XSF Discussion - 2020-01-17

  1. lskdjf has left
  2. Shell has left
  3. Shell has joined
  4. !XSF_Martin has left
  5. !XSF_Martin has joined
  6. Shell has left
  7. Shell has joined
  8. Daniel has joined
  9. Shell has left
  10. stpeter has left
  11. Daniel has left
  12. Daniel has joined
  13. debacle has left
  14. mukt2 has joined
  15. moparisthebest dwd: > For what it's worth, there are plenty of Open Source developers who > haven't bullied the XSF or tried to reinterpret its documents and > practice to claim it allows them to do whatever they want. now that's a little childish isn't it? and after our discussion here where I clarified I was after none of these things. I'm not going to derail the email thread and I'll be happy to just forget about it, just please realize we are on the same team here, I honestly just wanted some things clarified, if discussion is in any way harmful to any type of open standards organization then it's in bad shape
  16. lorddavidiii has left
  17. Daniel has left
  18. stpeter has joined
  19. Daniel has joined
  20. sonny has left
  21. Daniel has left
  22. stpeter has left
  23. serge90 has left
  24. serge90 has joined
  25. pdurbin has joined
  26. paul has left
  27. andrey.g has left
  28. stpeter has joined
  29. pdurbin has left
  30. mukt2 has left
  31. sonny has joined
  32. arc has left
  33. arc has joined
  34. mukt2 has joined
  35. Daniel has joined
  36. Shell has joined
  37. adiaholic has joined
  38. mukt2 has left
  39. mukt2 has joined
  40. calvin has joined
  41. Daniel has left
  42. Daniel has joined
  43. waqas has joined
  44. mukt2 has left
  45. mukt2 has joined
  46. Daniel has left
  47. karoshi has left
  48. calvin has left
  49. calvin has joined
  50. calvin has left
  51. calvin has joined
  52. mukt2 has left
  53. arc has left
  54. arc has joined
  55. Daniel has joined
  56. pdurbin has joined
  57. j.r has left
  58. Yagiza has joined
  59. pdurbin has left
  60. j.r has joined
  61. stpeter has left
  62. waqas has left
  63. calvin has left
  64. adiaholic has left
  65. adiaholic has joined
  66. Nekit has joined
  67. Shell has left
  68. Shell has joined
  69. andy has joined
  70. pdurbin has joined
  71. Daniel has left
  72. sonny has left
  73. Daniel has joined
  74. krauq has left
  75. Daniel has left
  76. krauq has joined
  77. andrey.g has joined
  78. lorddavidiii has joined
  79. !XSF_Martin has left
  80. sonny has joined
  81. mukt2 has joined
  82. Tobias has joined
  83. mukt2 has left
  84. j.r has left
  85. j.r has joined
  86. Daniel has joined
  87. arc has left
  88. arc has joined
  89. Daniel has left
  90. sonny has left
  91. Daniel has joined
  92. moparisthebest has left
  93. moparisthebest has joined
  94. !XSF_Martin has joined
  95. wurstsalat has joined
  96. Daniel has left
  97. arc has left
  98. Daniel has joined
  99. !XSF_Martin has left
  100. lorddavidiii has left
  101. lorddavidiii has joined
  102. emus has joined
  103. lorddavidiii has left
  104. lorddavidiii has joined
  105. Daniel has left
  106. Daniel has joined
  107. pdurbin has left
  108. lorddavidiii has left
  109. lorddavidiii has joined
  110. lovetox has joined
  111. Daniel has left
  112. matkor has joined
  113. Daniel has joined
  114. karoshi has joined
  115. matkor has left
  116. karoshi has left
  117. karoshi has joined
  118. paul has joined
  119. mathijs has left
  120. mathijs has joined
  121. Daniel has left
  122. zach has joined
  123. zach has left
  124. zach has joined
  125. genofire has left
  126. lorddavidiii has left
  127. lorddavidiii has joined
  128. genofire has joined
  129. larma has left
  130. Daniel has joined
  131. mathijs has left
  132. mathijs has joined
  133. lskdjf has joined
  134. larma has joined
  135. remko has joined
  136. Daniel has left
  137. lskdjf has left
  138. lskdjf has joined
  139. matkor has joined
  140. Daniel has joined
  141. moparisthebest has left
  142. moparisthebest has joined
  143. mimi89999 has left
  144. genofire has left
  145. lorddavidiii has left
  146. lorddavidiii has joined
  147. zach has left
  148. zach has joined
  149. mimi89999 has joined
  150. genofire has joined
  151. mathijs has left
  152. mathijs has joined
  153. goffi has joined
  154. dwd You don't want things simply clarified, you want them significantly changed - this is evident from your actions and messages. You'rve consistently argued that any kind of encumbrance is acceptable to you and therefore should be allowed by the XSF, and argued that the documents describing our process either allow this already or should be changed to allow it. I don't really see how this is mischaracterising anything.
  155. Shell has left
  156. pep. dwd: seems to me you're also in the business of telling people what they think (that you criticized yesterday in this channel). Maybe we can all put an end to the pettiness
  157. pdurbin has joined
  158. sonny has joined
  159. zach has left
  160. dwd pep., If you'd like to explain why you think I'm wrong, please do so.
  161. zach has joined
  162. pep. I don't actually care if you're right or wrong here
  163. dwd Of course not.
