lovetoxhas left
pdurbinhas left
lovetoxhas joined
calvinhas joined
Zashhas left
Neustradamushas left
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
mukt2has left
sonnyhas left
mukt2has joined
Zashhas joined
pep.
!
ralphmbangs gavel
ralphm
0. Welcome
ralphm
Who do we have?
ralphm
And any additional agenda items?
MattJ
Here
MattJ
No additional items
Seve
Hello!
pep.
Seve, hey
pep.
I assume Guus meant to be here with what he saod this morning
ralphm
Sorry Guus, I didn't see your message in time.
Guus
I'm here I'm here
pep.
s/soad/said/
pep.
fail sed even.
ralphm
But I'll try and keep it focussed.
ralphm
1. Minute taker
nyco
https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/9eh2-88prp5zhdc
ralphm
yay
pep.
nyco, thanks
ralphm
2. PR #876, removing objective 4
ralphm
I can be short on this.
ralphm
There is currently active discussion within the membership on this proposal. Interesting suggestions are being put out there, and I'd like to see where we end up with those.
Guus
I don't think that the PR does justice to the discussion, to be honest.
pep.
I'd like to keep the discussion going around this for some more time tbh
ralphm
Guus: it doesn't indeed. On face value I'd reject it.
Guus
The PR is about removing an objective completely, while the discussion goes much deeper into details on how that objective is to be interpreted.
pep.
Guus, the PR didn't just arrive for no reason, there some reasoning behind that (which you may or may not agree with).
ralphm
I can make an explicit comment in the PR that the members are discussing the change on content.
Guus
pep. I most certainly want to discuss the reasons for the PR - but I think we should explicitly list that as a goal
stpeterhas joined
pep.
Guus, can you rephrase? not sure I understand the end of the sentence
pep.
A goal of what?
ralphm
As a matter of feedback to Travis, it would have been good if that context would have been made clear in the PR description.
MattJ
ralphm, I think that's sensible until discussion gives rise to an obvious next step
pep.
ralphm, agreed
mukt2has left
Guus
I propose to explicitly define what we want (eventually) to decide on.
MattJ
As I said on list, I don't think context for the PR was needed necessarily
eevvoor
I am also here.
MattJ
I think separating out the licensing issues from deciding what our objectives are is a sensible move
Guus
"remove objective 4" isn't what is being discussed in the community, I feel. Mind, we should still act on exactly that, as that's what moparisthebest has asked for.
MattJ
which is why I think the discussion on the list has taken a better direction than the past weeks of fierce debates in this channel
pep.
Guus, to some extent it is. Maybe not in its entirety
ralphm
Guus: ok. We can do several things here: 1) reject the PR, 2) accept the PR, 3) request changes, 4) wait a bit for the broader discussion.
Seve
4) ?
MattJ
I would opt for (4)
pep.
I vote 4. I don't think I'm ready to reject nor accept it
ralphm
I'm suggesting 4 right now, and then either 3) or 1)
Guus
I'd opt to explicitly accept/reject the PR as is, but also to continue working on a more specific topic that reflects the motives behind the PR.
Guus
We've been asked "yes or no". We can't answer "blue".
pep.
I don't exactly know what removing objective 4 entails tbh. As part seems to be covered by IPR already
ralphm
Guus: a PR not black or white. Suggestions for changes is expected and common.
Guus
sure, but this is a very black and white question, that we could answer - while at the same time, continue to work on underlaying issues.
Seve
If we must reply yes or no, I would go for reject that PR and continue the discussion, but to me, leaving the PR open makes people remember we have something to discuss
Seve
So I prefer it open
Guus
I think that there's merit in keeping the discussions clean and on point. I feel that answering questions 1-or-1 is good for that.✎
pep.
I disagree that it's a yes or no question. You don't just accept or refuse a PR. You work with the author and give feedback (to either improve the PR to a clear goal, or to refine the goals and then work on that), and then only make a decision.
