XSF Discussion - 2020-05-28

  1. flow

    pep., https://github.com/Flowdalic/xeps-xsf/commit/b4a0deb99a3ad9582be5dbfbc933920a478aa4b7

  2. pep.

    flow: shipit!

  3. pep.

    I guess I'll pull and remove my version block to put it afterwards

  4. Zash

    Aren't all fields URIs?

  5. flow

    pep., do as you wish, e.g. feel free to squash

  6. flow

    Zash, yes, but one could consider that it would be a breaking change if we add <validate/> to already existing form field registry entries

  7. flow

    I'd even say that all fields all URLs, but there appears to be no xs:anyURL

  8. pep.

    flow: not all fields are URLs no :x

  9. Zash

    URI, not URL

  10. pep.

    yes URI

  11. flow

    ahh right there are probably mailto: fields

  12. pep.

    and xmpp:

  13. pep.


  14. Link Mauve

    You can do a disco#info on xmpp:jabber.fr, we don’t have a single URL there.

  15. Zash

    Does 0157 even say that everything's an URI?

  16. Link Mauve

    Only in the examples obviously.

  17. Zash

    Data forms validation on result forms... it's not like a requester can take much action if something doesn't validate.

  18. flow

    the validation is on the form field

  19. 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)

  20. flow

    it sure is

  21. flow

    but 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/>

  22. Zash

    I suppose if you'd have a way to configure this via ad-hoc or somesuch it'd be nice to have

  23. pep.

    Is anybody else than the server operator going to fill these?

  24. pep.

    Ah hmm yes

  25. pep.

    I'm thinking about cases like jabberfr serving other user's domains

  26. queen_tilfaar

    Does this server have federated server to server communication disabled?

  27. pep.

    which server

  28. queen_tilfaar


  29. Zash

    I'm suddenly very confused

  30. pep.


  31. 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 :)

  32. Zash

    nor does this MUC. everyone here has joined via s2s.

  33. queen_tilfaar

    Sure. 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.

  34. pep.

    Zash, everyone? :P

  35. pep.


  36. Zash

    pep., right, but those rarely stay very long

  37. pep.

    Zash, ^ I think this is a case of anon.

  38. Zash

    They show up with an avatar to me, so I wouldn't think so.

  39. pep.

    ah ok

  40. pep.

    muc avatars in poezio when?! Link Mauve!

  41. pep.

    avatars in muc in poezio when?! Link Mauve!

  42. Zash

    Also doesn't fit with "conversations.im"

  43. queen_tilfaar

    I still don't get it 😭

  44. pep.

    I don't either

  45. Zash

    This chat is *not* on conversations.im

  46. Zash

    It's on muc.xmpp.org

  47. queen_tilfaar

    Oh maybe is it because of the other sever doesnt support s2s?

  48. Zash

    If you joined here with an conversations.im-account, then s2s must be working

  49. queen_tilfaar

    Oh my bad

  50. queen_tilfaar

    But still the issue exist just saying

  51. Zash

    If you have an account elsewhere that can't join here, then it's most likely a problem with that server

  52. queen_tilfaar

    No what I meant to say is,

  53. Zash

    Don't have enough info to say more

  54. queen_tilfaar

    If I try to chat with conversations.imnl account disabled, I can't chat on this server even though s2s is enabled here

  55. queen_tilfaar

    Sorry I'm new to this

  56. queen_tilfaar

    I have to enable for the message to go through

  57. queen_tilfaar

    Even though I have my other account enabled

  58. pep.

    queen_tilfaar, what client are you using? Conversations?

  59. queen_tilfaar


  60. pep.

    When you say "conversations.im account disabled", what does that mean?

  61. pep.

    You have added multiple accounts in conversations?

  62. pep.

    What is "here"

  63. queen_tilfaar

    I have 2 xmpp accounts

  64. queen_tilfaar

    One is conversations.im and another different one

  65. queen_tilfaar

    I cant chat in this server if I have my conversation.im account disabled aka just with my other account alone

  66. pep.

    Maybe ask the operator of your other account

  67. queen_tilfaar

    So that means the problem is with the other server and can conversations.im right?

  68. pep.

    conversations.im would be the least suspicious in this story

  69. Zash

    Do you get an error message or something?

