XSF Discussion - 2020-02-20

  1. MattJ

    Thanks pep.

  2. Guus

    Board meeting time.

  3. Guus

    Seve ralphm MattJ pep. ?

  4. pep.


  5. MattJ


  6. pep.

    We have quorum, and there's an item, let's start?

  7. Guus


  8. Guus

    go for it pep. 🙂

  9. pep.


  10. pep.

    1. Who do we have / Agenda

  11. pep.

    - https://trello.com/c/8Q5XQWks/388-clean-up-editor-team-memberships

  12. Guus

    I've nothing to add.

  13. MattJ

    Here, nothing to add

  14. pep.

    2. Cleanup editor team membership

  15. pep.

    Jonas raised this "issue"

  16. pep.

    There are lots of people in the editor team that are and have been inactive for some time now

  17. moparisthebest

    (agenda proposal: can I test authentication of mailing list by attempting to impersonate board member on board@ mailing list with a "test" message, not priority)

  18. Guus

    We're talking about these six? https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/editor-team

  19. MattJ

    I imagine so, yes

  20. Guus

    jonas’ reasoning makes sense to me. My suggestion would be for the team lead to reach out to members, see if they're interested in retaining their membership, and act accordingly.

  21. MattJ

    My proposal would be to simply ping each individual

  22. pep.

    Guus, yes. Effectively it's mostly jonas though. I joined not so long ago and I helped for some time. I know JC is helping here and there

  23. MattJ

    I trust people to step down who don't feel they are up to working on the team

  24. Guus

    I'd warn against removing power to help from people that do help, if only occasionally, but I'm happy for the team to make that judgement themselves.

  25. pep.

    MattJ, I'm not entirely sure about that, but if we ping them yes that seems more likely

  26. pep.

    I also doubt that's an issue of the editor team alone

  27. MattJ

    pep., I mean a simple "Do you still want to be on the Editors team?" is going to work 99.9% of the time

  28. MattJ

    Yes, likely so

  29. pep.

    Infra also has.. 8 person

  30. Zash

    Also, there are no guarantees that the website is up to date

  31. Guus

    Let's have the leads of the teams that are interesting in reducing the size of teams initiate this - not board.

  32. Guus

    Zash more reason for team leads to drive this.

  33. Guus

    as MattJ mentioned, it should be fairly simple

  34. MattJ

    Guus, *is* there a team lead for editors?

  35. MattJ

    > Members of the work team shall be selected by the XMPP Council after a call for volunteers from among the XSF membership, and shall be approved by the XSF Board of Directors.

  36. pep.

    I doubt there is an official one. But de facto I'd say jonas’ :)

  37. Guus

    MattJ I assumed every WT had a lead - I might be very wrong - but as jonas’ is a defacto team lead...

  38. MattJ

    I don't know if it's fair to dump extra undefined responsibility on Jonas as a reward for all the work he's been doing :)

  39. pep.


  40. pep.

    We can start a which hu^W^Wthread on the list.

  41. Guus

    Bweh. Anyone can ask people of they're interested in remaining in the team.

  42. MattJ


  43. Guus

    that takes less effort than what it takes to have the discussion we're having now 🙂

  44. pep.

    And this should probably be somewhat automated

  45. MattJ

    We may want to update the charter though to indicate some process for removal, it essentially only says how to add people to the team

  46. pep.

    Having people renew their affiliation to teams or sth(?)

  47. MattJ

    But e.g. if council were to review annually, that would suffice

  48. Guus

    let's not overcomplicate things

  49. pep.


  50. Guus

    the nuisance is minor

  51. MattJ

    pep., the charter says council are responsible for selecting team members, yes

  52. pep.

    Ah, editors

  53. MattJ


  54. MattJ

    I'm also fine with not over-complicating things, I can ping people who are listed on the team currently

  55. pep.

    Ok. let's just do this for now

  56. Guus

    we can also have one blanket email to the list

  57. pep.

    "Please people who are inactive and not following the life of the XSF, show yourself" :P

  58. Guus

    "if you're a listed member of the team, please consider if you want to remain listed <for reasons Jonas wrote down>"

  59. MattJ

    Problem: the inactive people may not be paying attention :)

  60. Guus

    Those on the editors list are

  61. Kev

    I did send out a 'who's still active?' mail a year ago, I just didn't get around to purging.

  62. Guus

    Kev, Peter, someone named pep. ...

  63. Guus

    jc is, flow is.

  64. Guus

    Kev do you have the results somewhere?

  65. Guus

    we might as well start with those.

  66. Kev

    Probably, somewhere.

  67. Kev

    Won't be digging it out this week, at least though, I'm on leave.

  68. MattJ

    Results from a year ago may no longer be accurate, so we might as well just do it again

  69. Guus


  70. pep.

