XSF Discussion - 2020-06-18

  1. bear has left

  2. mukt2 has joined

  3. neshtaxmpp has left

  4. neshtaxmpp has joined

  5. Neustradamus has left

  6. bear has joined

  7. lskdjf has left

  8. Neustradamus has joined

  9. neshtaxmpp has left

  10. mukt2 has left

  11. mukt2 has joined

  12. mukt2 has left

  13. mukt2 has joined

  14. stpeter has left

  15. Wojtek has left

  16. Lance has left

  17. neshtaxmpp has joined

  18. alameyo has left

  19. stpeter has joined

  20. arc has left

  21. arc has joined

  22. andy has left

  23. stpeter has left

  24. neshtaxmpp has left

  25. andy has joined

  26. arc has left

  27. arc has joined

  28. stpeter has joined

  29. stpeter has left

  30. mukt2 has left

  31. neshtaxmpp has joined

  32. mukt2 has joined

  33. stpeter has joined

  34. mukt2 has left

  35. mukt2 has joined

  36. mukt2 has left

  37. mukt2 has joined

  38. stpeter has left

  39. alameyo has joined

  40. mukt2 has left

  41. mukt2 has joined

  42. bear has left

  43. mukt2 has left

  44. mukt2 has joined

  45. bear has joined

  46. mukt2 has left

  47. mukt2 has joined

  48. mukt2 has left

  49. mukt2 has joined

  50. mukt2 has left

  51. mukt2 has joined

  52. neshtaxmpp has left

  53. neshtaxmpp has joined

  54. Yagiza has joined

  55. mukt2 has left

  56. neshtaxmpp has left

  57. mukt2 has joined

  58. alexis has left

  59. adiaholic_ has left

  60. adiaholic_ has joined

  61. murabito has left

  62. stpeter has joined

  63. mukt2 has left

  64. murabito has joined

  65. neshtaxmpp has joined

  66. d has joined

  67. dada has joined

  68. dada


  69. alexis has joined

  70. dada has left

  71. d has left

  72. neshtaxmpp has left

  73. Alex has left

  74. mukt2 has joined

  75. bear has left

  76. queen_tilfaar has joined

  77. stpeter has left

  78. mukt2 has left

  79. mukt2 has joined

  80. lovetox has joined

  81. queen_tilfaar has left

  82. mukt2 has left

  83. mukt2 has joined

  84. lovetox has left

  85. Yagiza has left

  86. Yagiza has joined

  87. mukt2 has left

  88. mukt2 has joined

  89. mukt2 has left

  90. mimi89999 has left

  91. mimi89999 has joined

  92. APach has left

  93. APach has joined

  94. mukt2 has joined

  95. bear has joined

  96. emus has joined

  97. Tobias has joined

  98. Mikaela has joined

  99. lorddavidiii has joined

  100. mukt2 has left

  101. mukt2 has joined

  102. wurstsalat has joined

  103. alameyo has left

  104. alameyo has joined

  105. mukt2 has left

  106. mukt2 has joined

  107. paul has joined

  108. mukt2 has left

  109. mukt2 has joined

  110. mukt2 has left

  111. mukt2 has joined

  112. jonas’ has joined

  113. karoshi has joined

  114. karoshi has left

  115. karoshi has joined

  116. karoshi has left

  117. mukt2 has left

  118. karoshi has joined

  119. karoshi has left

  120. Maranda has left

  121. Daniel has left

  122. Daniel has joined

  123. waqas has left

  124. stpeter has joined

  125. Maranda has joined

  126. stpeter has left

  127. karoshi has joined

  128. karoshi has left

  129. mukt2 has joined

  130. karoshi has joined

  131. mukt2 has left

  132. mukt2 has joined

  133. jonas’ has left

  134. jonas’ has joined

  135. mukt2 has left

  136. !XSF_Martin has left

  137. !XSF_Martin has joined

  138. Alex has joined

  139. mukt2 has joined

  140. Shell has joined

  141. Andrzej has joined

  142. mukt2 has left

  143. Steve Kille has left

  144. winfried has left

  145. winfried has joined

  146. winfried has left

  147. Shell has left

  148. Shell has joined

  149. winfried has joined

  150. APach has left

  151. APach has joined

  152. alexis has left

  153. neshtaxmpp has joined

  154. Nekit has left

  155. Nekit has joined

  156. LNJ has joined

  157. stpeter has joined

  158. Shell has left

  159. Shell has joined

  160. Steve Kille has joined

  161. Shell has left

  162. Shell has joined

  163. mukt2 has joined

  164. jeybe has joined

