pep.I guess I'll pull and remove my version block to put it afterwards
ZashAren't all fields URIs?
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
flowpep., do as you wish, e.g. feel free to squash
flowZash, yes, but one could consider that it would be a breaking change if we add <validate/> to already existing form field registry entries
flowI'd even say that all fields all URLs, but there appears to be no xs:anyURL
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
andrey.ghas joined
karoshihas left
pep.flow: not all fields are URLs no :x
ZashURI, not URL
pep.yes URI
flowahh right there are probably mailto: fields
pep.and xmpp:
pep.and..
Link MauveYou can do a disco#info on xmpp:jabber.fr, we don’t have a single URL there.
karoshihas joined
ZashDoes 0157 even say that everything's an URI?
Link MauveOnly in the examples obviously.
ZashData forms validation on result forms... it's not like a requester can take much action if something doesn't validate.
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
mukt2has left
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
mukt2has joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
queen_tilfaarhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
queen_tilfaarhas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
xsfhas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
karoshihas left
Neustradamus_has left
karoshihas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
queen_tilfaarhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
emushas left
mukt2has left
emushas joined
queen_tilfaarhas left
queen_tilfaarhas joined
flowthe validation is on the form field
pep.I'd say it's merely a way to specify the type of data we expect to find in it (because it's not done for the other fields)
neshtaxmpphas joined
flowit sure is
queen_tilfaarhas left
queen_tilfaarhas joined
queen_tilfaarhas left
queen_tilfaarhas joined
mukt2has joined
flowbut still teh validation is on the form field, so if ever this data form of 'type' form appears, which does not seem impossible, then the registry entry means that it must have a <validate/>
ZashI suppose if you'd have a way to configure this via ad-hoc or somesuch it'd be nice to have
queen_tilfaarhas left
queen_tilfaarhas joined
queen_tilfaarhas left
pep.Is anybody else than the server operator going to fill these?
pep.Ah hmm yes
pep.I'm thinking about cases like jabberfr serving other user's domains
queen_tilfaarhas joined
queen_tilfaarDoes this server have federated server to server communication disabled?
pep.which server
queen_tilfaarConversations.im
ZashI'm suddenly very confused
pep.same
pep.queen_tilfaar, no conversations.im doesn't have s2s disabled (I really doubt it). But I don't understand where this comes from, if you can add some bit of context that'd be great :)
Zashnor does this MUC. everyone here has joined via s2s.
queen_tilfaarSure. Here it is.When I try to chat in this server using another account xxmp account, the message does not go through until I use this server's account.
pep.Zash, everyone? :P
pep.anon...
Zashpep., right, but those rarely stay very long
pep.Zash, ^ I think this is a case of anon.
ZashThey show up with an avatar to me, so I wouldn't think so.
queen_tilfaarOh maybe is it because of the other sever doesnt support s2s?
ZashIf you joined here with an conversations.im-account, then s2s must be working
queen_tilfaarOh my bad
queen_tilfaarBut still the issue exist just saying
ZashIf you have an account elsewhere that can't join here, then it's most likely a problem with that server
queen_tilfaarNo what I meant to say is,
ZashDon't have enough info to say more
queen_tilfaarIf I try to chat with conversations.imnl account disabled, I can't chat on this server even though s2s is enabled here
queen_tilfaarSorry I'm new to this
queen_tilfaarI have to enable for the message to go through
queen_tilfaarEven though I have my other account enabled
pep.queen_tilfaar, what client are you using? Conversations?
queen_tilfaarYes
pep.When you say "conversations.im account disabled", what does that mean?
pep.You have added multiple accounts in conversations?
pep.What is "here"
sonnyhas left
queen_tilfaarI have 2 xmpp accounts
sonnyhas joined
queen_tilfaarOne is conversations.im and another different one
queen_tilfaarI cant chat in this server if I have my conversation.im account disabled aka just with my other account alone
pep.Maybe ask the operator of your other account
queen_tilfaarSo that means the problem is with the other server and can conversations.im right?
pep.conversations.im would be the least suspicious in this story
ZashDo you get an error message or something?
queen_tilfaarOk will do sorry I got just a little confused. Tnx for bumping my head up a little 😘
sonnyhas left
queen_tilfaarDo you get an error message or something? Yeah something like enable the account to send the message
pep.hmm? So is there any account enabled at all when you try to send a message?
queen_tilfaarI'll do some experiments and hopefully contact the server ppl to see what went wrong
queen_tilfaarhmm? So is there any account enabled at all when you try to send a message?
