larma, at some point I wanted to go through all deferred XEPs and move them either to obsolete or to experimental, but Council couldn’t agree to a process.
davidhas left
davidhas joined
Douglas Terabytehas left
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas joined
pdurbinhas left
mukt2has left
lskdjfhas left
Douglas Terabytehas joined
Steve Killehas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
karoshihas left
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
mukt2has joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
mukt2has left
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
pdurbinhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
mukt2has joined
andrey.ghas joined
pdurbinhas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
Yagizahas joined
mukt2has left
andyhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
mukt2has joined
Steve Killehas left
mukt2has left
Nekithas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
mimi89999has left
mukt2has joined
mimi89999has joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
debxwoodyhas joined
mukt2has left
Jeybehas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
paulhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
mukt2has joined
mukt2has left
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
andyhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
LNJhas joined
Marandahas left
jonas’
Link Mauve: The process is there, and AFAIK all it needs is someone to drive it (does not need to be in council)
jonas’
all you need is to agree to shepherd all the XEPs you propose
waqashas left
jonas’
nobody stops you from doing that
jonas’
(actually we're already LC and CFE-ing a bunch of XEPs at the moment, so *right now* I'm going to say "wait until we're done with the shortlist")
pdurbinhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has joined
Marandahas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Marchas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
winfriedhas left
debxwoodyhas left
winfriedhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
nyco-2has joined
Maxhas left
Maxhas joined
eevvoorhas joined
Marchas left
Marchas joined
karoshihas joined
nyco-2has left
andyhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
flow
larma> How do people feel about enabling the Deferred check box by default on https://xmpp.org/extensions/
+1
Jeybehas left
eevvoorhas left
Jeybehas joined
raghavgururajanhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Kev
+1
Dele Olajide2has joined
Dele Olajide2has left
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
pdurbinhas left
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
matkorhas left
matkorhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
goffihas joined
debaclehas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
eevvoorhas joined
Jeybehas left
vanitasvitaehas joined
Jeybehas joined
Steve Killehas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
eevvoorhas left
Jeybehas left
lorddavidiiihas left
Jeybehas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
Steve Killehas left
Half-Shot[m]has left
debaclehas left
Link Mauve
+1
Link Mauve
jonas’, yeah indeed.
Jeybehas left
mukt2has joined
Jeybehas joined
eevvoorhas joined
Half-Shot[m]has joined
pdurbinhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has left
lskdjfhas joined
eevvoorhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
pdurbinhas left
mimi89999has left
lorddavidiiihas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
larma
Why is there no registry for ad hoc command nodes?
lorddavidiiihas joined
larma
And they are also not namespaced, so doesn't that imply that node names are opaque strings?
larma
XEPs relying on ad hoc command nodes having a specified name are therefor kinda broken by design
jonas’
larma, there is a XEP which defines a bunch of ad-hoc commands with specific names
larma
133 does, but it is only best practice
larma
so they are not well defined, just a suggestion
raghavgururajanhas joined
jonas’
it’s informational track, which is good enough
jonas’
it doesn’t define wire protocol, just usage of an existing protocol
larma
yeah, I guess that's fine for 133
jonas’
and they’re namespaced, just in a weird way (with URL#suffix instead of the more well-defined {URI}suffix)
jonas’
but yeah, in the Ad-Hoc XEP itself they’re opaque
jonas’
also kind of the point of ad-hoc commands to be, well, ad-hoc
larma
but there are others in experimental that define commands with a given name
jonas’
a registry would probably be good, but you know the state of the registries
larma
like 401
Ge0rG
401 is using URL#suffix as well
larma
yeah well my point is that any XEP using them would kind of risk name clashes with other names. As according to 50 it is not supposed to be a well defined name and be completely opaque (basically only used as an ID in response to the command list)
larma
according to xep 50 it would be perfectly fine to use UUIDs instead of names
Ge0rG
or unicode emoji...
larma
yeah, therefor the fact that you are using URL#suffix is worth nothing, because it is opaque and thus I could use the same name just as a selection of random chars
lorddavidiiihas left
larma
a perfectly valid server implementation could generate random node names on every server restart
jonas’
it could, but then it would also be useless
larma
why?
larma
according to the spec, you are requesting the list of commands first and the node name is not even supposed to be displayed to users
jonas’
because automated entities will not be able to interact with the commands
Ge0rG
yaxim will rely on 0401 having that exact node name for invitation generation to work
larma
jonas’, automated entities can still automate with other entities. If they don't want to rely on the command listing before they would kind of have to agree on a set of commands out of band before
jonas’
like in XEP-0133?