  165. Shell has left

  166. Shell has joined

  167. stpeter has left

  168. lskdjf has joined

  169. alexis has joined

  170. mukt2 has left

  171. Dele Olajide has joined

  172. jeybe has left

  173. jeybe has joined

  174. debacle has joined

  175. Shell has left

  176. Shell has joined

  177. Shell has left

  178. Shell has joined

  179. jeybe has left

  180. Shell has left

  181. Shell has joined

  182. paul has left

  183. emus has left

  184. emus has joined

  185. paul has joined

  186. arc has left

  187. arc has joined

  188. Nekit has left

  189. Nekit has joined

  190. mukt2 has joined

  191. arc has left

  192. arc has joined

  193. alexis has left

  194. mimi89999 has left

  195. mimi89999 has joined

  196. alexis has joined

  197. krauq has left

  198. mukt2 has left

  199. neshtaxmpp has left

  200. Andrzej has left

  201. Shell has left

  202. Shell has joined

  203. j.r has left

  204. j.r has joined

  205. debacle has left

  206. krauq has joined

  207. stpeter has joined

  208. eevvoor has joined

  209. mukt2 has joined

  210. Shell has left

  211. Shell has joined

  212. arc has left

  213. arc has joined

  214. stpeter has left

  215. LNJ has left

  216. Andrzej has joined

  217. Steve Kille has left

  218. paul has left

  219. mukt2 has left

  220. LNJ has joined

  221. Nekit has left

  222. Nekit has joined

  223. krauq has left

  224. winfried has left

  225. winfried has joined

  226. APach has left

  227. j.r has left

  228. karoshi has left

  229. neshtaxmpp has joined

  230. karoshi has joined

  231. karoshi has left

  232. APach has joined

  233. LNJ has left

  234. karoshi has joined

  235. karoshi has left

  236. mukt2 has joined

  237. neshtaxmpp has left

  238. debacle has joined

  239. karoshi has joined

  240. Shell has left

  241. Shell has joined

  242. paul has joined

  243. mukt2 has left

  244. LNJ has joined

  245. neshtaxmpp has joined

  246. krauq has joined

  247. MattJ

    We have a board meeting in 1h40m... would appreciate someone to step up as minute-taker ahead of time so we don't spend half the meeting on that again

  248. karoshi has left

  249. MattJ

    I have most of a bot implemented, but not going to suggest we rush to use it this week (it needs a little more polish)

  250. MattJ

    Answering the discussion from last night, no, the bot does not summarize discussions - many organisation minutes do not, and only record actual motions and other things explicitly requested to go on the record

  251. karoshi has joined

  252. MattJ

    So the bot does this, but with links to the discussion logs of each topic

  253. MattJ

    Which seems a fine compromise to me

  254. MattJ

    Summarizing discussions accurately is one of the hardest tasks of minute-taking

  255. MattJ

    We have the advantage that all our discussions are already in text form and recorded

  256. pep.

    probably most important

  257. pep.

    the whole point of minutes to me is for people not to have to read the logs

  258. MattJ

    I'd rather let people see the outcome, and give them access to the raw data, rather than filtering through some other person

  259. MattJ

    It's very easy for someone to introduce accidental bias this way (related problem: we don't explicitly approve minutes currently)

  260. pep.

    well yes that's why approving minutes is necessary

  261. Zash

    Standard practice afaik is to have one minute taker and two to verify and sign off on the minutes.

  262. MattJ

    We can't even find one person to write the minutes :)

  263. MattJ

    and this has been going on for years

  264. MattJ

    They aren't going to magically appear - and we've tried alternatives (thanks nyco) where everyone collaborates on them, that didn't really work either though

  265. Shell has left

  266. Shell has joined

  267. jonas’

    I’ll be stuck in a work meeting until 15:00Z, sorry

  268. MattJ

    np jonas’

  269. pep.