  164. pep. that's not how we keep the dialogue going
  165. pep. and yes I disagree with your statement fwiw
  166. dwd pep., I've done my level best to explain why radical changes to the XSF will damage it. I have, nevertheless, provided a proposal to compromise on this to a significant degree. The reaction has been to continue pushing to reinterpret existing rules and change them.
  167. dwd For example: ‎[18:30:14] ‎moparisthebest‎: as I stated before, GPL is not an encumbrance in my book
  168. pdurbin has left
  169. zach has left
  170. zach has joined
  171. pep. dwd: so what, GPL is also not an encumbrance in my book. That's why we're asking for that to be rephrased, explained differently maybe
  172. jonas’ dwd, I don’t see a problem with that statement
  173. jonas’ that’s not asking to change anything
  174. jonas’ that’s just explaining their viewpoint
  175. jonas’ nothing wrong with that.
  176. flow Out of curiosity and to determine how much effort to put into this, I'd really like to see a member opinion vote on that. Of course, the question is what 'that' should be. Maybe "Should a XEP requiring GPL-compatible licenses be disallowed to enter the experimental stage (Yes / No)"
  177. dwd jonas’, Encumbrance has a legal definition that's really quite easy to find, as these things go.
  178. jonas’ dwd, for someone who has no problems with GPL, it’s still not an encumbrance maybe?
  179. jonas’ I’m not a native speaker, but you and moparisthebest are, I think
  180. jonas’ (though from different locales methings)
  181. dwd jonas’, For someone with an astonishing amount of money, high patent licensing would not be an onerous encumbrance, but it would still be an encumbrance.
  182. dwd jonas’, I'm happy to clarify these things, of course, but they have a defined meaning.
  183. dwd flow, I would still argue that allowing encumbered specifications (by the usual and legally-accepted definition of encumbrance) onto the Standards Track is dangerous, and I will resist that heavily.
  184. jonas’ dwd, which is fair and good, I think
  185. jonas’ but I also think you’re putting words on the "Goldwaage" (as we say in germany) here, meaning that you’re being overly precise about interpreting other people’s statements and not giving them any leeway (which, I think, would be appropriate given the medium and intensity of discussion)
  186. zach has left
  187. zach has joined
  188. dwd jonas’, I have to assume that what people are arguing for is that the GPL is an *acceptable* encumbrance. That is an opinion, and while I disagree, I accept it's not a right or wrong thing in any absolute terms. But the fact that the GPL requires particular licensing on derived works, for example, is factual, and the fact that also counts as an encumbrance in the usual meaning of that term isn't contraversial in the slightest.
  189. zach has left
  190. zach has joined
  191. sonny has left
  192. jonas’ dwd, I see. The viewpoint makes sense.
  193. jonas’ I’m just worried about the level of hostility on both sides in this discussion.
  194. Daniel yeah i think the omemo debate has brought up some underlying friction that has been there for a while. plus classic bike shedding i mean as far as omemo is concerned this debate could have been already over. The OMEMO Team(tm) has already announced that they are planning on working on a second iteration that is gpl free and fixes many other problems with the spec (for omemo, gpl is only one of multiple issues)
  195. sonny has joined
  196. lorddavidiii has left
  197. lorddavidiii has joined
  198. dwd Daniel, I'm trying, probably unsuccessfully, to seperate OMEMO from the general case, and seperate any technical issues in OMEMO from its licensing. I have no stake in the technical issues; work-wise we can't use any PFS/PCS solution, so MLS is equally out. Obviously I like to have high-quality XSF specs, but I have no personal/work aims here.
  199. lorddavidiii has left
  200. lorddavidiii has joined
  201. dwd (Our end-users do want E2EE; they also want nothing held on the device and a search function. You can imagine my fun.)
  202. winfried dwd: may I quote that one?
  203. dwd winfried, Not publicly please.
  204. dwd I actually have a candidate solution, but it's horrendous.
  205. remko has left
  206. remko has joined
  207. winfried dwd: OK, Was already including it in my e2e encryption presentation at fosdem, scrapping it again :-D
  208. dwd winfried, Without attribution and company name is fine.
  209. winfried dwd: (y)
  210. ralphm Good thing this room is not archived publicly. 😜
  211. jonas’ dwd, you are aware that this room is publicly logged?
  212. dwd Yes, of course, but putting it in a presentation is rather different.
  213. lskdjf has left
  214. lskdjf has joined
  215. lorddavidiii has left
  216. lorddavidiii has joined
  217. dwd winfried, Also a user-story I put on Twitter to explain things to a well-meaning Doctor: https://twitter.com/DwdDave/status/1204395566442135553 - you can use that.
  218. winfried dwd thanks
  219. winfried Daniel: for my information / knowledge, do you have a list of issues with the OMEMO spec? I love to have a better overview...
  220. winfried dwd: > work-wise we can't use any PFS/PCS solution I don't understand this comment, can you explain it?
  221. dwd "Perfect Forward Secrecy" and "Post Compromise Security", which are very similar concepts. I think PCS is a little weaker, but honestly I'm not sure of the details beyond "ephemeral keying".
  222. winfried And what do you mean with 'work-wise'? I believe my biggest lack of understanding is there...
