jonas’marc0s: sometimes, addons such as noscript or umatrix block the files needed for renderig
jonas’since XSL is turing complete.
jonas’if you plan to do more XEP work, using the makefile in the xeps repository to build your document ( `make build/inbox/reminders.html`, assuming linux and your protoxep in `inbox/reminders.xml`) may be worthwhile
marc0sthanks jonas’ . Yes I'm aware of the Makefile, I was just wondering why it didn't work. More than probably is one of those addons, which I have both
rionhas left
rionhas joined
jonas’marc0s: also I replied to your email with further instructions
waqashas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
intosihas joined
archas left
archas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
marc0sjonas’: got it, thanks
intosihas left
adiaholichas left
mukt2has left
raghavgururajanhas joined
mukt2has joined
karoshihas joined
adiaholichas joined
Lancehas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mimi89999has joined
matkorhas left
matkorhas joined
Lancehas left
debaclehas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
emushas left
mukt2has left
Jeybehas joined
Steve Killehas left
Jeybehas left
Steve Killehas joined
Jeybehas joined
Jeybehas left
archas left
krauqhas left
intosihas joined
krauqhas joined
Marchas joined
xelxebarhas joined
mimi89999has left
marc> So, it would be nice to get 389 moving again.
Zash: 389 is IBR after bind or what?
ZashNo
marcI don't get the point then
mimi89999has joined
emushas joined
pdurbinhas left
Marchas left
Marchas joined
Jeybehas joined
Ge0rGmarc: what's the essence of our yesterday's discussion? Do you want to make token-IBR and PARS more distinct, and have a stronger highlight on the standalone token-IBR? Do you want to make the changes or shall I make another attempt at a PR?
Ge0rGAnd that's actually absolutely orthogonal to the pre-IBR-IQ vs. dataforms vs. ??? question
raghavgururajanhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
marcGe0rG: wasn't the outcome that we make pars / roster subscription "more optional" in 401?
marc> And that's actually absolutely orthogonal to the pre-IBR-IQ vs. dataforms vs. ??? question
Yes, but still an open question
Ge0rGmarc: yes, that was the desired outcome. The question is, how we get there and who's in charge
Ge0rGmarc: I'm strongly convince that under the given circumstances, pre-IBR IQ is the last hacky hack.✎
Ge0rGmarc: I'm strongly convinced that under the given circumstances, pre-IBR IQ is the last hacky hack.✎✏
mukt2has joined
marc> marc: I'm strongly convinced that under the given circumstances, pre-IBR IQ is the last hacky hack.
🤔
Zash"least"?
Ge0rGmarc: I'm strongly convinced that under the given circumstances, pre-IBR IQ is the least hacky hack. ✏
Ge0rGZash: thanks. My keyboard seems to be eating lttrs
APachhas left
debaclehas left
mukt2has left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Alex@pep. memberbot PR looks good to me. But it looks like I don't have permissions ro merge
pep.hah
Dele Olajidehas left
pep.MattJ, ^
pep.plz! :)
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
mukt2has joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
lorddavidiiihas left
goffihas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
goffihas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
mukt2has left
raghavgururajanhas joined
goffihas joined
Maxhas left
Maxhas joined
mukt2has joined
Marchas left
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
Marchas joined
Marchas left
Syndacehas left
Marchas joined
Syndacehas joined
larmahas left
mukt2has left
raghavgururajanhas left
larmahas joined
debaclehas joined
Jeybehas left
mukt2has joined
Jeybehas joined
raghavgururajanhas joined
mukt2has left
lskdjfhas joined
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
mukt2has left
raghavgururajanhas left
pdurbinhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
larmahas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
mukt2has joined
larmahas joined
Marchas left
lskdjfhas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has left
lskdjfhas joined
mukt2has joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
eevvoorhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Marchas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
moparisthebesthas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
pdurbinhas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pdurbinhas left
mukt2has left
Steve Killehas left
typikolhas joined
typikolhas left
mukt2has joined
Steve Killehas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
eevvoorhas left
Maxhas left
Maxhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
j.rhas left
mukt2has left
j.rhas joined
nyco-2has joined
pep.I might not make it in 5mn, or I'll be late (on the road)
ralphmjonas’ raised this item, regarding culling the editor team from people who are not actually, well, editing.
MattJRight
MattJAs agreed last week, I pinged each member currently listed on the editors team
winfriedhas left
MattJNobody asked to be removed from the team, everyone indicated they intend to contribute where they can
winfriedhas joined
MattJI understand this is probably not the outcome jonas wanted
GuusThey explicitly replied? Nice.