    MattJ: I was on the pad helping nyco a bit. maybe if we'd all done so..

  270. winfried has left

  271. winfried has joined

  272. MattJ

    Sure, maybe if many things

  273. MattJ

    If we collectively think that's the solution, I'm not opposed to trying it again

  274. eevvoor has left

  275. eevvoor has joined

  276. stpeter has joined

  277. winfried has left

  278. winfried has joined

  279. winfried has left

  280. winfried has joined

  281. winfried has left

  282. winfried has joined

  283. robertooo has left

  284. eta has left

  285. eta has joined

  286. jcbrand

    IMO, the XSF should consider paying for certain roles/positions that we continuously struggle to get volunteers for (touchy subject I know)

  287. pep.

    jcbrand: I agree

  288. jcbrand

    Or provide some other kinds of incentive, but I can't imagine what... swag?

  289. winfried has left

  290. winfried has joined

  291. jcbrand

    Or provide some other kind of incentive, but I can't imagine what... swag?

  292. winfried has left

  293. winfried has joined

  294. mukt2 has joined

  295. pep.

    either that, or board takes responsability for it and we all contribute (we've agreed about one way to do this last week but there might be others)

  296. MattJ


  297. MattJ

    Personally I strongly feel that a bot is the best approach

  298. eta has left

  299. MattJ

    I think I'm alone in that though

  300. Seve

    MattJ: I'm with you on this, I agree on all you have said

  301. jcbrand

    Someone needs to write a bot then

  302. MattJ

    As above, I have one almost completed (but not ready to use this week)

  303. MattJ

    and I'm not going to attempt to push it on the group if everyone else is against it

  304. jcbrand

    ah sorry

  305. eta has joined

  306. Shell has left

  307. Shell has joined

  308. jcbrand

    You could just enable it silently and then show everyone the awesome minutes that it takes

  309. jcbrand

    and then bask in glory

  310. MattJ

    Yeah, have pondered that :)

  311. flow

    jcbrand, do we have enough income to pay someone? how much could we pay someone? do we have someone who manages our funds?

  312. winfried has left

  313. winfried has joined

  314. Zash

    The IETF, while a fair bit larger than the XSF, does hire out administrative tasks to a company.

  315. Seve

    We have the raw data, and the outcome with the bot. It is perfect, less layers to access to what has happened. I have nothing more to say to what it has been already said by MattJ. I see it as a perfect fit.

  316. winfried has left

  317. winfried has joined

  318. Guus

    (Don't have time to read back, but I have no strong feelings either way about using a bot)

  319. winfried has left

  320. winfried has joined

  321. MattJ

    Hopefully by next week I'll have the bot polished off and some docs written, and then I'll propose that we switch to it

  322. jcbrand

    flow: Last I heard there are funds, although the XSF could definitely make more of an effort to woo sponsors

  323. winfried has left

  324. neshtaxmpp has left

  325. winfried has joined

  326. jcbrand

    The point is not to make someone rich or to provide a full-time job, but to at least make the task more palatable

  327. flow

    jcbrand, we sure have funds, but what can be spend on reappearing payments? also I think before we can seriously consider payming someone, we should look for a treasurer, cause I am not sure if PSA has the time to take care of that

  328. MattJ

    Did I mention I'll be offering the bot for a small fee?

  329. MattJ

    (muahaaha, etc.)

  330. jcbrand


  331. jcbrand

    If it's a once-off fee, then it's better than paying a human to do it

  332. stpeter has left

  333. jcbrand

    flow my understanding is that the XSF has been sitting on cash for year, not really doing anything with it

  334. Guus

    flow we do have a treasurer, Peter.

  335. jcbrand

    flow my understanding is that the XSF has been sitting on cash for years, not really doing anything with it

  336. flow

    Guus, I know, but only beause of our search for a new treasurer did not yield any results.

  337. Guus

    I have no inclination to dismiss his work or to assume that he's not able to perform in that role.

  338. pep.

    Guus: il sure that's not what flow is saying

  339. pep.

    Guus: i'm sure that's not what flow is saying

  340. Guus

    no, we searched for a new Executive Officer (which was also Peter). We never searched for a new Treasurer, afiak.