Guus
I think that there's merit in keeping the discussions clean and on point. I feel that answering questions 1-on-1 is good for that. ✏
Guus
Not a hill for me to die on. I just fear we're muddying the water.
pep.
Now, goals are somewhat stated in https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2020-January/009076.html but what does that entails. We're going to have to maintain it afterwards
calvinhas left
pep.
(What does the change entail*)
Guus
pep. I don't understand what you want to say.
ralphm
I can add the following: "Board has discussed this PR, and would reject it in its current form. However, Board is aware of the broader discussions on our IPR Policy, the definition of Open Standards, and potentially allowing specifications that violate Objective 4 and/or the IPR Policy. In that light we'd like to see rough consensus to emerge from those discussions, and then suggest changes to this PR, or close it in favor of another PR that reflects said rough consensus.
pep.
ralphm, I'm not saying I would reject the PR fwiw. That's where I'm leaning towards but I'd like to know what that means before.
pep.
**I'm leaning towards accepting it
ralphm
pep., obviously I would add that message after agreement here :-D
ralphm
pep., not knowing what it means would be a reason to reject, hopefully.
pep.
Well, I obviously have an idea
dwdhas joined
MattJ
I'm fine with the proposed comment
Seve
ralphm, sounds just perfect to me! very good work
Guus
That's good, but what I'm looking for is a definition on what we're actually seeking to have consensus for. Is it about the XSF having Objective 4? The definition of what is 'encumberance'? The definition of what is an 'open standard'? The future of Omemo? ...
ralphm
yes, yes, probably, no
pep.
I'd say yes for defining "open standard" :x
Guus
to have on-point discussions, it might be good to create a list of issues we want to specifically have addressed.
ralphm
Guus: to be honest, I don't feel that we have to manage the discussion.
MattJ
Same here
pep.
How so?
MattJ
I'd let it continue as it is
MattJ
and we can review at our next meeting
Guus
Okay, so when do we close the PR?
Guus
what's the milestone that we're waiting for then?
pep.
I'm also confused now
MattJ
How so? Was Ralph's proposed comment on the PR not clear enough?
pep.
MattJ, that's us "not managing the discussion"?
pep.
Who is going to make that other PR
pep.
Who decides when there is consensus
MattJ
pep., we don't know that there will be another PR
MattJ
We do
MattJ
Because it's up to us to make the decision
pep.
So what's the limit? Do we close the PR at some point because everybody forgot about it?
MattJ
What?
ralphm
There's no limit on accepting or rejecting this PR.
XEP-0001, Section 10 reads:
Procedural XEPs may be modified more frequently as the XMPP Standards Foundation gains experience with the processes defined therein. For example, XEP-0001 is modified periodically in order to document processes previously not made explicit or to modify existing processes based on experience with the XSF's standards process; similar changes are sometimes made to the XMPP Registrar Function (XEP-0053) [17] XEP and to various SIG-related XEPs. Changes to these XEPs are discussed by the XMPP Council, XSF Board of Directors, XSF membership, and Standards SIG as appropriate, and exact changes are agreed to by the relevant approving body (XMPP Council or XSF Board of Directors). The approving body then instructs the XMPP Extensions Editor to publish and announce the revised version as described above.
stpeterhas left
pep.
MattJ, if we don't lead the discussion I'm not sure how we'll manage to get consensus on all that, is what I mean
Guus
I think what pep. is saying is that it'd be good to define some kind of explicit goal, more specific than 'reach consensus on an undefined discussion'
ralphm
Guus: please suggest something then
Guus
Well, the four I just used as for-examples.
Guus
with some more thought and feedback, we can probably improve on those a little.
MattJ
I don't want to constrain the discussion, if we'd done that at the start we wouldn't have had some of the interesting solutions come up
ralphm
MattJ, agreed.
MattJ
i.e. "the PR is not black and white"
Guus
I'm not implying that it'll be a finite list.
pep.
I agree it's not black and white
MattJ
Then why make a list?
ralphm
Ok, let's make this concrete.