  223. Guus Daniel the fact that OMEMO is already being replaced, as you write, fits right in XSF-defined procedures on how to handle contention like the one we're in now, I think. I just mentioned something along the same lines in a reply to the mailinglist. If we take that out of scope: what issue remains? What are the core issues that we're really discussing here?
  224. pep. winfried, https://github.com/Syndace/xeps/projects/1 that was a list Syndace pasted here
  225. pep. There are probably more
  226. dwd winfried, Oh. As in, for my work. Pando cannot use ephemeral keying because we cannot store data on the device and need a secure audit trail.
  227. winfried dwd: clear.. I thought the 'we' referred to the XSF....
  228. Guus I think it was useful to separate the two discussions currently going on in the mailinglists, btw. Thanks for that.
  229. remko has left
  230. Zash We need the Hats XEP! :)
  231. winfried pep.: thanks, gives a clear picture already
  232. dwd Guus, There's at least three things to consider: Experimental, [Non-]Open Standards, and OMEMO itself. I'm hoping that by dealing with the first two the last just happens.
  233. Guus I'm thinking Experimental is at best only sideways-related to the rest - or am I missing something?
  234. Kev Guus: Experimental is (currently) the entry point, so it's definitely related.
  235. dwd Guus, Yes, I agree with Kev, these are all interrelated.
  236. Guus I ment 'side-ways' in the sense that discussing 'experimental' primarily affects _when_ checks against XSF principles/objectives are made - not what those principles/objectives are?
  237. dwd Yes, that's true.
  238. Guus Meaning that any discussion on experimental should not affect the eventual outcome of a progression of a XEP through the stages.
  239. Guus we could optimize that flow, making sure that things that we don't want are out earlier, while the barrier to add new things is lower.
  240. Guus And those would be all good improvements.
  241. dwd Modulo that, as stated, I will resist anything going onto (opr staying on) the Standards Track if it doesn't conform to our IPR policy.
  242. Guus I'm thinking I've just took a harder line on that than you, in my last email.
  243. Guus I'm thinking I've just took a harder line on that than you did earlier, in my last email.
  244. sonny has left
  245. remko has joined
  246. Nekit has left
  247. dwd I think that's roughly in line with my original stance, which I have tried to compromise on.
  248. Nekit has joined
  249. Guus As I wrote: I appreciate you trying to find a compromise - but I think this one will hurt us more than benefit, in the long run
  250. Guus On an unrelated note: today is the last day that the Thon EU hotel offer is valid. If you want to make us of it, act now!
  251. !XSF_Martin has joined
  252. remko has left
  253. Syndace has left
  254. Syndace has joined
  255. Guus > Well, yes, but the majority of our end-users are probably Fortnite players, and they're not talking to us. My kid gave up 30 seconds into me trying to explain IPR.
  256. larma has left
  257. larma has joined
  258. dwd I probably should have expanded on that. But "consumer-grade" instant messaging is pretty small beans for XMPP. Embedded use of XMPP into games is, I think, the largest use by numbers of users, and I'm not sure what would be next - probably military, though possibly financial trading.
  259. dwd That doesn't mean I don't think consumer-grade messaging isn't important, or that we should ignore enterprise messaging (ie, Slack) because we're barely present. Strategically, both those make more sense to concentrate on than gaming (and won't harm gaming either), at least in terms of features.
  260. Guus (no argument from me)
  261. debacle has joined
  262. dwd Shit me. "That doesn't mean I don't think [...] isn't important". I'm turning into Kev. Sorry.
  263. !XSF_Martin has left
  264. Guus You're only realizing this now? 😃
  265. dwd Guus, I wasn't unaware of it.
  266. Guus that's my boy
  267. Guus Unrelated: you've disappeared from my roster again.
  268. Guus ah, no
  269. Guus sorry
  270. Guus my client is acting up
  271. lorddavidiii has left
  272. zach has left
  273. zach has joined
  274. lorddavidiii has joined
  275. Guus dwd I'm trying to push a subscription request your way
  276. lorddavidiii has left
  277. mathijs has left
  278. lorddavidiii has joined
  279. mathijs has joined
  280. mathijs has left
  281. mathijs has joined
  282. remko has joined
  283. lorddavidiii has left
  284. lorddavidiii has joined
  285. lorddavidiii has left
  286. lorddavidiii has joined
  287. Wojtek has joined
  288. lorddavidiii has left
  289. lorddavidiii has joined
  290. remko has left
  291. Kev dwd: On the contrary, I get the right number of negatives into my incomprehensible mess :p
  292. eevvoor has joined
  293. mathijs has left
  294. mathijs has joined
  295. dwd Kev, I never said I didn't disagree.
  296. pdurbin has joined
  297. jonas’ I propose a member vote: any negation in a sentence beyond the first costs 2^n EUR, where n = number of negations in that sentence. To be paid to all non-native english speakers.
  298. jonas’ I propose a member vote: any negation in a sentence beyond the first costs 2^n EUR, where n = number of negations in that sentence. To be paid to all non-native english speakers in the XSF.
  299. jonas’ (each)
  300. Kev So that first sentence of you costs 4 EUR to each non-native speaker?
  301. jonas’ Kev, huh, where is the second negation there?
  302. jonas’ aaaah
  303. jonas’ s/any negation in a sentence beyond the first costs/any negation beyond the first in a sentence costs/
  304. jonas’ better?