  341. flow

    Guus, no, not at all, but I think that peter would actually be happy if someone else would fill that role

  342. MattJ

    Was just typing what Guus said

  343. winfried has left

  344. winfried has joined

  345. flow

    Guus, we searched for a treasurer in 2015: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2015-July/008117.html

  346. Guus

    I did not know that. But, since, Peter was asked to stand for another year repeatedly, and has never objected or mentioned he'd prefer someone else took over.

  347. winfried has left

  348. winfried has joined

  349. flow

    I'd speculate that this caused by a mix of it being currently not that mutch work (I assume) and the expectation that there is no one to step in

  350. mukt2 has left

  351. Guus

    Hey, if he does want someone else to take over, I'm perfectly happy to search for someone else. I'd just not postpone any other activity in the assumption that we need to refill the Treasurer role, as the person that's currently in that role did not give any indication that that's relevant.

  352. karoshi has left

  353. flow

    My suggestion would be to ask peter of he is still willing to act as treasurer if we increase the workload

  354. flow

    that's all

  355. Guus

    right, we're more aligned than it initially appeared to me. 🙂

  356. Guus

    I don't think Peter will be silent if the work load becomes more than he's happy with.

  357. Shell has left

  358. Shell has joined

  359. MattJ

    I'll just prep another plugin for the bot in that case ;)

  360. Zash

    Heh, I was going to suggest that. Bots are better with numbers after all :P

  361. MattJ

    Yes, Lua has great floating point support

  362. MattJ

    What could go wrong?

  363. MattJ

    !spend €400

  364. pep.

    fwiw I have suggested going through SPI before (to handle finance, and they also provide legal council etc.), to stpeter at least, maybe that's something we can think about

  365. MattJ

    Actually that would be something I could get behind if necessary

  366. pep.

    They don't do minute taking yet

  367. Guus

    I wonder how much autonomy we give up by going through a party like SPI. I have yet to look into that deeper.

  368. Shell has left

  369. Shell has joined

  370. karoshi has joined

  371. Shell has left

  372. winfried has left

  373. winfried has joined

  374. winfried has left

  375. winfried has joined

  376. Kev has joined

  377. winfried has left

  378. winfried has joined

  379. winfried has left

  380. winfried has joined

  381. andy has left

  382. neshtaxmpp has joined

  383. karoshi has left

  384. sabry has joined

  385. pep.


  386. Seve

    Hello, all good?

  387. MattJ

    Hello :)

  388. Guus

  389. MattJ

    ralphm, ?

  390. MattJ

    (or is this a week he sent apologies?)

  391. Guus

    did he? I missed it if he did.

  392. karoshi has joined

  393. MattJ

    Seems not

  394. Shell has joined

  395. MattJ

    Ok, I can step up if ralphm is absent

  396. Guus

    please do

  397. pep.


  398. MattJ

    0) Role call

  399. Seve

    Very appreciated

  400. Guus


  401. MattJ


  402. pep.


  403. Guus


  404. Seve says hi

  405. MattJ

    Let's start with

  406. MattJ

    1) Topics for decisions

  407. Guus


  408. MattJ

    1.1) Reevaluate the process for accepting XEP contributions

  409. MattJ

    Looks like https://trello.com/c/Y4Bfcnr3/399-reevaluate-the-process-for-accepting-xep-contributions from jonas’

  410. adiaholic_ has left

  411. adiaholic_ has joined

  412. MattJ

    (I'll send out minutes after the meeting)

  413. pep.


  414. Guus

    Jonas asks if we got legal council on the necessity of the (CLA) process.

  415. Guus

    I do not know.

  416. Seve

    Hate to say this but neither do I

  417. Guus

    I was involved in setting up the CLA bot, but only because it was a pending issue ('to-be-done')

  418. pep.

    What was before github?

  419. Guus

    I've looked back in my personal mail archive, but couldn't find much of a motive for this.

  420. pep.

    And how did people agree to the IPR

  421. Guus

    no, that was on github.

  422. MattJ

    I think it was implicit before Github

  423. lorddavidiii has left

  424. pep.