Guus
ah, forget it, as I said, not a hill to die on.
MattJ
There are ongoing discussions, we don't want to make a decision right now. I don't understand what's so difficult/bad about that stance.
dwdis looking forward to an infinite list of discrete options.
ralphmmotions we lead the discussion on the topics around this PR, and provide a set of goals to the membership.
ralphm
-1
pep.
MattJ, to me an explicit goal would be for board to for exemple review discussions around that on a regular basis
pep.
ralphm, what?
pep.
Why a vote.
MattJ
Heh
ralphm
pep., I worded Guus' suggestion, and then voted against it.
ralphm
pep., to make it concrete. I see various people objecting above
MattJ
-1 as worded, I would like discussion to continue
MattJ
and as I said, we can review at our next meeting
pep.
Of course I also want the discussion to continue
ralphm
pep., sure, we already had consensus on the message I suggested to be added to the PR. I.e. just you objected. Then Guus seemed to want to amend it, and I saw broad disagreement.
ralphm
I like to move forward.
MattJ
It's past time, I need to move on. Is there anything else significant on the agenda for today?
ralphm
MattJ, nothing that can't wait, IMO
Seve
I would say let the discussion be and keep checking until we feel we can start defining something
Guus
Sorry, I got interrupted.
Guus
Reading...
pep.
ralphm, we haven't made a decision on the PR, so as concrete feedback I'd like to remove "and would reject it in its current form" from your message
pep.
I agree with the rest
ralphm
what if I'd use 'likely' in there?
pep.
..
MattJ
Just scratch that part
ralphm
ok
ralphm
3. AOB
MattJ
I agree that we don't know whether we would reject it until we actually collectively make that decision
ralphm
No AOB
MattJ
None here
Guus
I'm -1 on on R's motion, for the record - that's not what I ment, but I"ll leave it rest.
ralphm, are you going to post that then to the PR?
ralphm
Did
pep.
Thanks
jonas’
ralphm, is it okay if I edit your comment to add references to it? specifically, I’d like to link the members thread and the board meetings chat log
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
jonas’
(I do have the power to do so, just asking out of curtesy)
ralphm
No, but you can add a comment
jonas’
people tend to ask for rationales about decisions recorded in the PRs, and I like to have them linked for future reference
jonas’
okay
moparisthebest
yep, I went to add a link to the mailing list when I first created it but couldn't edit
Wojtekhas joined
ralphm
jonas’: indeed. Thanks
jonas’
done
pep.
thanks
moparisthebest
it's probably not very "open" for an organization to block comments
pep.
moparisthebest, it's not about blocking comments, it's about limiting discussion venues :/
moparisthebest
right, as long as there is a link to said discussion :)
jonas’
moparisthebest, moving discussion from a proprietary platform to an openly joinable XMPP MUC is the intent of that (which I also wrote) and why I do that
jonas’
there is
jonas’
the link to the XSF muc directly points to a Converse.js instance
derdanielhas left
jonas’
the link to members points to the mailing list, but is obviously accessible only to members (for writing, that is)
jonas’
(but since a github account is not a pre-requisite for being an XSF member and this is something to be discussed by members, members@ is the better venue compared to the PR)
moparisthebest
yep that's perfect, I totally agree on that
jonas’
so I don’t see an issue with locking the PR -- as long as the reason is documented✎
jonas’
so I don’t see an issue with locking the PR -- as long as the reason is documented and the alternative venues are clear ✏
jonas’
(also, I don’t pro-actively lock PRs, I only lock them when non-editoral discussion starts)
stpeterhas joined
jonas’
I wish there was a way to give a custom reason for locking
jonas’
with a URL or something
Guus
It is good to not fragment the discussion over multiple venues, if only for reference in the future.
jonas’
but that’s not an option
jonas’
I like that we all agree on this, thanks
jonas’
refreshing
Guus
Let's move it all to github. /me ducks, runs.
