XSF Discussion - 2020-05-21


  1. ralphm bangs gavel

  2. ralphm

    0. Welcome

  3. ralphm

    Hi!

  4. pep.

    !

  5. MattJ

    Hey

  6. MattJ

    I'm here, need to step afk for ~60s though to deliver a message

  7. Guus

    Hi

  8. ralphm

    Seve?

  9. Seve

    Hello there!

  10. Guus

    > I'm here, need to step afk for ~60s though to deliver a message If only you had an extensible protocol to do that...

  11. ralphm

    Any items not on trello?

  12. pep.

    not from me

  13. Guus

    None here

  14. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  15. pep.

    Not me.

  16. pep.

    Tired of doing it almost every week

  17. MattJ

    Agenda item: can we replace this role with a bot?

  18. MattJ

    Many other orgs that do online text meetings do

  19. ralphm

    We have logs. What would the bot do?

  20. MattJ

    https://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot is commonly used, for examle

  21. MattJ

    It's logs + some annotations, I guess (so it can record actions and decisions)

  22. Zash

    Has been done in the past, e.g. Kev had one IIRC

  23. MattJ

    Yes

  24. MattJ

    I think there have been a couple

  25. Seve

    It would be an improvement, I'm sure.

  26. ralphm

    I'm not opposed.

  27. ralphm

    In the mean while, we still need a minute taker for this meeting.

  28. MattJ

    43% of the way through the meeting and we still don't have one

  29. MattJ

    I'll volunteer if we can move on

  30. ralphm

    Thanks MattJ

  31. MattJ

    But I can't make promises about when they'll get sent out, if ever

  32. MattJ

    Based on my track record :)

  33. ralphm

    2. Hiring Communications Person

  34. pep.

    !

  35. Guus

    My battery is about to die. Might drop out.

  36. pep.

    As mentioned last week, MattJ and I have met with a marketing person

  37. ralphm

    What are the next steps?

  38. pep.

    She has provided a document for us to review. We've created a private channel to share it as it's labeled "confidential" :x

  39. pep.

    I invited board and commteam

  40. ralphm

    I skimmed the document a bit. Need to look at it in more detail.

  41. pep.

    I have invited you I think, but I haven't heard back from you

  42. pep.

    k

  43. pep.

    Next step for this is read it, and meet. I think it's been agreed in the room monday 3PM UTC. Please talk if it's not possible for you :)

  44. ralphm

    That should be fine.

  45. ralphm

    Without getting ahead of ourselves, I think one of the questions we need to answer is: if this is the right approach for us, how long would we want to use their services.

  46. pep.

    Sure. I'm just waiting for the meeting to talk about it

  47. ralphm

    ok

  48. ralphm

    moving on then

  49. ralphm

    Thanks for this, btw

  50. ralphm

    3. iteam budget

  51. ralphm

    MattJ, have you thought about this?

  52. MattJ

    It's ongoing. Assuming that the status quo on spending is ok, then let's just remove this until we finalize a plan.

  53. ralphm

    I think it is. Will archive the item

  54. pep.

    yep

  55. MattJ

    On iteam:

  56. MattJ

    the old server is back online, and I restarted xmpp.net there

  57. MattJ

    But we have no plan to move services back that are already on the new machine

  58. MattJ

    The new machine has backups (thanks Kev) so we're good

  59. pep.

    Any news on why it went offline?

  60. ralphm

    cool

  61. MattJ

    pep., no

  62. ralphm

    so what is the old server doing besides xmpp.net?

  63. MattJ

    At this point, nothing

  64. ralphm

    Plans?

  65. MattJ

    Not really, though I feel it might be a good home for xmpp.net and/or services like it that aren't mission-critical

  66. MattJ

    xmpp.net was resource-heavy and affecting other services often

  67. MattJ

    So it's nice to have it separate now

  68. pep.

    Not from iteam, but as long as there's no answer from the host I'd be wary of putting anything mission-critical there indeed

  69. ralphm

    ok

  70. ralphm

    4. AOB

  71. Seve

    None from me.

  72. MattJ

    None here

  73. ralphm

    One thing I noticed is that we missed deadlines for participating in Google's Season of Docs. I missed the announcements. Something to remember for next year.

  74. pep.

    There was an xsf calendar right?

  75. pep.

    Maybe put it there

  76. ralphm

    There is one, yes

  77. ralphm

    I haven't found next year's timeline, but might be good to put a reminder on it.

  78. pep.

    Nothing from me either

  79. ralphm

    5. Date of Next

  80. ralphm

    +1W

  81. ralphm

    6. Close

  82. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  83. ralphm bangs gavel

  84. pep.

    Thanks

  85. MattJ

    Thanks

  86. Seve

    Thank you all!

  87. dwd

    Shame about Summer of Docs. I meant to track that one, but what with everything going on I';ve been a bit busy.

  88. ralphm

    FWIW, I subscribed to https://twitter.com/googleoss now, which makes it (more) likely I see it for next time around.

  89. ralphm

    Crazy times, not surprising it got missed.

  90. dwd

    Oh, absolutely. As I say, I had fully intended to push on that myself.

  91. ralphm

    There are quite some mentoring organizations, but I haven't seen any mention of it in the past months.

  92. ralphm

    None of the tweeps I follow has mentioned it, neither has hacker news.

  93. ralphm

    I guess we're not the only ones with marketing issues :/

  94. ralphm

    dwd, also https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/season-of-docs-announce

  95. MattJ

    ralphm, ping

  96. ralphm

    Still here

  97. MattJ

    Not sure if you're getting 1:1 notifications?

  98. Kev

    I seem to have been highlighted, but I don't want to scroll back through 100 messages. If it was important, try again.

  99. Zash

    Hm, how hard would it be to extract how long a XEP has been deferred when it comes back to experimental?

  100. Zash

    Kev: Nothing important. You had a meeting bot once, IIRC, and there was mention of meeting bots.

  101. Kev

    Ah. Yes, I had a sleekbot for Council items. It was something like !addagenda, !startmeeting and !next, or thereabouts.

  102. Zash

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html#revision-history-v0.4 that's not over a year ago, was that too minor to bump out of Deferred?

  103. pep.

    Kev: any chance the code is somewhere public?

  104. Kev

    pep.: I would be amazed if I didn't publish it at the time. Whether I can now find it is another matter.

  105. Kev

    It wasn't sleekbot, it was Swiftob, by the look of it. https://github.com/swift/swiftob/blob/master/scripts/agenda.lua

  106. pep.

    lua!!

  107. pep. drops the script on the floor

  108. MattJ

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/reactions.html vs. XEP-0367?

  109. MattJ

    Movim does 367, right?

  110. MattJ

    Does it support removing reactions?

  111. pep.

    No, movim does xxxx-reactions I think. It's changed

  112. pep.

    And yes