  305. Kev 'any negation' = 1, 'number of negations' = 2 :)
  306. jonas’ I’m gonna leave now
  307. Guus I'm gonna sit here, be quiet, and become rich.
  308. pdurbin has left
  309. dwd Guus, You're Dutch, you count as a native speaker. :-)
  310. Guus Will me exclaiming "no no no!" count against jonas’ rule?
  311. Kev I couldn't possibly count it out.
  312. pdurbin has joined
  313. lorddavidiii has left
  314. lorddavidiii has joined
  315. pdurbin has left
  316. adiaholic has left
  317. adiaholic has joined
  318. vanitasvitae has left
  319. vanitasvitae has joined
  320. zach has left
  321. zach has joined
  322. remko has joined
  323. emus has left
  324. emus has joined
  325. ralphm dwd: oops, in that case I've been lying quite a bit
  326. APach has left
  327. APach has joined
  328. remko has left
  329. dwd ralphm, Ik ben het daar niet mee oneens.
  330. ralphm dwd: :-D
  331. emus has left
  332. emus has joined
  333. Guus Jonas never limited it to any specific language. I'm guessing the first round at the hotel bar is on you. 🙂
  334. zach has left
  335. lorddavidiii has left
  336. zach has joined
  337. sonny has joined
  338. lorddavidiii has joined
  339. j.r has left
  340. j.r has joined
  341. winfried has left
  342. winfried has joined
  343. winfried has left
  344. winfried has joined
  345. stpeter has joined
  346. winfried has left
  347. winfried has joined
  348. Zash has left
  349. Zash has joined
  350. zach has left
  351. zach has joined
  352. !XSF_Martin has joined
  353. emus has left
  354. MattJ dwd, just tried a different email address for the Eurostar website, same error
  355. MattJ The only other thing it has is my phone number, I could try my landline
  356. MattJ or it just hates my name
  357. mukt2 has joined
  358. !XSF_Martin Is your last name Null?
  359. dwd "What do you mean, your surname is just 'J'?"
  360. MattJ Oh my, I did it
  361. Guus Who did you bribe?
  362. stpeter Huzzah!
  363. MattJ Different browser, incognito mode, paypal and my "other" email address... winning combo I'll have to remember for next year
  364. emus has joined
  365. dwd Same train as me?
  366. MattJ 15:04?
  367. dwd Cheap afternoon one? Sounds right.
  368. MattJ Yep
  369. dwd Last train back on Sunday?
  370. MattJ No, coming back on Monday
  371. MattJ Otherwise getting home that late is too difficult
  372. waqas has joined
  373. MattJ and crossing the border might take the whole day, etc.
  374. !XSF_Martin Isn't it still EU?
  375. Daniel oh; i had forgotten about that
  376. intosi Lovely timing.
  377. dwd Daniel, Yeah, I haven't.
  378. MattJ Great timing indeed
  379. Zash !XSF_Martin: Doesn't matter, it's Shengen that you can thank for painless border crossing and the UK was never part of that
  380. Daniel i mean not about brexit in general. but the fact that it is - this time for real - happening right during fosdem
  381. dwd MattJ, Right, I figured I could use travel insurance if needs be. Or get my son to fly into Belgium under the radar in the dead of night.
  382. intosi dwd: the latter sounds ideal.
  383. !XSF_Martin > !XSF_Martin: Doesn't matter, it's Shengen that you can thank for painless border crossing and the UK was never part of that Yeah, that's right. I think Switzerland and UK are the both exceptions of schengen == EU.
  384. intosi Switzerland != EU.
  385. MattJ dwd, pilot licence valid in the EU?
  386. dwd Daniel, It has been on my mind since that particular date was announced, and is also part of the reason Kev isn't coming at all.
  387. lorddavidiii has left
  388. !XSF_Martin > Switzerland != EU. But Switzerland is Schengen.
  389. intosi TIL
  390. dwd MattJ, Yes, he has an EASA-issued license, so he's fine. He could transition it to a CAA one after Brexit, but there's no point.
  391. dwd !XSF_Martin, Ireland isn't Schengen either, and I believe there are other countries.
  392. intosi I suspect flying under the radar might put his license at risk, though.
  393. Zash dwd: paradrop?
  394. intosi Although, if he isn't caught doing so...
  395. dwd intosi, Only in the EU. ;-)
  396. lorddavidiii has joined
  397. dwd intosi, Flying in the dead of night is probably worse for his license, actually, given he doesn't have night qual.
  398. !XSF_Martin > !XSF_Martin, Ireland isn't Schengen either, and I believe there are other countries. Really? Afaik it was Schengen. I travelled to Switzerland without any control.
  399. !XSF_Martin Wikipedia says it is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
  400. dwd !XSF_Martin, No, Ireland is in the CTA with the UK, which is one of the precursors along with Benelux.
  401. Guus > Or get my son to fly into Belgium under the radar in the dead of night. Isn't that basically an invasion at that point?
  402. !XSF_Martin Ah, thought your talking about Switzerland. Sorry.
  403. lorddavidiii has left
  404. Guus I'll be there on Wednesday too.
  405. dwd Guus, Well, yes, but only of Blegium so that doesn't count. Everyone invades Belgium.
