XSF Discussion - 2020-01-16

  1. arc has left
  2. arc has joined
  3. stpeter has joined
  4. subpub has left
  5. Shell has left
  6. lskdjf has left
  7. lskdjf has joined
  8. Daniel has joined
  9. Shell has joined
  10. Daniel has left
  11. !XSF_Martin has left
  12. vanitasvitae has left
  13. lskdjf has left
  14. vanitasvitae has joined
  15. lskdjf has joined
  16. !XSF_Martin has joined
  17. Daniel has joined
  18. stpeter has left
  19. stpeter has joined
  20. Daniel has left
  21. andy has left
  22. sonny has left
  23. sonny has joined
  24. Daniel has joined
  25. calvin has joined
  26. stpeter has left
  27. debacle has left
  28. calvin has left
  29. calvin has joined
  30. stpeter has joined
  31. xelxebar has joined
  32. !XSF_Martin has left
  33. moparisthebest has left
  34. moparisthebest has joined
  35. arc has left
  36. arc has joined
  37. arc has left
  38. arc has joined
  39. !XSF_Martin has joined
  40. Dele (Mobile) has left
  41. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  42. Dele (Mobile) has left
  43. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  44. serge90 has left
  45. Daniel has left
  46. serge90 has joined
  47. andrey.g has left
  48. waqas has joined
  49. waqas has left
  50. waqas has joined
  51. Daniel has joined
  52. waqas has left
  53. moparisthebest has left
  54. moparisthebest has joined
  55. Daniel has left
  56. subpub has joined
  57. calvin has left
  58. adiaholic has joined
  59. andrey.g has joined
  60. andrey.g has left
  61. Daniel has joined
  62. subpub has left
  63. subpub has joined
  64. pdurbin has joined
  65. andrey.g has joined
  66. pdurbin has left
  67. Daniel has left
  68. Daniel has joined
  69. mukt2 has joined
  70. Daniel has left
  71. moparisthebest thanks ralphm https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/private/members.mbox/members.mbox worked
  72. arc has left
  73. arc has joined
  74. stpeter has left
  75. vanitasvitae has left
  76. Yagiza has joined
  77. vanitasvitae has joined
  78. Nekit has joined
  79. arc has left
  80. arc has joined
  81. 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/ ?
  82. pdurbin has joined
  83. mukt2 has left
  84. mukt2 has joined
  85. lskdjf has left
  86. mukt2 has left
  87. Daniel has joined
  88. andy has joined
  89. subpub has left
  90. subpub has joined
  91. Daniel has left
  92. Daniel has joined
  93. lorddavidiii has joined
  94. !XSF_Martin has left
  95. Tobias has joined
  96. mimi89999 has left
  97. mimi89999 has joined
  98. karoshi has joined
  99. Nekit has left
  100. Nekit has joined
  101. j.r has left
  102. j.r has joined
  103. Nekit has left
  104. Nekit has joined
  105. Daniel has left
  106. Daniel has joined
  107. Daniel has left
  108. paul has left
  109. paul has joined
  110. emus has joined
  111. lovetox has joined
  112. mukt2 has joined
  113. wurstsalat has joined
  114. emus has left
  115. emus has joined
  116. mukt2 has left
  117. matkor has joined
  118. matkor has left
  119. Daniel has joined
  120. lorddavidiii has left
  121. lovetox has left
  122. lorddavidiii has joined
  123. lorddavidiii has left
  124. lorddavidiii has joined
  125. aj has joined
  126. lovetox has joined
  127. aj has left
  128. matkor has joined
  129. lorddavidiii has left
  130. lovetox has left
  131. lorddavidiii has joined
  132. lorddavidiii has left
  133. lorddavidiii has joined
  134. lorddavidiii has left
  135. mathijs has left
  136. mathijs has joined
  137. lorddavidiii has joined
  138. lorddavidiii has left
  139. lorddavidiii has joined
  140. mathijs has left
  141. mathijs has joined
  142. emus has left
  143. Douglas Terabyte has left
  144. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  145. paul has left
  146. paul has joined
  147. mathijs has left
  148. mathijs has joined
  149. Nekit has left
  150. adiaholic has left
  151. adiaholic has joined
  152. emus has joined
  153. Douglas Terabyte has left
  154. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  155. Shell has left
  156. sonny has left
  157. goffi has joined
  158. nyco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
  159. nyco there is a lot of different definitions
  160. genofire has left
  161. genofire has joined
  162. sonny has joined
  163. pdurbin has left
  164. ralphm Indeed. Interesting table. I'll have a look later today to see where we currently would be exactly.