Zashhas left
MattJYes, everyone
pep.! here
MattJA couple of people did say that they are ok with being removed if it is a problem
MattJThe original intention based on last week's discussion was to remove anyone who had e.g. overlooked resigning from the team
MattJIt appears nobody falls into that category
ralphmRight
MattJIf we want to actively start removing people from the team, I think that's a tougher call and would need some objective criteria or someone other than me to make that call :)
MattJor we solve the original problem some other way, if possible
ralphmI agree. Can't the Editor team resolve that on their own?
GuusI'd not be in favor of removing people against their will, at least not unless the matter is more pressing to jonas’ than what I assume is the case.
pep.well editor team is in fact mostly Jonas. Even I as the latest added member is not as active
GuusIf this is a problem to be fixed, rather than an optimization (as how I currently perceive it) I'd be happy to circle back to this.
pep.am*
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
Guuslet's wait for jonas’ feedback
ralphmGuus: agreed
pep.k
ralphmI did notice that stpeter is still mentioned as Executive Director on the Members list. That should be adjusted.
ralphmAnything else on this?
Guusnot from me
ralphm3. 2020 Sponsors
Dele Olajidehas left
SevePeriods of activity in our case are difficult to manage, I'm with you guys on this
Dele Olajide2has left
ralphmRegarding my commitments on this, as you probably have noticed, I have been busy with work the last two weeks, so I am taking this on for coming meeting.
Guuswhat's the commitment regarding sponsors exactly?
ralphmNo that's in the "Items for Discussions" column
Guusyeah, just noticed it. apologies
ralphmI don't think we have anything to discuss right now
ralphm(on this)
nyco-2ralphm the newsletter is not yet closed, should I add something about it?
ralphmWhen is the deadline?
krauqhas left
nyco-2tomrrow?
ralphmHmm. I'll see what I can come up with.
nyco-2thx
ralphmGood idea.
Guus+1
Shellhas joined
Zashhas joined
ralphm4. Board voting process and discussions
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pdurbinhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
ralphmpep. raised this on the Members list. I wasn't sure if it should be discussed now.
pep.there hasn't been much discussion around it (!)
pep.Dave answered on the list, I don't especially agree with all. I meant to reply
ralphmMy questions are: 1) was there a trigger for this, 2) have you found this to be a problem in practice?
lorddavidiiihas joined
eevvoorhas left
pep.the trigger to me is that board is rarely managing to get all 5 in their meetings. I've been following board for as long as I'm involved in the community.
krauqhas joined
pep.as for it being a problem, I don't want to get to that, that's why
ralphmOk. Then I have a response.
lorddavidiiihas left
pep.I wonder what made board use 2 and not 3 like council
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
ralphmFirst on practice on this topic: as long as I have been on Board, I don't remember us taking any decision that was contested because of the way we handle quorum and majority on decisions.
pep.so?
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
ralphmInstead, we've generally either postponed meetings to get enough people (i.e. at least 3, but preferably more).
pep.well then let's make it a rule, what's the hold up
Wojtekhas joined
ralphmSo I don't think there's actually a problem in need of solving. I do like the suggestion of voting on list in case of a missed meeting.
ralphmBut I also have a second point.
goffihas left
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
eevvoorhas joined
Guus(while we wait for Ralph's second point): Having a vote potentially pass with just 2 votes seems undesirable to me, as that might (not sure, things can be overturned by the rest of board later) open the door for abuse. Dave's suggested fix ("try to make sure it doesn't happen") is hardly an improvement, in terms of hard rules. That does not rule out this being abused somewhere in the future. Some kind of more formal fix would be better, but I do think it would be good for us to prioritize matters that are currently more pressing than this one, to be honest. I feel that lately, we've been burning a lot of fuel, but not made much progress.
lorddavidiiihas left
Guus(is there a time limit on making a second point? 😉 )
ralphmI've noticed I have become increasingly frustrated with having to discuss theoretical issues, like perceived gaps in our procedures, by-laws, etc. In my opinion, no organisation's rules and procedures are perfect, or could be, and the bylaws and other procedures like XEP-0001 are there as a framework to work within. We don't have to lock down everything to the letter. It takes (precious volunteer) time, that I'd like to use for persuing the goals of the XSF. Instead, these discussions are a big turn off for me, and make it less likely that I reserve additional time to do this.