    I'm asking about before github

  425. MattJ

    Not sure if the editor kept any records, not that I'm aware (but stpeter would know)

  426. pep.


  427. MattJ

    None of us are lawyers, though in my experience a lawyer's opinion on something like this tends to usually just be an opinion and "maybe"

  428. Seve

    Who can we reach to resolve "Q1"? (Actually confirm if we can ignore that step from the process)

  429. Guus

    I think we'll not get an answer with the people in this meeting. 🙂 Let's find someone who was involved at the time?

  430. MattJ

    Obviously having an explicit ack from the contributor is good for our records, should an issue arise

  431. Seve


  432. MattJ

    If we don't have that, I can see it being problematic if there ever was a dispute

  433. pep.

    jonas’ and I can go through standard discussions about switching to github and we may find why/who decided

  434. pep.

    But getting hints from someone who knows would be good

  435. pep.

    MattJ, sure but ACKs can take different forms

  436. MattJ


  437. Guus

    oh, shoot.

  438. Guus

    I'm only now reading the rest of Jonas' question

  439. MattJ

    I'd be fine with any alternative to the bot if that's what we want

  440. Guus

    it was below a fold in trello

  441. Guus


  442. jonas’

    13:39:04 pep.> And how did people agree to the IPR email

  443. Yagiza has left

  444. jonas’

    13:39:44 MattJ> Not sure if the editor kept any records, not that I'm aware (but stpeter would know) I kept records for all users which did it via email

  445. jonas’

    (with me)

  446. MattJ

    Also, I may not be up to date on the latest on this thread, but I think we may not necessarily be moving off Github anyway?

  447. jonas’

    (there were one or two cases since I became editor which were handled via email)

  448. MattJ

    jonas’, thanks, good to know

  449. jonas’

    MattJ, clabot is a blocker for moving off gitlab, and I’m swaying towards "do a hybrid solution as a testballoon, long term Gitlab primary"

  450. jonas’

    MattJ, clabot is a blocker for moving off github, and I’m swaying towards "do a hybrid solution as a testballoon, long term Gitlab primary"

  451. MattJ

    I'd be more comfortable if we kept an explicit IPR acknowledgement from contributors about IPR, I'm absolutely fine with any solution for that

  452. pep.

    As an editor I'd also prefer if we didn't have two venues as a long term goal

  453. Guus

    I think that getting clarification from a lawyer on this is both costly and time-consuming.

  454. Guus

    I'd suggest to find a way to not make this issue a blocker for other editor-process improvements.

  455. jonas’

    ok, so let’s skip the "did we get counsel" and move on to "what do you think about my proposed alternatives"

  456. jonas’

    (please read the card until the bottom :))

  457. MattJ

    I'm fine with the proposed alternatives

  458. jonas’

    Q2 specifically :)

  459. MattJ

    As you say, this is all info made public on contribution anyway

  460. Seve

    I like that is based on git

  461. MattJ

    Lawyers hate it ;)

  462. Seve

    heh :)

  463. MattJ

    GDPR issues, if someone wanted to be forgotten

  464. jonas’

    I’d like to have Board-ack on the option in Q2. Though we could also find a way to make the list non-public if board is uncomfortable with having a blatant list of PII world-readable on gitlab

  465. Seve

    Good point

  466. MattJ

    But I consider that a rare enough event that we can cross that bridge when/if we ever need to

  467. pep.

    Yeah.. I'm happy with sign-off but I'd like legal council tbh. It's not like we hadn't had contributions from companies with money in the past that could actually use this against us

  468. jonas’

    note that right for deletion is guarded by technical feasibility, only the right to rectification is unconditional.

  469. MattJ

    If anything, part of the acknowledgement should be that their info will be public in our repos

  470. jonas’


  471. MattJ

    So make that explicit, and I'm in

  472. Yagiza has joined

  473. jonas’

    maybe Board can make a motion on that :)

  474. jonas’

    and then I’ll do things

  475. Guus

    I don't want to vote on things now.

  476. Guus

    I desperately want more feedback on this

  477. jonas’

    (and I’m back in my $work meeting)

  478. MattJ

    Feedback from?

  479. MattJ

    Thanks jonas’

  480. Guus

    at least from (seniors in the) community, and possibly legal council.