  165. remko has joined
  166. sonny has left
  167. lorddavidiii has left
  168. lorddavidiii has joined
  169. Nekit has joined
  170. Daniel has left
  171. Daniel has joined
  172. 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)
  173. Guus has left
  174. Guus has joined
  175. madhur.garg has joined
  176. sonny has joined
  177. lorddavidiii has left
  178. lorddavidiii has joined
  179. rion has left
  180. rion has joined
  181. 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.
  182. pep. Agreed
  183. lorddavidiii has left
  184. lorddavidiii has joined
  185. debacle has joined
  186. sonny has left
  187. 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.
  188. lorddavidiii has left
  189. Guus (which might reduce the load on todays agenda)
  190. pep. I wouldn't describe "online" as "select"
  191. pep. I'd rather qualify Summit as "select"
  192. Ge0rG But you can webex in!
  193. lorddavidiii has joined
  194. 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.
  195. pep. I get what you mean, but I think it adds to the discussion only for those who will be able to attend
  196. lorddavidiii has left
  197. Guus Yes, obviously.
  198. lorddavidiii has joined
  199. pep. Thus I'd lean towards not limiting this discussions for summit
  200. pep. It will inevitably be discussed at summit, maybe not officially, but I'd encourage people to express their opinion on the list
  201. 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.
  202. pep. fwiw I'm less comfortable discussing things like that in real time (online or offline)
  203. pdurbin has joined
  204. genofire has left
  205. genofire has joined
  206. Guus You personally, or us as a group?
  207. pep. me
  208. Guus That's fine, of course. The opposite might be true for others though.
  209. pep. Well we're doing real-time just here :p
  210. lskdjf has joined
  211. Guus Also, I'm not saying we _need_ to postpone decisions. I'm just offering it something we could consider.
  212. pep. I agree we might want to spend a bit more time on this one tbh
  213. lorddavidiii has left
  214. pep. As we've seen developping on the list, it's not that obvious, and our process probably needs clarification in any case
  215. lskdjf has left
  216. lorddavidiii has joined
  217. jonas’ Guus, I agree with pep. that summit is more select than the members list
  218. lorddavidiii has left
  219. 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
  220. lorddavidiii has joined
  221. lskdjf has joined
  222. Alex the XSF newsletter always end up in my SPAM folder. Is it only me? Otherwise we should investigate why it ends up there
  223. eevvoor has joined
  224. pdurbin has left
  225. mukt2 has joined
  226. sonny has joined
  227. sonny has left
  228. Guus Alex: the newsletter arrived in my regular inbox. No oddities there for me.
  229. Alex Ok, will blame office365 then where I host my email
  230. eevvoor Alex isn't that from Moicrosoft?
  231. j.r > Alex: the newsletter arrived in my regular inbox. No oddities there for me. Same for me
  232. eevvoor Alex isn't that from Microsoft?
  233. Alex 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
  234. eevvoor Alex I am relieved to hear that. mailbox.org or similar are worth their money: XSF newsletter goes to inbox :D.
  235. remko has left
  236. remko has joined
  237. Alex eevvoor: yes, already have an account there,and it's my plan to move everything there
  238. 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.
  239. 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.
  240. adiaholic has left
  241. adiaholic has joined
  242. Alex XMPP I will still self host. Its only for email and maybe calender
  243. Wojtek has joined
  244. Daniel has left
  245. Daniel has joined
  246. lorddavidiii has left
  247. lorddavidiii has joined
  248. j.r has left
  249. j.r has joined
  250. remko has left
  251. mukt2 has left
  252. remko has joined
  253. Shell has joined
  254. mukt2 has joined
  255. lovetox has joined
  256. andrey.g has left
  257. lovetox has left
  258. lovetox has joined
  259. serge90 has left
  260. serge90 has joined
  261. Wojtek has left
  262. jonas’ what iOS client to use if you don’t need OMEMO?
  263. jonas’ (but MUC and reliable message delivery)
  264. flow jonas’, android
  265. flow SCNR ;)
  266. jonas’ yeah...
  267. jonas’ that’s what I told them ;)
  268. MattJ jonas’, Monal or Siskin
  269. jonas’ thanks
  270. jonas’ what’s the difference?