  406. Guus true.
  407. lorddavidiii has joined
  408. moparisthebest dwd, matter of perspective I guess, from your perspective I'm trying to radically change things, from my perspective I already thought they were that way, hence the asking for clarification etc, I don't think this is in any way unreasonable
  409. moparisthebest clearly XEP-0001 fails at being clear enough on critical definitions like "open standard"
  410. moparisthebest so that should be fixed and let's move on
  411. mukt2 has left
  412. pdurbin has joined
  413. matkor has left
  414. mukt2 has joined
  415. remko has joined
  416. pdurbin has left
  417. emus has left
  418. zach has left
  419. larma has left
  420. larma has joined
  421. zach has joined
  422. ralphm As I've pointed out before, XEP-0001 doesn't exist in a vacuum, and our definition of open standard *is* clearly defined in our IPR Policy.
  423. moparisthebest only in your mind
  424. moparisthebest it's not clear to me at least, for instance
  425. pep. it's also not clear to me.
  426. Kev It could be it's clear to the people who've been involved in the XSF for 15 years and less so for the newcomers.
  427. Kev It could be it's clear to the people who've been involved in the XSF for 15+ years and less so for the newcomers.
  428. moparisthebest no, it should be crystal clear to the newcomers, or even anyone reading XEP-0001, or it has failed at it's task
  429. Kev I think you misread what I said.
  430. moparisthebest yes I did, I'll agree with that one :)
  431. emus has joined
  432. jonas’ to be honest, I never cared much about what exactly constitutes an open standard, but I agree that we need a clear definition if we want to make decisions based on this term
  433. remko has left
  434. moparisthebest exactly jonas’ , I never really thought too hard about it either until just recently
  435. mimi89999 has left
  436. mimi89999 has joined
  437. !XSF_Martin has left
  438. !XSF_Martin has joined
  439. ralphm The discussion has mostly focussed on OMEMO being based on the Signal Protocol, implies that the protocol can only be implemented such that the end result is considered to fall under the GPL. I see this as a 'restriction', as per the IPR Policy, and this is why I believe that means it is encumbered. I hear people find this to be unclear, and I'd like to understand why.
  440. stpeter has left
  441. krauq has left
  442. krauq has joined
  443. emus has left
  444. moparisthebest as I've stated, I don't find the GPL to be an encumbrance, additionally "the protocol can only be implemented such that the end result is considered to fall under the GPL" is a legal opinion that I think the XSF has no business making, lastly I would personally clearly count GPL as an "open standard" and since there is no definition in XEP-0001...
  445. moparisthebest that's kind of why I tried to seperate the conversations, if we don't make legal opinions, then we don't have to worry about the GPL stuff at all
  446. moparisthebest if we do make legal opinions, then we need to edit XEP-0001 to clarify a ton of stuff
  447. jonas’ you are right about the legal opinion on "the protocol can only be implemented such that the end result is considered to fall under the GPL"
  448. moparisthebest and decide what to do about GPL
  449. jonas’ we’re not qualified for htat
  450. jonas’ what we ARE qualified for is to detect a situation where forming such a legal opinion is very much required in the first place
  451. jonas’ which is an encumberance
  452. jonas’ all on its own
  453. ralphm this
  454. jonas’ if you need DEFINITELY need a legal opinion to figure out if you can implement something under free software license X, then it’s encumbered, period.
  455. moparisthebest you have to form a legal opinion anytime you implement anything
  456. jonas’ that’s a restriction and something very scary to legal departments
  457. zach has left
  458. zach has joined
  459. mimi89999 has left
  460. mimi89999 has joined
  461. moparisthebest and of course I'd have no problem at all with some disclaimer saying what we think might be possible encumbrances (is that a word?)
  462. ralphm moparisthebest, I am not asking you whether you think a specification requiring the end result to be GPL is an open standard. I'm asking if you can see that this requirement can be considered as a limitation as per the *XSF's* definition.
  463. moparisthebest the XSF doesn't have a clear enough definition for me to decide
  464. moparisthebest "open standard" appears 1 time in XEP-0001, and no times in the IPR policy, and no definitions anywhere
  465. mimi89999 has left
  466. mimi89999 has joined
  467. adiaholic has left
  468. Ge0rG is this the third or the fourth round we are doing here?
  469. Guus From the IPR: > owever, the XSF must ensure that XMPP Extensions do not pollute the free and open nature of the protocols. Preventing such pollution means that in perpetuity any entity may independently, and without payment or hindrance, create, use, sell, distribute, or dispose of implementations of XMPP and of any XMPP Extension. Such is the intent of this policy. To me, that leaves little room for interpretation of this. Having a protocol that requires an implementation to be of any type of license that for whatever reason someone would be unwilling to comply to, breaks with the above.
  470. Guus From the IPR: > However, the XSF must ensure that XMPP Extensions do not pollute the free and open nature of the protocols. Preventing such pollution means that in perpetuity any entity may independently, and without payment or hindrance, create, use, sell, distribute, or dispose of implementations of XMPP and of any XMPP Extension. Such is the intent of this policy. To me, that leaves little room for interpretation of this. Having a protocol that requires an implementation to be of any type of license that for whatever reason someone would be unwilling to comply to, breaks with the above.
  471. emus has joined
  472. jonas’ Ge0rG, sixth, methinks
  473. Guus Ge0rG I'm thinking we're in the double-digits.
  474. moparisthebest Ge0rG, isn't it just one long discussion?