larma
it's just a suggestion
larma
and frankly I believe nobody relies on it client side
larma
you can just do command listing before displaying administration commands
larma
And the randomly-picking-new-name-server would still work perfectly fine with everyone doing that
jonas’
a lot of things would work perfectly fine for some use-cases
jonas’
that’s a pointless statement to make
jonas’
you can ignore a lot of SHOULDs before you run into troubles
larma
My point is, I read XEP-0050 as it was considered to happen that way
jonas’
xep-0050 maybe, but xep-0401 most definitely not
jonas’
pubsub node names are also opaque
jonas’
but people would start to complain if you put OMEMO keys in a randomly named node
larma
then again my point is that xep-0401 is abusing another xep out of it's intended usecases
jonas’
(or avatars for that matter)
jonas’
same situation really
larma
So issue with use of 0050 is fine because we already have issues with use of 0060?
jonas’
no, because it’s not an issue
jonas’
if one specification tells clients to not assign any meaning to a value and another specification inherits on that and says "oh, in this case, you can assume that the thing you want has name X", then that’s perfectly valid
Ge0rG
a new abuse case by 0401?
jonas’
that’s the whole point of not assigning any meaning to a string in the base spec
larma
if it doesn't have any meaning in the base spec, how can another spec imply any meaning in it?
lorddavidiiihas joined
jonas’
easy. you write it in the text.
larma
https://xmpp.org/registrar/nodes.html < pubsub nodes are supposed to be registered at least
jonas’
that’s working well: Last Updated: 2004-10-11
jonas’
and yes, ad-hoc should also have a registry, I’m agreeing on that one
larma
well the only node that is errornously not registered is 0084 user avatar
jonas’
and all the nodes from '133
jonas’
ah, you’re with PubSub, not with Ad-Hoc, sorry
jonas’
but don’t they share the same namespace?
larma
what?
jonas’
ad-hoc and pubsub and disco
larma
what do you mean by sharing namespace
Zash
They all use nodes
mukt2has joined
jonas’
^
larma
ad hoc node names are not the same as service disco node names
jonas’
sharing the namespace: undefined things happen if you have two things with the same name
Zash
From XEP-0030
jonas’
larma, good then
jonas’
we just need a separate registry
jonas’
and a document like the FORM_TYPE thing which defines that it shall henceforth be usedy✎
jonas’
and a document like the FORM_TYPE thing which defines that it shall henceforth be used ✏
larma
that would work, so who is going to file the PR against 0050?
larma
(btw, this stems from flows suggestion to use ad hoc commands on the mailing list)
jonas’
haven’t read up on today’s stuff yet
jonas’
larma, the more interesting question is: who is going to fix the registries?
jonas’
there’s zero point in adding a registry if we lack the tooling to maintain it
larma
what do you mean with tooling? it's not like we advance tons of XEPs to Draft such that we really need tooling around it
jonas’
larma, there is no way to get changes to the registries on the website at the moment
jonas’
and by no way, I mean that you’d have to have iteam manually upload html files, which is Not Gonna Happen
larma
ok, that's bad indeed
jonas’
yeah.
larma
best case, the XMPP Registrar Considerations sections in XEPs would be machine readable and we would automatically generate the registry list from XEPs (plus additional predefined things where needed).
but it wouldn’t catch cases like '84 which simply miss a submission to a registry
jonas’
so we’d also need tooling to detect such cases
jonas’
but that’s a completly different construction site
jonas’
the main issue is that we can’t get the existing registries updated (they have a repository, I think xsf/registrar or so, but as mentionied earlier, no way to bring stuff to the website from there)
larma
really? We use humans to verify the XEPs anyway because they advance to draft
jonas’
even if the "tooling" is a ToDo list
rionhas left
jonas’
because nobody is going to remember that there’s a registry for '30 nodes
rionhas joined
jonas’
or '50 nodes
jonas’
it needs to be written down somewhere and people need to be aware that it exists and need to use it
jonas’
even better if it’s in code
larma
I am certain there is a way to update the website, we just need to poke the right people so that that part can be automated
jonas’
larma, guess what
jonas’
I’ve been doing that for the past six months
jonas’
since one of my PRs got rejected with "that should be in a registry"
larma
so, who is responsible then? board?
jonas’
does it matter?
jonas’
iteam doesn’t have the resources to do something about it
jonas’
I haven’t brought it up with board officially, but I don’t think that’d be much use either
jonas’
though maybe we should get board to pay MattJ to bring our infrastructure up-to-date
jonas’
I heard we have some funds over
vanitasvitae
Kev, as an author, could you comment on https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-February/037092.html ? 🙂
mimi89999has joined
larma
jonas’, I am a bit confused here: we do have an iteam, but they are not able to duplicate the automation that is already in place for xeps to the registry?
jonas’
larma, yes, because something changed at docker hub
jonas’
it would now require to grant docker hub privileges we don’t want to grant them
jonas’
we can’t add another repository
jonas’
so we have to use a different way to build the docker image with the static files
larma
so how about we put the registry in the xeps repo as they will be updated only at the same times anyway?