  271. 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)
  272. 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
  273. Seve It is funny, ChatSecure is the only solution we found for an iOS user friend
  274. pep. Siskin doesn't do push notifications from what I understand?
  275. MattJ Both are a bit buggy
  276. MattJ pep., I saw something to the contrary about recently (today?)
  277. pep. cool
  278. MattJ https://mastodon.technology/@tigase/103488503676998610
  279. MattJ ("should improve #siskinim #xmpp #ios push notifications as well")
  280. jonas’ MattJ, they’re amused by Monal marketing on the website at least :)
  281. jonas’ > Privacy like it’s 1999 that’s objectively funny
  282. MattJ Heh
  283. jonas’ MattJ, can Monal do MUC?
  284. MattJ Yes
  285. jonas’ because it claims to be able to do OMEMO, and my impression was that on iOS, you have MUC <-> OMEMO: pick one.
  286. jonas’ oh neat
  287. MattJ Don't use a '/' in your nick, but I expect most people wouldn't
  288. jonas’ that scares me
  289. MattJ Yes
  290. jonas’ a lot
  291. MattJ Indeed, now you begin to get the idea :)
  292. MattJ I found that bug right away, and I also had trouble with Siskin (it just hung while trying to join a MUC)
  293. MattJ I think that was without a '/', I'm not sure
  294. jonas’ this smells like a bad JID parser
  295. MattJ Yes
  296. jonas’ and I’m scared of those
  297. jonas’ I should head home
  298. MattJ .split() probably
  299. jonas’ split would be good
  300. jonas’ seems like rsplit more likely
  301. MattJ It was matching and displaying only on the part before the /
  302. MattJ I joined as MattJ/foo and it thought I was MattJ, as far as I could tell
  303. MattJ I also found a few UI quirks that seemed a bit weird (that bug might have been the cause)
  304. MattJ When you join a MUC it doesn't open the chat log, it just added it to the 'chats' tab
  305. andrey.g has joined
  306. sonny has joined
  307. j.r has left
  308. j.r has joined
  309. mukt2 has left
  310. pdurbin has joined
  311. mukt2 has joined
  312. lovetox has left
  313. pdurbin has left
  314. lovetox has joined
  315. calvin has joined
  316. Zash has left
  317. Neustradamus has left
  318. calvin has left
  319. calvin has joined
  320. mukt2 has left
  321. sonny has left
  322. mukt2 has joined
  323. Zash has joined
  324. pep. !
  325. ralphm bangs gavel
  326. ralphm 0. Welcome
  327. ralphm Who do we have?
  328. ralphm And any additional agenda items?
  329. MattJ Here
  330. MattJ No additional items
  331. Seve Hello!
  332. pep. Seve, hey
  333. pep. I assume Guus meant to be here with what he saod this morning
  334. ralphm Sorry Guus, I didn't see your message in time.
  335. Guus I'm here I'm here
  336. pep. s/soad/said/
  337. pep. fail sed even.
  338. ralphm But I'll try and keep it focussed.
  339. ralphm 1. Minute taker
  340. nyco https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/9eh2-88prp5zhdc
  341. ralphm yay
  342. pep. nyco, thanks
  343. ralphm 2. PR #876, removing objective 4
  344. ralphm I can be short on this.
  345. 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.
  346. Guus I don't think that the PR does justice to the discussion, to be honest.
  347. pep. I'd like to keep the discussion going around this for some more time tbh
  348. ralphm Guus: it doesn't indeed. On face value I'd reject it.
  349. 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.
  350. pep. Guus, the PR didn't just arrive for no reason, there some reasoning behind that (which you may or may not agree with).
  351. ralphm I can make an explicit comment in the PR that the members are discussing the change on content.
  352. Guus pep. I most certainly want to discuss the reasons for the PR - but I think we should explicitly list that as a goal
  353. stpeter has joined
  354. pep. Guus, can you rephrase? not sure I understand the end of the sentence
  355. pep. A goal of what?
  356. 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.
  357. MattJ ralphm, I think that's sensible until discussion gives rise to an obvious next step
  358. pep. ralphm, agreed
  359. mukt2 has left
  360. Guus I propose to explicitly define what we want (eventually) to decide on.
  361. MattJ As I said on list, I don't think context for the PR was needed necessarily
  362. eevvoor I am also here.