  70. queen_tilfaar

    Ok will do sorry I got just a little confused. Tnx for bumping my head up a little 😘

  71. queen_tilfaar

    Do you get an error message or something? Yeah something like enable the account to send the message

  72. pep.

    hmm? So is there any account enabled at all when you try to send a message?

  73. queen_tilfaar

    I'll do some experiments and hopefully contact the server ppl to see what went wrong

  74. queen_tilfaar

    hmm? 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

  75. Zash

    Then I think it doesn't work like you think it works.

  76. Zash

    I 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.

  77. 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

  78. pep.

    Zash, ah right

  79. pep.

    That would surely be confusing

  80. Zash

    Maybe it would be better to ask about it in the Conversations room rather than here?

  81. pep.


  82. Zash

    Multi-account UX is Hard

  83. queen_tilfaar

    True. That's what I did wrong. All these days I mistook this server as the conversation.im server hence the confusion

  84. queen_tilfaar

    Idiot me. Tnx for helping

  85. Zash

    Oh, there's a datatype registry in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html#registrar-reg-datatypes-init ?

  86. Zash

    I thought these were defined by XML

  87. Zash

    Data validation wishlist: JID parts, XEP-0082.

  88. 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.

  89. 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

  90. pep.

    I guess I'll ask on the list

  91. pep.


  92. pep.

    it's time

  93. pep.

    MattJ, Guus, Seve, ralphm

  94. MattJ

    Hey, sorry, was on the phone

  95. Seve

    No problem :)

  96. pep.

    Not that there is much on the agenda but I'd like to at least have some quick observations re the marketing task

  97. pep.

    # Welcome

  98. pep.

    Anybody got an agenda item to add?

  99. Guus

    I'm here

  100. MattJ

    Nothing to add here

  101. Guus

    nothing from me

  102. pep.

    Ok then I'll go on with the marketing thing:

  103. 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..

  104. pep.

    With this out of the way,

  105. 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),

  106. 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

  107. Seve

    That 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.

  108. 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.

  109. pep.

    So I'm going to park the task until commteam says they actually want it.

  110. Guus

    We've engaged a third party, that has been put in some effort. We should be clear to them as to expectations/timelines.

  111. MattJ

    Well, two concrete desires were highlighted at the meeting: pretty much everyone agreed that we want proper testimonials and a jobs board

  112. pep.

    Guus, yes I'm keeping them up-to-date as possible

  113. Guus


  114. Guus

    I think we've already agreed on having a job board, months ago?

  115. Seve


  116. pep.

    last term yes

  117. Guus

    testimonials is an ongoing thing too.

  118. pep.

    But these are different tasks

  119. Guus

    I"m in favor of both - could also be done in parallel to a marketing effort (which in my mind is something different)

  120. pep.

    It just puts me in a weird position when the team who's concerned with this doesn't even agree

  121. 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

  122. Guus

    let'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.

  123. Guus

    We can look at the WT to come up with suggestions on how to do that best.

  124. Guus

    What 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?

  125. Guus

    that prevents the awkward situation that pep described.

  126. pep.

    I'm happy to hand over contact details of the contractor after checking with them, if commteam is interested

  127. pep.

    But I need some kind of hint :)

  128. pep.

    That's it from me, I think.

  129. Guus

    Commteam members have explicitly asked for professional help - at least nyco has been vocal about this.

  130. Guus

    So, I'm assuming that the groundwork that you and Matt did is very helpful to do that.

  131. pep.

    Others seem to have a different opinion though

  132. Guus

    That's new to me - we've been talking about this on and of for months.

  133. emus

    If 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

  134. emus

    If 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

  135. Guus

    I suggest we punt this to the CommsTeam, and ask them to come up with a wishlist and/or plan of attack

  136. emus

    > So, I'm assuming that the groundwork that you and Matt did is very helpful to do that. I think so too

  137. Guus

    so that at least there's consensus.

  138. MattJ

    Ok, so commteam please reach consensus and tell us what you want

  139. Guus

    Who's the lead of comm anyway? Nyco?

  140. pep.

    Is there a lead at all

  141. Seve

    I was not aware about what you guys talk regarding nyco requesting help

  142. Zash

    What's "WT"?

  143. Guus

    WT = work team

  144. Zash


  145. Guus

    they are supposed to have a chair, as defined in the bylaws, from how I understand them.

  146. 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

  147. Guus

    pep. can you confirm with comm team that they will tell us what they'd prefer, investment wise?

  148. Guus

    lets take it from there.

  149. pep.