  475. jonas’ moparisthebest, a long discussion would move beyond re-iterating the same points each and every day
  476. ralphm moparisthebest, do you understand the piece that Guus copied from the IPR Policy?
  477. stpeter has joined
  478. Ge0rG what jonas said
  479. Ge0rG oh god this train wifi at 200km/h is lagging
  480. moparisthebest I don't think we are, I'm being accused of trying to do things that I am not trying to do, and attempting to make that clear
  481. Ge0rG and poezio is re-connecting all the time. Sigh
  482. moparisthebest I mean yesterday dwd accused me of "bullying the XSF into my interpretation [sic]" and I'm clarifying that's not my intent
  483. dwd In fairness, I was quoting Daniel there.
  484. Daniel moparisthebest: fwiw I don't think he did. And I was the one who brought up the term
  485. Daniel And I wasn't referring to you
  486. moparisthebest yep that's fair, I'm not personally insulted, it's just clear my intent has not came across how I had planned
  487. Guus What do we need to resolve this?
  488. Kev A deep breath. (first)
  489. jonas’ on all parties, please
  490. Daniel Actually I was partially referring to myself and/or myself from a couple of years ago when we first had the omemo debate
  491. Kev jonas’: You would like me to breathe on all parties? I could try speaking Welsh at people, although that would be more spittle than breath.
  492. Guus I'll see Kev's Welsh and raise him with my Dutch.
  493. jonas’ Kev, I ... I ... this is the second time you trolled me today!
  494. jonas’ Kev, I ... I ... this is the second time you trolled me today! (in a good way)
  495. calvin has joined
  496. moparisthebest that statement from the IPR policy is clear, but XEP-0001 doesn't make it clear that that is the particular definition of "open standard" we are using
  497. Kev jonas’: Someone once made the (insightful) observation that the reason I don't enjoy speaking Welsh is that I'm not fluent enough to be able to play silly games with it in the way I do with English.
  498. moparisthebest some type of update to XEP-0001 with some clarification would be good
  499. Kev When I said a deep breath, though, that bit wasn't flippant. I think the best thing we could do would be to step back for a few days (I think everyone's position is now clear).
  500. Ge0rG moparisthebest: that we probably all can agree on
  501. jonas’ Kev, that seems realistic
  502. Ge0rG maybe we can just call out the weekend, then?
  503. moparisthebest and then the next step is to continue trying to figure out how we can document things that *currently* have IPR concerns but might be fixed later
  504. Kev I think that then, once we have an obvious break from the current discussion, in which some tensions have run somewhat high, one of the people who's been around a while attempts to add a clarification to XEP1 - hopefully one that doesn't involve adding too much prose.
  505. Kev And then the people who've found it confusing can comment on whether it helps as a clarification or not
  506. Ge0rG Kev: yes, it should be done by somebody who doesn't involve too much prose.
  507. moparisthebest that sounds perfect Kev
  508. Kev (And if we get to the stage that our status quo is documented reasonable, we decide that the status quo should be changed, I think that is the time to consider it)
  509. Kev (And if we get to the stage that our status quo is documented reasonably, we decide that the status quo should be changed, I think that is the time to consider it)
  510. !XSF_Martin has left
  511. Kev I think I've probably been around for long enough to have a reasonable first stab at a PR or two, so I propose that, as recompense for missing the Summit, I will submit something in a couple of weeks, assuming we can manage the first part of calming the flames in the interim :)
  512. Kev And I would try very hard not to write too much prose, at least in part because I very much don't enjoy writing such things.
  513. Guus (in my experience, writing less prose is more work)
  514. Kev Guus: y
  515. Guus I have no issue with that approach. Seems sensible to me. Thanks.
  516. emus has left
  517. moparisthebest sounds great, so not sure how to "officially retract my PR" while waiting for Kev 's but you can at least unofficially consider it done
  518. zach has left
  519. emus has joined
  520. zach has joined
  521. Syndace has left
  522. Syndace has joined
  523. moparisthebest and I'll just re-iterate once more before shutting up, no hard feelings from my end, I didn't mean to cause any for anyone else, and I really appreciate the discussion I think it's been productive
  524. Kev moparisthebest: Thanks. If you'd like me to, I could close that request with the comment you've just given. Resubmitting wouldn't be onerous i fyou later wanted to.
  525. Kev Using my almost-the-laziest-Editor-we've-got superpowers.
  526. stpeter has left
  527. moparisthebest ah it's unlocked now, I can do it!
  528. Kev 👍
  529. remko has joined
  530. emus has left
  531. emus has joined
  532. !XSF_Martin has joined
  533. mukt2 has left
  534. krauq has left
  535. krauq has joined
  536. waqas has left
  537. zach has left
  538. zach has joined
  539. waqas has joined
  540. stpeter has joined
  541. remko has left
  542. genofire has left
  543. genofire has joined
  544. ralphm Kev: if I take this task, will that free you up to come to the summit?
  545. lovetox has left
  546. Kev Hah. Sadly not.
  547. ralphm Hey, I tried.
  548. ralphm It is kinda unconfortable to not have a Kev there.
  549. ralphm It is kinda uncomfortable to not have a Kev there.
  550. adiaholic has joined
  551. genofire has left
  552. Kev I'm sure Diegem will somehow cope with the great double-negatives drought of 2020.
  553. genofire has joined
  554. remko has joined
  555. dwd I don't think I'm not the only one who won't say I'm not disappointed.