  363. MattJ I think separating out the licensing issues from deciding what our objectives are is a sensible move
  364. 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.
  365. 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
  366. pep. Guus, to some extent it is. Maybe not in its entirety
  367. 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.
  368. Seve 4) ?
  369. MattJ I would opt for (4)
  370. pep. I vote 4. I don't think I'm ready to reject nor accept it
  371. ralphm I'm suggesting 4 right now, and then either 3) or 1)
  372. 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.
  373. Guus We've been asked "yes or no". We can't answer "blue".
  374. pep. I don't exactly know what removing objective 4 entails tbh. As part seems to be covered by IPR already
  375. ralphm Guus: a PR not black or white. Suggestions for changes is expected and common.
  376. 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.
  377. 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
  378. Seve So I prefer it open
  379. 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.
  380. 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.
  381. 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.
  382. Guus Not a hill for me to die on. I just fear we're muddying the water.
  383. 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
  384. calvin has left
  385. pep. (What does the change entail*)
  386. Guus pep. I don't understand what you want to say.
  387. 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.
  388. 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.
  389. pep. **I'm leaning towards accepting it
  390. ralphm pep., obviously I would add that message after agreement here :-D
  391. ralphm pep., not knowing what it means would be a reason to reject, hopefully.
  392. pep. Well, I obviously have an idea
  393. dwd has joined
  394. MattJ I'm fine with the proposed comment
  395. Seve ralphm, sounds just perfect to me! very good work
  396. 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? ...
  397. ralphm yes, yes, probably, no
  398. pep. I'd say yes for defining "open standard" :x
  399. Guus to have on-point discussions, it might be good to create a list of issues we want to specifically have addressed.
  400. ralphm Guus: to be honest, I don't feel that we have to manage the discussion.
  401. MattJ Same here
  402. pep. How so?
  403. MattJ I'd let it continue as it is
  404. MattJ and we can review at our next meeting
  405. Guus Okay, so when do we close the PR?
  406. Guus what's the milestone that we're waiting for then?
  407. pep. I'm also confused now
  408. MattJ How so? Was Ralph's proposed comment on the PR not clear enough?
  409. pep. MattJ, that's us "not managing the discussion"?
  410. pep. Who is going to make that other PR
  411. pep. Who decides when there is consensus
  412. MattJ pep., we don't know that there will be another PR
  413. MattJ We do
  414. MattJ Because it's up to us to make the decision
  415. pep. So what's the limit? Do we close the PR at some point because everybody forgot about it?
  416. MattJ What?
  417. 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.
  418. stpeter has left
  419. 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
  420. 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'
  421. ralphm Guus: please suggest something then
  422. Guus Well, the four I just used as for-examples.
  423. Guus with some more thought and feedback, we can probably improve on those a little.
  424. 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
  425. ralphm MattJ, agreed.
  426. MattJ i.e. "the PR is not black and white"
  427. Guus I'm not implying that it'll be a finite list.
  428. pep. I agree it's not black and white
  429. MattJ Then why make a list?
  430. ralphm Ok, let's make this concrete.
  431. Guus ah, forget it, as I said, not a hill to die on.
  432. 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.
  433. dwd is looking forward to an infinite list of discrete options.
  434. ralphm motions we lead the discussion on the topics around this PR, and provide a set of goals to the membership.
  435. ralphm -1
  436. pep. MattJ, to me an explicit goal would be for board to for exemple review discussions around that on a regular basis
  437. pep. ralphm, what?
  438. pep. Why a vote.
  439. MattJ Heh
  440. ralphm pep., I worded Guus' suggestion, and then voted against it.
  441. ralphm pep., to make it concrete. I see various people objecting above
  442. MattJ -1 as worded, I would like discussion to continue
  443. MattJ and as I said, we can review at our next meeting
  444. pep. Of course I also want the discussion to continue
  445. 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.
  446. ralphm I like to move forward.
  447. MattJ It's past time, I need to move on. Is there anything else significant on the agenda for today?
  448. ralphm MattJ, nothing that can't wait, IMO
  449. Seve I would say let the discussion be and keep checking until we feel we can start defining something
  450. Guus Sorry, I got interrupted.
  451. Guus Reading...
  452. 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
  453. pep. I agree with the rest
  454. ralphm what if I'd use 'likely' in there?
  455. pep. ..