    I'll follow-up with commteam

  150. pep.

    # AOB?

  151. Guus

    none here

  152. pep.

    Next: +1w

  153. emus

    # Can we have XSF meetings also at another time? (maybe once a month?)

  154. emus

    I dont know how many at least in Europe are working right now?

  155. emus

    maybe evening time once a month would help to let more people attent too

  156. Guus

    Are you suggesting to move this board meeting, or do you want to have a new meeting?

  157. emus

    Yes, sorry, this board meeting

  158. emus

    no always, maybe with alternating times

  159. 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

  160. Guus

    I'd personally do not want to move this meeting, as that would clash with my other responsibilities.

  161. MattJ

    Indeed, work time for me ends at 5pm and that's when family time begins - I wouldn't be able to attend an evening meeting

  162. emus

    Okay, 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?

  163. Guus

    And, although it's not a private meeting, there might be value in not making this a town hall meeting either?

  164. emus

    🤷‍♂️ sure, but for me is usually hard to attentd this time

  165. emus

    I think that counts for others as well

  166. emus

    but if Im the only one keep on doing

  167. pep.

    I appreciate the effort to participate in XSF meetings anyway :)

  168. pep.

    That's not the case for member

  169. Guus

    We 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?

  170. emus

    Ok fine, agreed

  171. pep.

    # Any other AOB?

  172. Guus

    I'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.

  173. emus

    Don't have a feeling about how important attentance is in general.

  174. Guus

    (still no AOBs for me)

  175. pep.

    # Close

  176. pep.

    Thanks all.

  177. Seve

    Same, thank you.

  178. emus


  179. 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

  180. pep.

    It would have the same value to me

  181. emus


  182. 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)

  183. emus

    no, just leave it

  184. Guus

    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.

  185. pep.

    Guus, I've been hinting at using the list for most things :x

  186. emus

    is fine for the moment. I woulf rather ask if member have expectations to attend to meetings like this

  187. emus

    is fine for the moment. I would rather ask if member have expectations to attend to meetings like this

  188. pep.

    But it seems people want to meet here anyway

  189. 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. 👍

  190. Guus

    pep. 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.

  191. Zash

    Are board meeting agendas posted to the list(s)?

  192. pep.

    To the list no, it's still trello

  193. pep.

    Maybe we should petition the chair to send agendas :)

  194. Zash

    I do like the way jonas’ posts the Council agenda in advance

  195. Zash

    to the list(s) specifically

  196. pep.

    Yeah I agree. And technically bylaws says something something 3 days in advance

  197. Guus

    me too. to be fair, Council pre-Jonas did the same.

  198. Guus

    maybe board has let things slide a bit - might be good to pick that up.

  199. Guus

    something to consider for the next meeting 🙂

  200. Guus

    I need to be doing other stuff now

  201. Guus


  202. pep.

    I just added the item to the agenda ;p

  203. pep.

    I just added an item to the agenda ;p

  204. jonas’

    14:16:30 Zash> I do like the way jonas’ posts the Council agenda in advance I refuse to take credit for that

  205. Zash


  206. moparisthebest

    you can't give credit back

  207. pep.

    Can't you?

  208. Guus

    > you can't give credit back Indeed. We enforce credit upon you!

  209. jonas’

    republican credits are worth nothing out here either way ;P

  210. emus

    Spam will detect that we need credits and gold now

  211. Guus

    Did you just quote Watto on us? 🙂

  212. emus


  213. jonas’

    Guus, I did

  214. Guus

    Emus: star wars.

  215. Guus

    re: 'republican credits'

  216. jonas’


  217. emus

    Ah, now I remember

  218. pep.

    star wars quotes. I'm so not in on those

  219. Guus

    not to worry, we have you covered.

  220. pep.

    I will write the minutes btw, somewhere around tonight or tomorrow

  221. pep.

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0369.html#find-channel-participants can anybody discover participants in MIX?

  222. jonas’

    speaking in terms of pubsub, the pubsub node with the participants may have ACLs based on the affiliation.

  223. jonas’

    if you’re not subscribed, it’s possible you’re not allowed to retrieve items

  224. Andrzej

    also MIX should (I think) look at https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0406.html#config-node field "Participants Node Subscription" value

  225. pep.

    jonas’, with pubsub sure. does that mean everything pubsub is possible in MIX's pubsub nodes

  226. pep.

    I'm just starting to read the thing