moparisthebest
if the XSF hosted their own git*** instance I'd be ok with that but yea, another day maybe... :)
Guus
haha, no, I'm not even suggesting github in earnest. MUC and mailinglist are good, for me.
moparisthebest
mailing list still needs fixed, no response in iteam, but otherwise yes
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Guus
improvements to the infrastructure would be nice.
sonnyhas joined
jonas’
I’d like to note for the record that I lost privileges on the xmpp.org repository.
jonas’
Just in case that was by accident.
jonas’
(because I wasn’t notified)
jonas’
If it was intentional, a notice would’ve been nice and also a reason (though "you are not part of any team which should have access" is a perfectly valid reason to me)
Zash
The web repo?
jonas’
yes
Zash
MattJ did a sweep of gh permissions iirc
jonas’
that makes sense
jonas’
If it’s intentional, I’m also going to unwatch that repository, which will reduce the load on my inbox \o/
mukt2has joined
MattJ
It was discussed here multiple times and documented in Board minutes I hope
jonas’
must’ve missed all of it then
MattJ
I made a bunch of changes, and notified people I thought needed notifying
stpeterhas left
jonas’
though neither github nor permissions as search terms finds any matching board minutes
jonas’
either way, I’m then going to unwatch, no problem
MattJ
For the record, here is what I wrote (here) when I did it:
MattJ
20191203T11:03:51Z <MattJ> Speaking of iteam, I'm updating Github permissions as we discussed in one of the recent board meetings
20191203T11:04:28Z <MattJ> Anyone who doesn't have access to something they think they ought to have access to, feel free to poke me and I'll investigate
20191203T11:05:21Z <Zash> Who should have access to what?
20191203T11:07:29Z <MattJ> The main change is that there is a (hidden, iirc) "Web" team
20191203T11:07:38Z <MattJ> which has a bunch of people in it
20191203T11:08:09Z <MattJ> All the people who are actually doing stuff are already in teams that already have access to the relevant repos
20191203T11:08:37Z <MattJ> So the goal is to simplify Github permissions so they align with XSF team membership
20191203T11:09:01Z <MattJ> which will make it easier to see and manage who has access to what
20191203T11:11:28Z <MattJ> to clarify what I wrote above - the "Web" team exists, but is being removed in favour of more well-defined teams
didn't I read somewhere that that toy was modeled after an image without its authors permission?
dwd
FWIW, I would be perfectly hapy for any of the people currently on the XMPP Editor team to have access to the website, but I wouldn't like to make any implication that XMPP Editors should automatically have do anything to the website.
Guus
</brainfart>
Guus
dwd then we should not have them at all. Let's keep things clean.
subpubhas left
dwd
I mean, if anyone in the Editors team *wants* to be on the web team that's awesome.
Zash
Wasn't there a different team responsible for the website?
stpeterhas left
Guus
wfm
jonas’
if there is a team which is responsible mainly for xmpp.org, I’m happy to officially join it
jonas’
not with the intent of upping my workload, but with the intent of keeping doing what I’ve been doing on xmpp.org in the past
Zash
commteam?
jonas’
(approving stuff and hitting merge)
pep.
Wasn't the "web team" removed? Or going to be? As there's no equivalent XSF Team
jonas’
^
jonas’
I guess it’s commteam
pep.
Right, something like that was agreed I guess
jonas’
that’s how I lost access I suppose :)
matkorhas left
jonas’
I start to recall all of it. that sick time must’ve [pn]uked quite a bit of my brain
mukt2has left
sonnyhas left
mukt2has joined
goffihas left
!XSF_Martinhas joined
mukt2has left
Shellhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
stpeterhas joined
eevvoorhas left
sonnyhas joined
calvinhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
rionhas left
lovetoxhas left
!XSF_Martinhas left
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
!XSF_Martinhas joined
mukt2has joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Daniel
I’m wondering if the "who are we and what are we doing" debate that we are currently having is long overdue or just stopping us from getting actual work done
dwd
Daniel, It can be both.