  456. MattJ Just scratch that part
  457. ralphm ok
  458. ralphm 3. AOB
  459. MattJ I agree that we don't know whether we would reject it until we actually collectively make that decision
  460. ralphm No AOB
  461. MattJ None here
  462. Guus I'm -1 on on R's motion, for the record - that's not what I ment, but I"ll leave it rest.
  463. derdaniel has joined
  464. Guus no AOB
  465. pep. No AOB either
  466. ralphm 4. Date of Next
  467. ralphm +1W
  468. MattJ wfm
  469. ralphm 5. Close
  470. ralphm Thanks all!
  471. ralphm bangs gavel
  472. pep. Thanks
  473. nyco please review, edit : https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/9eh2-88prp5zhdc
  474. Seve Thank you very much nyco
  475. Guus lgtm nyco
  476. pep. ralphm, are you going to post that then to the PR?
  477. ralphm Did
  478. pep. Thanks
  479. 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
  480. Shell has left
  481. Shell has joined
  482. jonas’ (I do have the power to do so, just asking out of curtesy)
  483. ralphm No, but you can add a comment
  484. jonas’ people tend to ask for rationales about decisions recorded in the PRs, and I like to have them linked for future reference
  485. jonas’ okay
  486. moparisthebest yep, I went to add a link to the mailing list when I first created it but couldn't edit
  487. Wojtek has joined
  488. ralphm jonas’: indeed. Thanks
  489. jonas’ done
  490. pep. thanks
  491. moparisthebest it's probably not very "open" for an organization to block comments
  492. pep. moparisthebest, it's not about blocking comments, it's about limiting discussion venues :/
  493. moparisthebest right, as long as there is a link to said discussion :)
  494. 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
  495. jonas’ there is
  496. jonas’ the link to the XSF muc directly points to a Converse.js instance
  497. derdaniel has left
  498. jonas’ the link to members points to the mailing list, but is obviously accessible only to members (for writing, that is)
  499. 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)
  500. moparisthebest yep that's perfect, I totally agree on that
  501. jonas’ so I don’t see an issue with locking the PR -- as long as the reason is documented
  502. 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
  503. jonas’ (also, I don’t pro-actively lock PRs, I only lock them when non-editoral discussion starts)
  504. stpeter has joined
  505. jonas’ I wish there was a way to give a custom reason for locking
  506. jonas’ with a URL or something
  507. Guus It is good to not fragment the discussion over multiple venues, if only for reference in the future.
  508. jonas’ but that’s not an option
  509. jonas’ I like that we all agree on this, thanks
  510. jonas’ refreshing
  511. Guus Let's move it all to github. /me ducks, runs.
  512. moparisthebest if the XSF hosted their own git*** instance I'd be ok with that but yea, another day maybe... :)
  513. Guus haha, no, I'm not even suggesting github in earnest. MUC and mailinglist are good, for me.
  514. moparisthebest mailing list still needs fixed, no response in iteam, but otherwise yes
  515. adiaholic has left
  516. adiaholic has joined
  517. Guus improvements to the infrastructure would be nice.
  518. sonny has joined
  519. jonas’ I’d like to note for the record that I lost privileges on the xmpp.org repository.
  520. jonas’ Just in case that was by accident.
  521. jonas’ (because I wasn’t notified)
  522. 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)
  523. Zash The web repo?
  524. jonas’ yes
  525. Zash MattJ did a sweep of gh permissions iirc
  526. jonas’ that makes sense
  527. jonas’ If it’s intentional, I’m also going to unwatch that repository, which will reduce the load on my inbox \o/
  528. mukt2 has joined
  529. MattJ It was discussed here multiple times and documented in Board minutes I hope
  530. jonas’ must’ve missed all of it then
  531. MattJ I made a bunch of changes, and notified people I thought needed notifying
  532. stpeter has left
  533. jonas’ though neither github nor permissions as search terms finds any matching board minutes
  534. jonas’ either way, I’m then going to unwatch, no problem
  535. MattJ For the record, here is what I wrote (here) when I did it:
  536. 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
  537. jonas’ oh, that’s quite a bit back
  538. jonas’ thanks, I would’ve thought it was a newer thing
  539. jonas’ thanks, I would’ve thought it was a more recent thing
  540. MattJ I haven't made any changes since then
  541. jonas’ I remotely recall observing this, actually
  542. jonas’ and simply forgot about it
  543. jonas’ but I think that was also the day I got massively sick in dec, so that’s probably why I completely eradicated it from my brain
  544. lovetox has left
  545. stpeter has joined
  546. mukt2 has left
  547. Shell has left
  548. Shell has joined
  549. pdurbin has joined
  550. Shell has left
  551. Shell has joined
  552. lovetox has joined
  553. mukt2 has joined
  554. pdurbin has left
  555. Guus Maybe it is good to verify that the access that you no longer have can be explained by iteam's cleanup - if only to rule out another cause?