Steve Killehas joined
larma
😀
jonas’
doesn’t help, we still need to set up a another repository on the docker hub side of things
jonas’
(and connect that repository to github, which is the crucial step)
jonas’
and even then, I’d not at all be happy with this "solution"
larma
I don't use docker (for good reasons apparently) so I can hardly help there
jonas’
docker hub and docker are only tangentially related
larma
but they are
jonas’
as much as I don’t like the container hype, that’s got nothing to do with it
jonas’
docker hub is simply a crap CI infrastructure.
jonas’
the web UI is also crap
jonas’
(and who knows, the change may also be on the github permission model side of things, I don’t know)
larma
and it happens to be the main/default repo for docker
jonas’
sure
jonas’
the image hosting is fine
jonas’
just the automated building in *their* cloud is crappy
jonas’
(I have no idea how they pay for the insane amounts of bandwidth this thing must eat either way)
pep.
"jonas’> but it wouldn’t catch cases like '84 which simply miss a submission to a registry", while it's still not perfect, isn't protoxep -> experimental (and other subsequent state change) supposed to help a bit(?)
pep.
Ah larma suggested that already
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
pep.
"jonas’> though maybe we should get board to pay MattJ to bring our infrastructure up-to-date" I'd be happy to do this, if he agrees. Or to find someone else
jonas’
pep., '84 was changed in Draft, wasn’t it?
jonas’
no wait, I’m confused
jonas’
but '48 would be just the same actually.
pep.
yes human error is always a factor. It's never too late to fix it :) (once we get the registry back)
Steve Killehas left
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Marchas left
Marchas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas joined
mukt2has left
moparisthebesthas left
Half-Shothas left
Half-Shothas joined
Half-Shothas left
pdurbinhas left
moparisthebesthas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Jeybehas left
Steve Killehas joined
Jeybehas joined
Kev
pep.: I *think* that paying MattJ would be potentially problematic because of renumeration and Board (I'd have to remind myself of our bylaws).
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
jonas’
Kev: what if membership votes on that instead of just board?
Kev
Someone would need to check the rules about Board members receiving remuneration whichever way it comes about, I think.
Kev
Section 4.3 Compensation. Directors shall not receive any compensation for acting as such, but Directors shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered as an employee of the Corporation. The Corporation shall be entitled to purchase officers’ and directors’ liability insurance without violating these Bylaws.
Kev
There we go then.
LNJhas left
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
Maxhas left
Maxhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
raghavgururajanhas joined
debxwoodyhas joined
pep.
Kev: I was thinking about this indeed
pep.
I'm happy if it's somebody else then
Ge0rG
I'd also like to see iteam gain more resources, and if paying MattJ will give that, I'm all in
Kev
A couple of years ago we had an almost-offer of sponsorship in exchange for people helping the iteam with various tasks, but sadly it didn't come to anything.
waqashas joined
waqashas left
raghavgururajanhas left
debxwoodyhas left
Wojtekhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas joined
raghavgururajanhas joined
pdurbinhas left
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
debxwoodyhas joined
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
debxwoodyhas left
debxwoodyhas joined
MattJ
Just to be clear, is the quoted text from the bylaws saying it would be ok, or not ok?
MattJ
I read it as "ok"
jonas’
me too
jeybehas joined
pep.
Yeah, you can't be paid because you,re a director but you can if you actually work in/for the organization
mukt2has left
eevvoorhas joined
LNJhas joined
waqashas joined
Half-Shothas joined
pep.
I'd like to have a clue about finances before though
debxwoodyhas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Jeybehas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Jeybehas joined
jeybehas left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
raghavgururajanhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
davidhas left
davidhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
etahas left
etahas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
etahas left
etahas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Kev
I read it as the XSF is able to employ a Director in order to pay them for work they wouldn't do as a Director.
lorddavidiiihas joined
jonas’
yupp
jonas’
iteam isn’t director’s work, is it?
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
andyhas left
andyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Lancehas joined
Lancehas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
Yagizahas left
lorddavidiiihas left
Half-Shothas left
Half-Shothas joined
lovetoxhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Jeybehas left
Jeybehas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
raghavgururajanhas joined
jeybehas joined
lovetoxhas left
jeybehas left
jeybehas joined
moparisthebest
if it is, many a director is shirking their responsibility :D