Kev
I think that it's stopping other work happening is a given.
MattJ
Definitely both
Kev
The question is on part one :)
Nekithas left
Kev
I don't really have the cycles to reply to the LC right now - but I note that one of my comments from last time has been overlooked (I think Daniel genuinely intended to address it), which is that revealing IPs should probably be in the security considerations.
adiaholichas left
Daniel
Kev, i’ll make a note. i’m going to address the 'requirments' things that came up anyway so i can just do both
Kev
Ta.
rionhas joined
moparisthebest
well it's at least clear that we don't have important terms like "open standard" defined, and that each member's definition can vary wildly, so it's a needed discussion regardless
moparisthebest
if we don't want a discussion then that objective can be deleted and we can move on, otherwise it's hard discussions/decisions
mukt2has left
calvinhas left
mukt2has joined
remkohas left
remkohas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
debaclehas left
lovetoxhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
davidhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
remkohas left
lovetoxhas left
dwd
I don't think deleting the objective should be any kind of default.
moparisthebest
well that's the easy option if we don't want to have this discussion
dwd
It really isn't.
moparisthebest
the hard option is probably better, but it's harder
dwd
It's just the action you want, which is very different.
moparisthebest
that's not even true, I just want something to come out of this that represents what the members want the organization to be, it seems to be going in that direction so that's great
davidhas joined
!XSF_Martin
q
pdurbinhas joined
remkohas joined
Wojtekhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
pdurbinhas left
dwd
It is totally true. You've bent and twisted everything you can in order to get your own way, and refused to even consider compromise beyond a way to leverage further concession.
lorddavidiiihas left
dwd
I'm really quite angry at the way you're acting, and this suggestion that we should utterly change the organisation purely because it suits you is absolutely typical.
lorddavidiiihas joined
pep.
> Daniel> I’m wondering if the "who are we and what are we doing" debate that we are currently having is long overdue or just stopping us from getting actual work done
That's generally the first thing one is supposed to do if they want to see something succeed (otherwise nobody is aligned, meh results, lots of efforts wasted on all sides)
sonnyhas left
moparisthebest
I don't think so? I completely agreed with your proposal even, as long as there was a way to move between them right?
moparisthebest
dwd, you have an idea about what this organization does in your head, and that's the only place it exists, it's not written down or defined, I'm just asking for that to happen, the version I have in my head is quite different
moparisthebest
and this seems like a productive discussion to accomplish that, no one should be angry about it?
pep.
> dwd> I'm really quite angry at the way you're acting, and this suggestion that we should utterly change the organisation purely because it suits you is absolutely typical.
wat.
moparisthebest
it's certainly not my intent in any way to make anyone angry, we are all on the same team here
Kev
At least the impression I've got isn't that you've asked to have what we current do documented, but to change what we currently do.
moparisthebest
I don't know what we currently do because it's not documented, so I don't even know if it needs changed
moparisthebest
basically I expressed concern with a certain unwritten rule, I was told to put in a PR and start a discussion, what exactly is wrong with that?
dwd
moparisthebest, By removing a written rule you wanted changing.
Kev
And radically change, even, removing the objective to produce what I understand to be an open standard would undermine what some people, like Dave, have put huge amounts of time into helping build over the last over a decade, including 'selling' it to various parties precisely because of that objective.
moparisthebest
"what I understand to be an open standard" < that's the problem Kev
moparisthebest
you and I have a different understanding, and it's defined nowhere
moparisthebest
as I said, wikipedia lists 22 different definitions
Kev
Yes, we have institutional knowledge enshrined in what we do, and it is difficult for a newcomer to assess that. I'm fine with accepting that.
Kev
Assess and/or access.
moparisthebest
so I put in a PR, got a discussion going, and I thought it was going very well, dwd 's proposal seemed great to me
Kev
And documenting those things seems like a Very Good Thing (although limited volunteer effort, etc.).