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
GuusI can relate to that.
lorddavidiiihas joined
SeveI will send my thoughts over email as time is up, although I will take the advantage I completely understand ralphm's second point✎
SeveI will send my thoughts over email as time is up, although I will take the advantage to say I completely understand ralphm's second point ✏
ralphmI am, of course, happy to clarify ways of working, explaining our current rules or historical stuff, but I more often also sense a desire for change as part of the clarification question, and this frustrates me.
MattJI was typing a response, but your last message covers it
pep.these gaps might be perceived for a reason. and I'm happy to close them, but it won't be happy if you oppose it✎
pep.these gaps might be perceived for a reason. and I'm happy to close them, but it won't be easy if you oppose it ✏
MattJI think clarification and docs on many things that happen in the XSF are not clear, so I appreciate efforts to try to clean this up (and it definitely is the kind of thing Board is for)
pep.lots of things that needs clarifying
pep.There are too many assumptions that the XSF live with and it's extremely hard to understand all that✎
pep.There are too many assumptions that the XSF lives with and it's extremely hard to understand all that ✏
MattJBut obviously you can go too far down that road and just chase organizational stuff for the sake of it
ralphmpep., I am asking for this reason every time it happens, not just with you. And invariably, it feels like it is all theoretical combing through the prose that make up our bylaws and other procedures, not as a real problem in need of fixing.
KevFor what it's worth, despite probably being one of the greybeards at this point, I do feel we have institutional knowledge that isn't recorded and should be. We can go too far in chasing perfection, but I think there are probably various bits of low-hanging fruit that will help us as more people come into the community.
Kev(Which might be slightly distinct from wanting to change bylaws and things)
ralphmKev: I am for this, as I tried to convey above. The problem I have is my perceived urge to change things for the sake of it, not merely clarification.
krauqhas left
ralphmAnd, also, I suppose, I feel that we don't have to go to extraordinary lengths in making those procedures fool proof. All of our precedures have escape hatches in case a real conflict should arise.
krauqhas joined
pep.so what now
ralphmpep., well, I was hoping you could reflect on my point of view
pep.didn't I?
ralphmCan you see where I am coming from?
goffihas joined
nyco-2debate overload, I have to go, please finish:
https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/9f92-2020-02-27-xsfboardweekly
thx! 🙂
ralphmThanks nyco-2
pep.fwiw I am annoyed that the excuse of volunteering is reused over and over. if you don't have time for it (and it's not a full time job, far from it) then don't apply, plus there were other candidates. I understand we have different priorities. And I think I'll leave it at that.
gavhas joined
ralphmI _do_ believe I have plenty of time to do things for the XSF. I just don't want to spend it on, in my opinion, theoretical discussions with little value.
GuusThat might be a matter of priorities of tasks in context of the XSF, I think. We all seem to have different priorities.✎
ralphmI'd must rather use it for starting a documentation project (something that was discussed at FOSDEM), or whatever.
ralphmmuch
GuusThat might be a matter of personal priorities of tasks in context of the XSF, I think. We all seem to have different priorities. ✏
GuusI think that as board, we should work on tasks that we think are of highest priority. What we appear to be missing is consensus of what is.
ralphmpep., my task as Director and Chair is that the XSF can persue its goals, and particularly the business parts of running a coorporation. I will express my frustration about busy-work that doesn't match that task.
GuusI suspect that some of us might even have very different priority lists.
pep.because I'm also not trying to help the XSF with its goals obviously
pep.anyway, this is not getting anywhere
pep.shall we close
nyco-2has left
ralphmpep., I didn't say you are not. I really appreciate various things you have done and do. My frustration is *definitely* not with just you, either. I thought it important to express my frustration instead of throwing tables and hopefully finding a solution.
ralphmBut sure, we can close the meeting.
eevvoorhas left
ralphmAnd maybe revisit next week if needed.
ralphm5. AOB
SeveNone here
MattJNone here
pep.I'm probably not here next week at this time, I'd appreciate if we can delay this topic a other week✎
Guusnone
ralphmpep., noted
pep.I'm probably not here next week at this time, I'd appreciate if we can delay this topic another week ✏
ralphm6. Date of Next
ralphm+1W
Shellhas left
ralphm7. Close
ralphmThanks all!
ralphmbangs gavel
pep.thanks
eevvoorhas joined
eevvoorhas left
krauqhas left
eevvoorhas joined
jonas’.
pep.,
jonas’thanks MattJ for pinging people. there is no reason to drop people who intend to contribute.