  481. MattJ

    What exactly concerns you?

  482. Guus

    I don't like changing things that I'm unsure of why they were put in place in the first place.

  483. MattJ

    CLAs are quite common

  484. Guus

    as pep. hinted, legal repercussions _might_ be severe.

  485. MattJ

    and their purpose is well understood

  486. MattJ

    I don't understand

  487. MattJ

    There are two questions here... 1) do we need a CLA? 2) how do we process the CLA?

  488. MattJ

    My answers are (1) yes (2) however we want to

  489. Seve

    I just see moving from confirming on an email to a commit message? (excluding the clabot)

  490. MattJ

    clabot is not mandated by lawyers

  491. MattJ

    Most won't even know what it is

  492. MattJ

    It's just a convenient thing someone made

  493. pep.

    My answers are (1) maaaybe? and (2) We should get legal council to confirm that method is fine

  494. MattJ

    So if you're concerned about moving away from that, I don't think that's justified

  495. Shell has left

  496. Shell has joined

  497. Guus

    Right - I'm a lot less uncomfortable if we're not discussing the necessity of a CLA.

  498. MattJ

    I'm quite sure we didn't get legal counsel on whether clabot was acceptable

  499. Guus

    I'm happy to use another technical ways to replace clabot.

  500. Guus

    (to do the exact same thing, record the CLA)

  501. MattJ

    Plenty of other orgs do CLAs through other means, some insist on written signed forms

  502. pep.

    MattJ, re clabot, being a commonly used service I'd hope they have had legal council themselves, or they've been put to the test already.

  503. MattJ

    Many lawyers will probably will tell you that's necessary

  504. MattJ

    You only have to convince a court that someone had agreed to the IPR terms

  505. pep.

    I think I can draw a parallel to security here. Put as many resources to protect against what you think you'll have to face

  506. MattJ

    If we don't have any process, and it's implicit, I think that's very hard

  507. pep.

    I think I can draw a parallel to security here. Put as much resources to protect against what you think you'll have to face

  508. MattJ

    If we have any kind of paper trail, then we're good

  509. MattJ

    (and paper includes email in this case)

  510. MattJ

    e.g. that's one concern - if we migrate off Github do we lose the CLAs of previous contributors?

  511. MattJ

    Ok, we're approaching full time

  512. Guus

    cla-assistent lets you export them, if memory serves

  513. MattJ

    Looks like we don't have enough to vote on, but maybe folks can think about this issue more and we can vote next week

  514. neshtaxmpp has left

  515. Shell has left

  516. Shell has joined

  517. stpeter has joined

  518. Kev

    FWIW, as I remember the history here, we used to assert that just having submitted a commit was sufficient (that the contribution to the repo itself was enough). A prior board decided there had to be an explicit step added, so an explicit step was added.

  519. pep.

    Guus, I'm curious to know if an export is sufficient in court. Or if cla-assistant signs it or something

  520. Shell has left

  521. Shell has joined

  522. Seve

    Kev, thank you

  523. LNJ has left

  524. Kev

    I think that's about the extent of what happened. I don't *believe* the Board got counsel, but I might be wrong.

  525. Guus

    Thanks Kev

  526. MattJ

    Ok, I don't see anything else on the agenda that's new, pressing, or that we'd have time to discuss, so I propose we close here

  527. pep.


  528. Guus


  529. MattJ

    2) Time of next

  530. MattJ


  531. MattJ

    3) Close

  532. MattJ

    Thanks all

  533. Guus


  534. Guus


  535. pep.


  536. Blue has left

  537. Seve

    Thank you MattJ !

  538. Seve

    It really helps to know that, thank you Kev

  539. LNJ has joined

  540. Kev

    It's just my migraine-addled memory, I wouldn't take it as gospel :)

  541. Seve


  542. Kev

    I mean, the first part is definitely (as sure as I can be) right. We used to just assert that by contribuing a XEP that said in it (once XSL was applied) that it was owned by the XSF that meant the author was assigning ownership to the XSF, and it was definitely decided to change that because it wasn't deemed safe.

  543. Kev

    The details of the decision process during the change are a bit fuzzier for me.