  556. ralphm Is dwd not coming either?
  557. ralphm Nor intosi?
  558. pep. I vote for jonas’' idea of negation jar.
  559. j.r has left
  560. Kev dwd's going, I believe.
  561. intosi I'm going as well.
  562. dwd ralphm, I'll come. Double negatives I can do, but Kev has cornered the market in the triple.
  563. ralphm I do not intend to not attent.
  564. intosi I can't promise I won't try avoiding not sneaking in a few n-negatives.
  565. lovetox has joined
  566. adiaholic has left
  567. zach has left
  568. zach has joined
  569. mukt2 has joined
  570. emus has left
  571. mimi89999 has left
  572. Dele (Mobile) has left
  573. adiaholic has joined
  574. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  575. lovetox has left
  576. emus has joined
  577. lovetox has joined
  578. eevvoor has left
  579. mukt2 has left
  580. mathijs has left
  581. mathijs has joined
  582. sonny has left
  583. j.r has joined
  584. zach has left
  585. zach has joined
  586. remko has left
  587. Ge0rG jonas’: the Jan 2nd votes are all tagged as EXPIRED in the spreadsheet of doom
  588. jonas’ that’s correct
  589. jonas’ because they weren’t complete
  590. jonas’ I need to trigger editor actions
  591. Ge0rG but even in incomplete state, I think they all look like decided, right?
  592. jonas’ yeah, I didn’t code it
  593. Ge0rG right
  594. Ge0rG not trying to blame you, I just wondered
  595. Ge0rG (also reading up on the MAMFC thread, slowly)
  596. sonny has joined
  597. mukt2 has joined
  598. mathijs has left
  599. mathijs has joined
  600. zach has left
  601. zach has joined
  602. mukt2 has left
  603. genofire has left
  604. genofire has joined
  605. matkor has joined
  606. mathijs has left
  607. mathijs has joined
  608. lovetox has left
  609. dwd Yeah, I never got beyond "expired", and I actually wanted to highlight them even though they might be decisive.
  610. sonny has left
  611. mimi89999 has joined
  612. !XSF_Martin has left
  613. !XSF_Martin has joined
  614. adiaholic has left
  615. mukt2 has joined
  616. zach has left
  617. zach has joined
  618. remko has joined
  619. lovetox has joined
  620. serge90 has left
  621. serge90 has joined
  622. aj has joined
  623. calvin has left
  624. Shell has joined
  625. lovetox has left
  626. lovetox has joined
  627. j.r has left
  628. j.r has joined
  629. j.r has left
  630. j.r has joined
  631. remko has left
  632. remko has joined
  633. j.r has left
  634. aj has left
  635. mathijs has left
  636. mathijs has joined
  637. zach has left
  638. zach has joined
  639. waqas has left
  640. adiaholic has joined
  641. stpeter has left
  642. rion has left
  643. rion has joined
  644. lorddavidiii has left
  645. lorddavidiii has joined
  646. j.r has joined
  647. mimi89999 has left
  648. mimi89999 has joined
  649. lorddavidiii has left
  650. lorddavidiii has joined
  651. remko has left
  652. stpeter has joined
  653. remko has joined
  654. j.r has left
  655. lovetox has left
  656. zach has left
  657. zach has joined
  658. andrey.g has left
  659. Nekit has left
  660. mimi89999 has left
  661. mimi89999 has joined
  662. debacle has left
  663. j.r has joined
  664. mukt2 has left
  665. stpeter has left
  666. andrey.g has joined
  667. Daniel Has anyone ever done / thought about something like BOSH for s2s?
  668. zach has left
  669. zach has joined
  670. marc What is the use case?
  671. moparisthebest before you go too far down that rabbit hole, the RFC is still under way, but likely soon there will be a "SRV2" dns record that'll let us combine all of regular SRV, XEP-0368, and the TXT records BOSH/Websockets use
  672. moparisthebest in addition to other nice to haves, ESNI, QUIC
  673. moparisthebest that would make it fairly clean discovery wise for S2S to use other transports
  674. Daniel Well discovery wouldn't be my biggest concern with that.
  675. Daniel I mean well-know 156 works
  676. moparisthebest https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01 < I think this is the most recent
  677. adiaholic has left
  678. moparisthebest yep discovery is just the easiest part perhaps, you are right
  679. debacle has joined
  680. eevvoor has joined
  681. remko has left
  682. calvin has joined
  683. Dele (Mobile) has left
  684. zach has left
  685. zach has joined
  686. pdurbin has joined
  687. lorddavidiii has left
  688. eevvoor has left
  689. mr.fister has left
  690. Daniel has left
  691. lorddavidiii has joined
  692. Daniel has joined
  693. Nekit has joined
  694. Wojtek has left
  695. pdurbin has left
  696. Daniel has left
  697. ralphm "[..] Other names might include "B", [..]
  698. zach has left
  699. zach has joined
  700. ralphm Yeah, that sounds like a teriffic idea, having an RR type called "B", next to "A".
  701. ralphm That said, I put it on my reading list.
  702. moparisthebest I think most of us would agree anything is better than HTTPSSVC though ? :)
  703. moparisthebest if we have any official contacts with IETF maybe we should push for SRV2, or, anything but HTTP*
  704. ralphm Anything is a stretch, but yeah, HTTPSSVC is not great.