  556. Guus jonas’ being an editor and on council would imply access to a lot, I'd think?
  557. jonas’ Guus, it does make sense though. I’m not part of any team except Editors, and that is correctly reflected in the xsf github org
  558. Guus ok!
  559. jonas’ I don’t think Council has a team on our github org (board has tho)
  560. Zash Should Council have one and why?
  561. jonas’ I don’t think it should
  562. jonas’ there isn’t anything in there managed directly by council
  563. jonas’ council has the editor as its minion
  564. Zash This is fine.
  565. Guus editors having access to xmpp.org would not make me unhappy, fwiw
  566. jonas’ Zash, whenever somebody says "This is fine.", I have that meme picture with the dog and the burning house in my mind
  567. jonas’ thanks, internet.
  568. Guus (same here)
  569. Zash jonas’, not entirely unintentional :)
  570. dwd https://www.thetoychronicle.com/product/lil-dumpster-fire-by-100soft/
  571. Zash Tho I don't mean it like that
  572. Guus didn't I read somewhere that that toy was modeled after an image without its authors permission?
  573. 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.
  574. Guus </brainfart>
  575. Guus dwd then we should not have them at all. Let's keep things clean.
  576. subpub has left
  577. dwd I mean, if anyone in the Editors team *wants* to be on the web team that's awesome.
  578. Zash Wasn't there a different team responsible for the website?
  579. stpeter has left
  580. Guus wfm
  581. jonas’ if there is a team which is responsible mainly for xmpp.org, I’m happy to officially join it
  582. 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
  583. Zash commteam?
  584. jonas’ (approving stuff and hitting merge)
  585. pep. Wasn't the "web team" removed? Or going to be? As there's no equivalent XSF Team
  586. jonas’ ^
  587. jonas’ I guess it’s commteam
  588. pep. Right, something like that was agreed I guess
  589. jonas’ that’s how I lost access I suppose :)
  590. matkor has left
  591. jonas’ I start to recall all of it. that sick time must’ve [pn]uked quite a bit of my brain
  592. mukt2 has left
  593. sonny has left
  594. mukt2 has joined
  595. goffi has left
  596. !XSF_Martin has joined
  597. mukt2 has left
  598. Shell has left
  599. lorddavidiii has left
  600. lorddavidiii has joined
  601. stpeter has joined
  602. eevvoor has left
  603. sonny has joined
  604. calvin has joined
  605. mathijs has left
  606. mathijs has joined
  607. lorddavidiii has left
  608. rion has left
  609. lovetox has left
  610. !XSF_Martin has left
  611. mathijs has left
  612. mathijs has joined
  613. !XSF_Martin has joined
  614. mukt2 has joined
  615. lorddavidiii has joined
  616. 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
  617. dwd Daniel, It can be both.
  618. Kev I think that it's stopping other work happening is a given.
  619. MattJ Definitely both
  620. Kev The question is on part one :)
  621. Nekit has left
  622. 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.
  623. adiaholic has left
  624. 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
  625. Kev Ta.
  626. rion has joined
  627. 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
  628. 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
  629. mukt2 has left
  630. calvin has left
  631. mukt2 has joined
  632. remko has left
  633. remko has joined
  634. mathijs has left
  635. mathijs has joined
  636. debacle has left
  637. lovetox has joined
  638. lorddavidiii has left
  639. david has left
  640. lorddavidiii has joined
  641. remko has left
  642. lovetox has left
  643. dwd I don't think deleting the objective should be any kind of default.
  644. moparisthebest well that's the easy option if we don't want to have this discussion
  645. dwd It really isn't.
  646. moparisthebest the hard option is probably better, but it's harder
  647. dwd It's just the action you want, which is very different.