    Ok MattJ proposed to ping people directly to see if they're still ok. MattJ are you ok taking this on?

  71. Guus

    lets do that.

  72. MattJ

    I'll present a list of inactive people by next week

  73. MattJ

    One way or another

  74. Kev

    I suspect the list of people who replied last time, plus anyone who's joined since, is probably fine, but w/e.

  75. MattJ

    Bored now :)

  76. pep.


  77. pep.

    moparisthebest, I'd say your item is for iteam

  78. pep.

    3. AOB?

  79. MattJ

    moparisthebest, representing iteam then, I'm fine with you sending a test email

  80. Guus

    hey iteam is hyjacking our meeting! 🙂

  81. Guus

    I have no AOB

  82. MattJ

    No AOB here

  83. pep.

    Ok let's close then.

  84. pep.

    Thanks all

  85. Guus


  86. MattJ

    moparisthebest, please just make clear in the email itself that it is not authentic

  87. MattJ

    by e.g. linking to this discussion

  88. moparisthebest

    thanks, yea a link to this is a good idea, I was definitely going for "test this is only a test, please ignore" etc :)

  89. pep.

    I don't think you particularly need authorization to try this kind of things out. I already know you can make me say weird things via email by impersonating me :P

  90. pep.

    Hence me signing my mails

  91. pep.

    That's why I sign my emails

  92. moparisthebest

    right, well if impersonation is possible, anyone can do it rather anonymously, I just prefer asking first :)

  93. MattJ

    Yep, I appreciate that :)

  94. MattJ

    Kev, flow: you're both here but offline in my roster (I daren't dig into why) - but in case you didn't get my message, feel free to let me know here whether you'd like to continue as a member of the Editors team

  95. Zash

    Kev: How do we get you to renew your cert?

  96. Kev

    MattJ: Aye.

  97. Kev

    Zash: Time Turner?

  98. Kev

    Needs me to bother with changing everything around so that the webserver and XMPP server run on the same machine, so I can LE web stuff and use the certs for XMPP.

  99. Kev

    As I don't particularly want to keep paying for certs.

  100. Zash

    I'm quite happy with DNS based challenges FWIW.

  101. moparisthebest

    Kev, so they don't have to be on the same machine, and the 2 machines don't even need to communicate if you go this way (requires 1-time change to your HTTP server) https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/wiki/Stateless-Mode

  102. moparisthebest

    but yes, I also recently switched to DNS based challenges instead because I wanted wildcard certs

  103. jonas’

    (*) if you run nginx

  104. moparisthebest

    jonas’, I assume any other webserver could do similar?

  105. moparisthebest

    maybe you'd need some script/cgi for some

  106. jonas’

    not sure how to make apache return a static string, but I guess I’d simply put the file somewhere

  107. jonas’

    ah, no, it needs to include something from the request, meh

  108. moparisthebest

    yep, copy a bit of the request into the response

  109. moparisthebest

    and you don't have to use acme.sh with this, any acme client with http challenge support (all of them) works

  110. pep.

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/894#event-3056122474 hah github. "This PR fixes xsf/xeps#894 for smack-omemo." and poof the issue on an unrelated repo is closed. I'm not sure I like the rules of closing etc.

  111. pep.

    Probably because flow has rights on both?

  112. moparisthebest


  113. moparisthebest

    oh, well I certainly hope so otherwise that's a pretty big (security?) bug

  114. jonas’

    flow does have +w on xeps

  115. jonas’

    he’s an editor after all.

  116. jonas’

    it’s more or less a feature that you can cross-project close issues

  117. jonas’

    but I wasn’t aware that this also holds for PRs

  118. jonas’

    because closing a PR by merging a different one with the keyword "fixes" is somewhat odd

  119. Zash

    It did say "fixes xsf/xeps#nnnn", so I guess it made sense for someone somewhere to make it do that

  120. jonas’

    you can’t fix a PR

  121. jonas’

    you can fix an issue

  122. jonas’

    you can obsolete a PR

  123. !XSF_Martin

    Zash is defending github? 😳

  124. jonas’

    but not fix a PR

  125. jonas’

    it doesn’t make sense and I guess it’s an artifact of PRs and Issues being mostly the same thing on github

  126. jonas’

    (they share the same numberspace for example)

  127. Zash

    They're all probably aliases for "close(s|d)" tho

  128. Zash

    since there's no "fixed" issues either, they're closed

  129. pep.

    https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2020-February/009120.html I just sent this, (scam) proposal to support sprints. Please give feedback

  130. vanitasvitae

    The more you know :D

  131. vanitasvitae

    Stupid Github

  132. emus

    > https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2020-February/009120.html I just sent this, (scam) proposal to support sprints. Please give feedback Cool, I thinks thats very good. If thats official and decided I would put it to the wiki at least. maybe also the website