  705. moparisthebest yep
  706. ralphm While the idea of having official contacts with the IETF for E2EE has come up, that doesn't mean anyone couldn't just participate at standards development at the IETF themselves.
  707. ralphm (as well)
  708. calvin has left
  709. calvin has joined
  710. pep. Might be good to have a list of RFCs (or other standards) the XSF would like to follow or influence (not have everything become http*, for example), for which we could assign people to represent us (paid?)
  711. pep. throwing ideas around
  712. moparisthebest the combination of ESNI which uses this HTTPSSVC should *just work* for us, though we might need some more SVCB types which would be defined elsewhere anyway
  713. moparisthebest like priority and weight are missing, the notes say "if you need them define them in another one"
  714. moparisthebest QUIC is another one to closely follow, I doubt we need anything they won't provide though, and I also doubt we could do anything about it if not...
  715. emus has left
  716. emus has joined
  717. ralphm moparisthebest, why not? Just like on standards@ you can simply subscribe to the relevant WG and provide input.
  718. ralphm Or show up at IETF events.
  719. Daniel has joined
  720. Shell has left
  721. zach has left
  722. zach has joined
  723. remko has joined
  724. asus has joined
  725. asus has left
  726. zach has left
  727. zach has joined
  728. remko has left
  729. Yagiza has left
  730. lorddavidiii has left
  731. lorddavidiii has joined
  732. david has left
  733. david has joined
  734. zach has left
  735. zach has joined
  736. remko has joined
  737. mathijs has left
  738. mathijs has joined
  739. j.r has left
  740. Daniel has left
  741. david has left
  742. david has joined
  743. Daniel has joined
  744. zach has left
  745. zach has joined
  746. Shell has joined
  747. mathijs has left
  748. mathijs has joined
  749. Shell has left
  750. Shell has joined
  751. lovetox has joined
  752. remko has left
  753. dwd I'm very much in favour of the XSF sponsoring people to attend IETFs, but as ralphm says, you can just join the right mailing list and make sensible comments at a good first step. Even just telling them there's an interested community is useful for them.
  754. zach has left
  755. zach has joined
  756. MattJ Yeah, showing up at IETF events is generally a bit harder than showing up at the XMPP summit
  757. dwd MattJ, It's pretty easy, just violently expensive.
  758. MattJ I understand why they move around the various corners of the planet, but yeah
  759. Dele (Mobile) has joined
  760. Shell has left
  761. Shell has joined
  762. j.r has joined
  763. dwd Yeah. One of the main reasons I'm not involved with IETF stuff very heavily is that I could never find an employer willing to pay for those trips, and it's very hard to do serious work without the meetings.
  764. pdurbin has joined
  765. dwd I've managed 8 RFCs, and only 3 meetings (and one was a day trip). I may be wrong, but I think I have to be one of very few RFC authors with more RFCs than meetings.
  766. !XSF_Martin has left
  767. !XSF_Martin has joined
  768. !XSF_Martin has left
  769. !XSF_Martin has joined
  770. !XSF_Martin has left
  771. Nekit has left
  772. !XSF_Martin has joined
  773. !XSF_Martin has left
  774. pdurbin has left
  775. !XSF_Martin has joined
  776. !XSF_Martin has left
  777. !XSF_Martin has joined
  778. zach has left
  779. zach has joined
  780. lovetox has left
  781. remko has joined
  782. remko has left
  783. lovetox has joined
  784. david has left
  785. david has joined
  786. Shell has left
  787. zach has left
  788. zach has joined
  789. mathijs has left
  790. mathijs has joined
  791. Shell has joined
  792. zach has left
  793. zach has joined
  794. Ge0rG I'm already struggling to get a day off to webex into Summit...
  795. lorddavidiii has left
  796. dwd Ge0rG, You couldn't get three weeks off a year for the IETFs, then?
  797. dwd Ge0rG, Plus another three half weeks for interims if they're "that" kind of working group?
  798. Ge0rG dwd: probably not. I'm sure I'd get time and expenses if it was some industrial IT security forum, though.
  799. lovetox has left
  800. lovetox has joined
  801. adiaholic has joined
  802. zach has left
  803. zach has joined
  804. stpeter has joined
  805. Alex has left
  806. Alex has joined
  807. larma has left
  808. larma has joined
  809. lovetox has left
  810. lovetox has joined
  811. lovetox has left
  812. Daniel has left
  813. Maranda has left
  814. Maranda has joined
  815. lovetox has joined
  816. lovetox has left
  817. matkor has left
  818. ralphm dwd: great email just now
  819. ralphm Thanks
  820. Daniel has joined
  821. adiaholic has left
  822. Daniel has left
  823. dwd Thanks. There's something about inward investment and economics as well, but I don't think I can phrase it well without sounding like I'm only interested in money.
  824. pdurbin has joined
  825. Daniel has joined
  826. paul has left
  827. Daniel has left
  828. calvin has left
  829. Tobias has left
  830. pdurbin has left
  831. calvin has joined
  832. Daniel has joined
  833. calvin has left
  834. calvin has joined
  835. calvin has left
  836. calvin has joined
  837. debacle has left
  838. Daniel has left
  839. Daniel has joined
  840. zach has left
  841. zach has joined
  842. Daniel has left
  843. calvin has left
  844. goffi has left