Kev
But documenting those things doesn't start with radically changing those things that we do have formally specified.
moparisthebest
ralphm told me to start the official discussion with a PR
moparisthebest
if that was wrong, I'm sorry
Kev
I think Ralph said (from memory) that if you wanted to change our policy, the way to do it was with a PR. And that's correct.
moparisthebest
no one should have taken a PR as an insult, please don't do that
moparisthebest
are PR's supposed to only be perfect and never discussed? because I didn't expect that to be the case at all, at least with this one
lorddavidiiihas left
moparisthebest
it seems most people agree with me that that particular objective needs work
Kev
No, I don't think anyone involved with dev in any aspect expects PRs to be perfect every time.
dwd
"needs work" != "removed entirely".
dwd
As you surely know.
moparisthebest
right, and this got that discussion going
Kev
It depends if you mean 'work' in the sense of 'better document where we are' (which I don't see most people agreeing) or 'completely remove', which is what you proposed.
moparisthebest
I also didn't know exactly what changes were needed to fix it, doesn't seem like anyone is clear on that yet
lorddavidiiihas joined
Kev
I don't see that anything needs 'fixing' here, beyond better documenting our institutional knowledge.
moparisthebest
well, documenting is one, but looks like a substantial portion also wants a way to move forward with things that may or may not fit whatever "open standard" definition we go with
emushas left
Kev
That is your assessment. I'm mostly seeing a small number of people making (considerable) noise about changing it, but not a large number of people.
moparisthebest
bottom line I didn't mean this PR as an attack on the XSF or anything, and if it came off like that I apologize
moparisthebest
I think the discussion was needed and is good, and should continue on it's current course, that's all
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Kev
FWIW, I think if we progressed with the suggestion made not very long ago to formalise the inbox to be a little like the IETF's individual submissions (the stuff that's not adopted by a working group), such that it is published and has an id, but not an RFC number, and that Council wouldn't need to make any judgement calls on such things, they just get published mechanically and Council only needs involvement if something wants to move from that to a XEP, would be a similar approach to what Dave proposes, but having additional benefits of solving other issues we've had with the process over the years.
Kev
e.g. when I've submitted XEPs that were large numbers of TODOs because we needed it under XSF IPR to start discussing it sensibly at a Summit.
ralphm
By the way, I thought about this a bit more on the way home. While indeed the XSF currently does not have on-staff legal support, we *did* have our IPR Policy vetted (see the Acknowledgements section). It is my opinion that section 3.2 exactly states what the XSF believes to constitute an open standard and what it believes to be an encumbered protocol. I think this is more than good enough.
ralphm
I'd be happy to expand on this, but now I want to go drumming.
Kev
As any decent human would.
debaclehas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
moparisthebest
4.2 ? 3.2 is https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#types-Informational but no rush, whenever you get around to it ralphm
(and whenever the website is regenerated, it will actually say 3.2 instead of 3.3.
ralphm
)
moparisthebest
so that significantly differ's from IETF's definition of an open standard, which explicitly does not require royalty-free for example, interesting ( ietf's https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/ )
moparisthebest
that says it must be able to be implemented under fair terms, and says "Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND)."
moparisthebest: just for my understanding, is this your first read of our IPR Policy?
moparisthebest
and that seems to be entirely about patents, and nothing about copyright
moparisthebest
this is all awful
dwd
moparisthebest, Nobody considers software licensing in standards, because no specification can exist if it's only in software.
moparisthebest
I'm sure I read it at least when I assigned IP to the XSF
paulhas left
ralphm
And this is why many of us are upset about OMEMO and its relation to libsignal. I strongly believe copyright on a protocol itself to be a problem. (I'm not talking about a spec or an implementation)
ralphm
moparisthebest: that explains. This is also why people get upset.
moparisthebest
it's still not nearly clear enough on the XSF's side, as someone stated in that email thread, that section is about Approval, Experimental are not approved etc etc
ralphm
moparisthebest: while that might be true, we *do* have a clear idea about what we believe unencumbered means.