  648. 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
  649. david has joined
  650. !XSF_Martin q
  651. pdurbin has joined
  652. remko has joined
  653. Wojtek has left
  654. lorddavidiii has left
  655. lorddavidiii has joined
  656. pdurbin has left
  657. 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.
  658. lorddavidiii has left
  659. 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.
  660. lorddavidiii has joined
  661. 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)
  662. sonny has left
  663. 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?
  664. 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
  665. moparisthebest and this seems like a productive discussion to accomplish that, no one should be angry about it?
  666. 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.
  667. moparisthebest it's certainly not my intent in any way to make anyone angry, we are all on the same team here
  668. 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.
  669. moparisthebest I don't know what we currently do because it's not documented, so I don't even know if it needs changed
  670. 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?
  671. dwd moparisthebest, By removing a written rule you wanted changing.
  672. 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.
  673. moparisthebest "what I understand to be an open standard" < that's the problem Kev
  674. moparisthebest you and I have a different understanding, and it's defined nowhere
  675. moparisthebest as I said, wikipedia lists 22 different definitions
  676. 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.
  677. Kev Assess and/or access.
  678. 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
  679. Kev And documenting those things seems like a Very Good Thing (although limited volunteer effort, etc.).
  680. Kev But documenting those things doesn't start with radically changing those things that we do have formally specified.
  681. moparisthebest ralphm told me to start the official discussion with a PR
  682. moparisthebest if that was wrong, I'm sorry
  683. 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.
  684. moparisthebest no one should have taken a PR as an insult, please don't do that
  685. 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
  686. lorddavidiii has left
  687. moparisthebest it seems most people agree with me that that particular objective needs work
  688. Kev No, I don't think anyone involved with dev in any aspect expects PRs to be perfect every time.
  689. dwd "needs work" != "removed entirely".
  690. dwd As you surely know.
  691. moparisthebest right, and this got that discussion going
  692. 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.
  693. moparisthebest I also didn't know exactly what changes were needed to fix it, doesn't seem like anyone is clear on that yet
  694. lorddavidiii has joined
  695. Kev I don't see that anything needs 'fixing' here, beyond better documenting our institutional knowledge.
  696. 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
  697. emus has left
  698. 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.
  699. 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
  700. moparisthebest I think the discussion was needed and is good, and should continue on it's current course, that's all
  701. lorddavidiii has left
  702. lorddavidiii has joined
  703. 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.
  704. 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.
  705. 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.
  706. ralphm I'd be happy to expand on this, but now I want to go drumming.
  707. Kev As any decent human would.
  708. debacle has joined
  709. lorddavidiii has left
  710. 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
  711. lorddavidiii has joined
  712. ralphm moparisthebest, section 3.2 of our IPR
  713. ralphm Policy
  714. ralphm https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/ipr-policy#contrib-approval
  715. moparisthebest thanks!
  716. ralphm (and whenever the website is regenerated, it will actually say 3.2 instead of 3.3.
  717. ralphm )
  718. 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/ )
  719. 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)."
  720. moparisthebest I couldn't immediatly find a definition for FRAND
  721. ralphm Well, yes, FRAND is murky
  722. ralphm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
  723. ralphm moparisthebest: just for my understanding, is this your first read of our IPR Policy?
  724. moparisthebest and that seems to be entirely about patents, and nothing about copyright
  725. moparisthebest this is all awful
  726. dwd moparisthebest, Nobody considers software licensing in standards, because no specification can exist if it's only in software.
  727. moparisthebest I'm sure I read it at least when I assigned IP to the XSF
  728. paul has left
  729. 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)
  730. ralphm moparisthebest: that explains. This is also why people get upset.
  731. 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
  732. ralphm moparisthebest: while that might be true, we *do* have a clear idea about what we believe unencumbered means.
  733. moparisthebest ralphm, *you* do, mostly no one else does though
  734. jonas’ I do, too
  735. jonas’ (I think)
  736. 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.
  737. jonas’ since everything what ralphm said about it so far made sense to me
  738. moparisthebest as I stated before, GPL is not an encumbrance in my book
  739. ralphm moparisthebest: but it is in the XSF's
  740. 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
  741. moparisthebest ralphm, the XSF doesn't have a written definition
  742. 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.
  743. moparisthebest that's in fact my entire problem with this, if it's not written down it doesn't exist
  744. dwd moparisthebest, Also, stop telling me what I think.