Yes my other account is enabled. I don't know how i made such a noob mistake of mistaking the error
ZashThen I think it doesn't work like you think it works.
ZashI have never used Conversations with multiple accounts, but it probably remembers which account you used to join, and disabling that and enabling another will probably not make that account join it without you doing something.
queen_tilfaar> Then I think it doesn't work like you think it works.
No I just made a mistake. The problem might be with the other server. I have to Check it to make sure
pep.Zash, ah right
pep.That would surely be confusing
ZashMaybe it would be better to ask about it in the Conversations room rather than here?
pep.Indeed
ZashMulti-account UX is Hard
queen_tilfaarTrue. That's what I did wrong. All these days I mistook this server as the conversation.im server hence the confusion
queen_tilfaarIdiot me. Tnx for helping
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
ZashOh, there's a datatype registry in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html#registrar-reg-datatypes-init ?
pep.I'm reading 369:
> MIX messages and presence are always sent and are addressed to the user (bare JID). This addressing is a consequence of users (not clients) being the participants in a MIX channel; It is a key difference between MUC and MIX. This addressing change means that the user's server needs to have MIX-specific behaviour to correctly distribute arriving messages and presence appropriately to MIX clients; there may be zero or more online clients that support MIX. This server behaviour is specified by MIX.
pep.Does this mean that not all clients have to receive messages from a MIX channel (they don't have to be joined), or that if they support MIX they will receive messages
alexishas joined
pep.I guess I'll ask on the list
pep.!
pep.it's time
pep.MattJ, Guus, Seve, ralphm
MattJHey, sorry, was on the phone
SeveNo problem :)
pep.Not that there is much on the agenda but I'd like to at least have some quick observations re the marketing task
pep.# Welcome
pep.Anybody got an agenda item to add?
GuusI'm here
MattJNothing to add here
Guusnothing from me
pep.Ok then I'll go on with the marketing thing:
pep.Thanks for those who've participated in the meeting we had on monday regarding the marketing task. We (I?) decided to invite board and commteam to a private channel because the document we were going to talk about was tagged confidential. It appeared almost none of the discussion resolved around specifics of that document though, so maybe we should have done it here..
pep.With this out of the way,
pep.From what I understand, and after a few days of letting it sink, it seems to me that some people disagree with what I wanted to do. What I had in mind taking this task was to help commteam, which at the time was not in really good shape (Nyco asking for help during Summit) and then disappearing for some time (not blaming, "we're all volunteers") leaving the team inactive before emus picked up some pieces and then jc surfaced again (again, not blaming),
karoshihas left
pep.So my first goal was to reinforce the team. Which I don't think was really understood by all participants in the meeting on monday
SeveThat was not what the document suggested me. to me it feels you are talking about a community manager, but the proposal was different than that, to my eyes.
karoshihas joined
mukt2has left
pep.From what I can see, some people really want to expand on what the XSF does. Which may be fine and I'm not opposed to this, but it's just not what I had in mind.
waqashas joined
pep.So I'm going to park the task until commteam says they actually want it.
GuusWe've engaged a third party, that has been put in some effort. We should be clear to them as to expectations/timelines.
MattJWell, two concrete desires were highlighted at the meeting: pretty much everyone agreed that we want proper testimonials and a jobs board
pep.Guus, yes I'm keeping them up-to-date as possible
Guusok!
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
GuusI think we've already agreed on having a job board, months ago?
SeveYes
pep.last term yes
Guustestimonials is an ongoing thing too.
pep.But these are different tasks
GuusI"m in favor of both - could also be done in parallel to a marketing effort (which in my mind is something different)
mukt2has joined
pep.It just puts me in a weird position when the team who's concerned with this doesn't even agree
pep.Which is why I wanted them on-board from the start, and I think I tried to but maybe I didn't do it properly
Guuslet's approach this similar to what we're doing with iteam: if the WT needs (paid) resources to improve their performance, board has signaled that it's open to that.
GuusWe can look at the WT to come up with suggestions on how to do that best.
GuusWhat Matt and pep prepared could be a very good start to that effort - but it might be good to let the WT take the lead?
Guusthat prevents the awkward situation that pep described.
pep.I'm happy to hand over contact details of the contractor after checking with them, if commteam is interested
pep.But I need some kind of hint :)
pep.That's it from me, I think.
GuusCommteam members have explicitly asked for professional help - at least nyco has been vocal about this.