moparisthebest
ralphm, *you* do, mostly no one else does though
jonas’
I do, too
jonas’
(I think)
ralphm
Also, I mentioned the IPR Policy many times in many posts, mails, and I'm surprised you haven't read it (again) up till now.
jonas’
since everything what ralphm said about it so far made sense to me
moparisthebest
as I stated before, GPL is not an encumbrance in my book
ralphm
moparisthebest: but it is in the XSF's
moparisthebest
dwd and ralphm also have very incorrect ideas about how the GPL somehow prevents anyone from making money in business or something, I've avoided responding to them on list because it's too off topic
moparisthebest
ralphm, the XSF doesn't have a written definition
dwd
moparisthebest, Not to you, perhaps. But it clearly is to someone who wishes to license any other way; I think that the GPL would be blocked by FRAND (if that were ever applied to licensing) as it constitutes a grant-back, which hasn't passed FRAND.
moparisthebest
that's in fact my entire problem with this, if it's not written down it doesn't exist
dwd
moparisthebest, Also, stop telling me what I think.
moparisthebest
that seems to be going both ways lately doesn't it? :)
dwd
moparisthebest, I know perfectly well that the GPL allows commercial activities, but the fact remains that is also mandates the GPL.
moparisthebest
the reason I think dwd 's proposal is great is that kind of thing can just, go away. in the omemo case say moxie publically documents the constants, or someone contacts them and they say it's fine
moparisthebest
I tried to find a good definition for "encumbrance" yesterday actually, and almost all only use it in reference to real estate, like someone having a lien or mortgage is an encumbrance
calvinhas joined
moparisthebest
if "open standard" and "encumbrance" were clearly defined, no one would even be having this discussion, the fact that we are means it is not, and that needs fixed
archas left
archas joined
Wojtekhas joined
jonas’
striving for full definition of everything is what brings us massive lawbooks nobody has time or energy to read anymore.
dwd
"Any burden, interest, right or claim which adversely affects the use of, or the ability to transfer, property."
dwd
That's (a) legal definition, the first one that came up on Google.
moparisthebest
yes, that one is about real estate
moparisthebest
"property" there
jonas’
can’t it be intellectual property
dwd
That's not what "property" means. It includes real estate, certainly, but also software or anything else that can be owned independently.
ralphm
moparisthebest: I believe your above statement is a gross misrepresentation of my nuanced stance on these topics. I will expand later, but much of what Dave says.
ralphm
And also all the stuff I've written before on this the last two weeks.
Nekithas joined
Wojtekhas left
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
j.rhas left
archas left
archas joined
j.rhas joined
paulhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
serge90has left
serge90has joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
paulhas left
Yagizahas left
pdurbinhas joined
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
pdurbinhas left
debaclehas left
calvinhas left
calvinhas joined
debaclehas joined
APachhas left
APachhas joined
wurstsalathas left
wurstsalathas joined
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
emushas joined
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
matkorhas joined
sonnyhas joined
MattJhas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
sonnyhas left
paulhas joined
sonnyhas joined
paulhas left
Tobiashas left
MattJhas joined
Shellhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Nekithas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
remkohas left
pdurbinhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
sonnyhas left
paulhas joined
remkohas joined
adiaholichas joined
pdurbinhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
sonnyhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
adiaholichas left
remkohas left
Zashhas left
Kev
When you read your mail to standards@ back, and spot that many typos, it's definitely time to be going to bed and not writing emails.
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
sonnyhas left
matkorhas left
matkorhas joined
ralphm
Hehe
paulhas left
andyhas left
Zashhas joined
paulhas joined
Guus
Instead, you turned to this muc. What could possibly go wrong.
calvinhas left
davidhas left
sonnyhas joined
davidhas joined
Zashhas left
wurstsalathas left
Zashhas joined
matkorhas left
!XSF_Martinhas left
mukt2has left
pep.
> ralphm> (and whenever the website is regenerated, it will actually say 3.2 instead of 3.3.
> )
it should already?