  745. moparisthebest that seems to be going both ways lately doesn't it? :)
  746. dwd moparisthebest, I know perfectly well that the GPL allows commercial activities, but the fact remains that is also mandates the GPL.
  747. 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
  748. 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
  749. calvin has joined
  750. 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
  751. arc has left
  752. arc has joined
  753. Wojtek has joined
  754. jonas’ striving for full definition of everything is what brings us massive lawbooks nobody has time or energy to read anymore.
  755. dwd "Any burden, interest, right or claim which adversely affects the use of, or the ability to transfer, property."
  756. dwd That's (a) legal definition, the first one that came up on Google.
  757. moparisthebest yes, that one is about real estate
  758. moparisthebest "property" there
  759. jonas’ can’t it be intellectual property
  760. dwd That's not what "property" means. It includes real estate, certainly, but also software or anything else that can be owned independently.
  761. 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.
  762. ralphm And also all the stuff I've written before on this the last two weeks.
  763. Nekit has joined
  764. Wojtek has left
  765. calvin has left
  766. calvin has joined
  767. mathijs has left
  768. mathijs has joined
  769. j.r has left
  770. arc has left
  771. arc has joined
  772. j.r has joined
  773. paul has joined
  774. lorddavidiii has left
  775. serge90 has left
  776. serge90 has joined
  777. lorddavidiii has joined
  778. mathijs has left
  779. mathijs has joined
  780. paul has left
  781. Yagiza has left
  782. pdurbin has joined
  783. calvin has left
  784. calvin has joined
  785. pdurbin has left
  786. debacle has left
  787. calvin has left
  788. calvin has joined
  789. debacle has joined
  790. APach has left
  791. APach has joined
  792. wurstsalat has left
  793. wurstsalat has joined
  794. debacle has left
  795. debacle has joined
  796. debacle has left
  797. debacle has joined
  798. lorddavidiii has left
  799. lorddavidiii has joined
  800. neshtaxmpp has joined
  801. lorddavidiii has left
  802. lorddavidiii has joined
  803. emus has joined
  804. Syndace has left
  805. Syndace has joined
  806. matkor has joined
  807. sonny has joined
  808. MattJ has left
  809. mukt2 has left
  810. mukt2 has joined
  811. sonny has left
  812. paul has joined
  813. sonny has joined
  814. paul has left
  815. Tobias has left
  816. MattJ has joined
  817. Shell has joined
  818. sonny has left
  819. sonny has joined
  820. Nekit has left
  821. Shell has left
  822. Shell has joined
  823. debacle has left
  824. debacle has joined
  825. remko has left
  826. pdurbin has joined
  827. Shell has left
  828. Shell has joined
  829. sonny has left
  830. paul has joined
  831. remko has joined
  832. adiaholic has joined
  833. pdurbin has left
  834. adiaholic has left
  835. adiaholic has joined
  836. sonny has joined
  837. Shell has left
  838. Shell has joined
  839. adiaholic has left
  840. remko has left
  841. Zash has left
  842. 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.
  843. Alex has left
  844. Alex has joined
  845. sonny has left
  846. matkor has left
  847. matkor has joined
  848. ralphm Hehe
  849. paul has left
  850. andy has left
  851. Zash has joined
  852. paul has joined
  853. Guus Instead, you turned to this muc. What could possibly go wrong.
  854. calvin has left
  855. david has left
  856. sonny has joined
  857. david has joined
  858. Zash has left
  859. wurstsalat has left
  860. Zash has joined
  861. matkor has left
  862. !XSF_Martin has left
  863. mukt2 has left
  864. pep. > ralphm> (and whenever the website is regenerated, it will actually say 3.2 instead of 3.3. > ) it should already?
  865. !XSF_Martin has joined
  866. sonny has left
  867. sonny has joined
  868. waqas has joined
  869. lorddavidiii has left
  870. lorddavidiii has joined
  871. Shell has left
  872. Shell has joined
  873. waqas has left
  874. waqas has joined
  875. Shell has left
  876. Shell has joined
  877. Daniel has left
  878. Shell has left
  879. Shell has joined
  880. Daniel has joined
  881. Shell has left
  882. Shell has joined
  883. debacle has left
  884. debacle has joined
  885. emus has left
  886. Daniel has left
  887. Shell has left
  888. Shell has joined
  889. pdurbin has joined
  890. Shell has left
  891. Shell has joined
  892. waqas has left
  893. pdurbin has left