GuusSo, I'm assuming that the groundwork that you and Matt did is very helpful to do that.
pep.Others seem to have a different opinion though
GuusThat's new to me - we've been talking about this on and of for months.
emusIf we are so unclear how or were in a Wt we need help, but agree that we need help, good professionals can also help to figure out what it could be actually✎
emusIf we are so unclear how or were in a WT we need help, but agree that we need help, good professionals can also help to figure out what it could be actually ✏
GuusI suggest we punt this to the CommsTeam, and ask them to come up with a wishlist and/or plan of attack
emus> So, I'm assuming that the groundwork that you and Matt did is very helpful to do that.
I think so too
Guusso that at least there's consensus.
MattJOk, so commteam please reach consensus and tell us what you want
GuusWho's the lead of comm anyway? Nyco?
pep.Is there a lead at all
SeveI was not aware about what you guys talk regarding nyco requesting help
ZashWhat's "WT"?
GuusWT = work team
Zashack
Guusthey are supposed to have a chair, as defined in the bylaws, from how I understand them.
pep.Seve, right, it has been said during Summit. I don't remember if this was written explicitely in the minutes sorry. But I remember it being mentioned online multiple times anyway
Guuspep. can you confirm with comm team that they will tell us what they'd prefer, investment wise?
Guuslets take it from there.
pep.I'll follow-up with commteam
pep.# AOB?
Guusnone here
pep.Next: +1w
emus# Can we have XSF meetings also at another time? (maybe once a month?)
emusI dont know how many at least in Europe are working right now?
emusmaybe evening time once a month would help to let more people attent too
GuusAre you suggesting to move this board meeting, or do you want to have a new meeting?
emusYes, sorry, this board meeting
emusno always, maybe with alternating times
pep.I guess most are working. I don't personally have an issue with moving the time, and as much as I'd like to accomodate members to join, I think this is mostly done to accomodate board members to join
GuusI'd personally do not want to move this meeting, as that would clash with my other responsibilities.
MattJIndeed, work time for me ends at 5pm and that's when family time begins - I wouldn't be able to attend an evening meeting
emusOkay, but if we have at least one of 4 meetings in a month at another time. because like this it excludes others completely too, right?
GuusAnd, although it's not a private meeting, there might be value in not making this a town hall meeting either?
emus🤷♂️ sure, but for me is usually hard to attentd this time
emusI think that counts for others as well
karoshihas left
emusbut if Im the only one keep on doing
pep.I appreciate the effort to participate in XSF meetings anyway :)
pep.That's not the case for member
GuusWe have a lot of discussion venues outside of this particular meeting. To keep these meetings concise, it might be beneficial of not having everyone join in ,and have discussions elsewhere?
emusOk fine, agreed
pep.# Any other AOB?
GuusI'd be happy to move things around if it accomodates others, but not to the extend that it's putting up barriers for board members themselves to join.
emusDon't have a feeling about how important attentance is in general.
Guus(still no AOBs for me)
pep.# Close
pep.Thanks all.
SeveSame, thank you.
emusThanks
pep.emus, personally I'm happy for you to comment on list for example against minutes or the like if you can't attend a specific meeting
pep.It would have the same value to me
emussure
pep.(I'm also open to moving the time of the meeting, but it seems it's not possible for other board members so that's it)
emusno, just leave it
GuusIf anything, I'd prefer to make these meetings shorter - less discussing things, but more deciding on things. If we can move the 'discussion' bit elsewhere, that'd benefit us, I think.
pep.Guus, I've been hinting at using the list for most things :x
emusis fine for the moment. I woulf rather ask if member have expectations to attend to meetings like this✎
emusis fine for the moment. I would rather ask if member have expectations to attend to meetings like this ✏
pep.But it seems people want to meet here anyway
emus> If anything, I'd prefer to make these meetings shorter - less discussing things, but more deciding on things. If we can move the 'discussion' bit elsewhere, that'd benefit us, I think.
👍
Guuspep. I think doing more discussion on-list is good. We'd still need the meetings to formally agree to stuff. I'm just afraid that we're running on fumes, resource wise.
ZashAre board meeting agendas posted to the list(s)?
pep.To the list no, it's still trello
pep.Maybe we should petition the chair to send agendas :)
ZashI do like the way jonas’ posts the Council agenda in advance
Zashto the list(s) specifically
pep.Yeah I agree. And technically bylaws says something something 3 days in advance
Guusme too. to be fair, Council pre-Jonas did the same.
Guusmaybe board has let things slide a bit - might be good to pick that up.