  544. neshtaxmpp has joined

  545. lorddavidiii has joined

  546. Shell has left

  547. Shell has joined

  548. robertooo has joined

  549. mukt2 has joined

  550. neshtaxmpp has left

  551. MattJ

    Minutes sent

  552. Shell has left

  553. Shell has joined

  554. Guus


  555. Shell has left

  556. Shell has joined

  557. neshtaxmpp has joined

  558. Shell has left

  559. Shell has joined

  560. Shell has left

  561. Shell has joined

  562. mukt2 has left

  563. Shell has left

  564. Shell has joined

  565. sabry has left

  566. Shell has left

  567. Shell has joined

  568. paul has left

  569. neshtaxmpp has left

  570. neshtaxmpp has joined

  571. krauq has left

  572. alexis has left

  573. Steve Kille has joined

  574. neshtaxmpp has left

  575. jonas’

    Thanks Board

  576. jonas’

    that was useful as a guideline

  577. mukt2 has joined

  578. jonas’

    The rough consensus that we do want a process which gets us an affirmative ACK is already important to me. Replacing CLAbot as a tool I don’t think is a problem in general, since it can’t do any magic either.

  579. neshtaxmpp has joined

  580. jonas’

    We’ll find a similarly powerful replacement for the GitLab platform, the process I outlined would be an example of that.

  581. jonas’

    regarding exporting the "signatures" of cla-assistant, I don’t think that’s of much use since they’re tied to github users, which is not quite a thing on GitLab ;)

  582. neshtaxmpp has left

  583. jonas’

    though I guess we can restore some manually (and I’d be happy to) for the common contributors so they don’t have to go through the hassle; in the end, the cardinality of authors is rather low

  584. bear has left

  585. pep.

    jonas’, they're useful though as a proof that existing contributors have ACK'd

  586. Zash

    Assuming it's only a one-time thing maybe that's okay as a way to test that it's not too annoying then?

  587. j.r has joined

  588. lovetox has joined

  589. karoshi has left

  590. jonas’

    Zash, what would be okay?

  591. jonas’

    (dangling reference in "that's okay as a way")

  592. Zash

    in-reply-to: "though I guess we can restore some [clabot signatures] [...] for the common contributors so they don’t have to go through the hassle"

  593. LNJ has left

  594. jonas’

    Zash, so you would not do that to check with the common contributors if the process looks alright?

  595. pep.

    Yeah I'm also fine with re-signing. It's only a one-time thing anyway

  596. pep.


  597. jonas’

    I see

  598. pep.

    It's one less (legally?) error-prone thing for editors to do as well

  599. jonas’


  600. mukt2 has left

  601. Zash

    jonas’, I got the impression that we might find a replacement clabot thing. if that turns out too annoying to subject previous contributors to, then isn't it too annoying?

  602. karoshi has joined

  603. jonas’

    very true

  604. jonas’

    good point you make

  605. Kev

    Of the barriers that might be present in moving to gitlab purely for me, I wouldn't think going through the CLABot process again that problematic (assuming it was no harder than the current one).

  606. krauq has joined

  607. Kev

    (Other aspects might be, but not that one)

  608. lovetox has left

  609. Zash

    or "if that turns out so annoying that it's worth it to try to export previous data, then"

  610. Zash

    vacation mode. brain turned off.

  611. pep.

    disregarding of whether we want to restore ACKs, do we not have to keep an export?

  612. pep.

    disregarding whether we want to restore ACKs, do we not have to keep an export?

  613. Zash

    could argue that it's implied in the merging of the PR

  614. pep.

    It was already decided to go with explicit ACK (and I agree with that)

  615. Zash

    if you assume in good faith that the bot did its job

  616. jonas’

    I’d still want an export for safety

  617. pep.

    Though I'm not sure I understand your sentence, Zash

  618. jonas’

    if github folds, we don’t have a record of what happened in the PR

  619. jonas’

    and that clabot required anythign

  620. pep.


  621. jonas’

    and that clabot required anything

  622. pep.

    Though we'll always be dependent on github anyway..

  623. pep.

    Because if they fold we lose the identity provider

  624. pep.

    (for these signatures)

  625. pep.

    We'd need to ensure the export contains email addresses rather

  626. bear has joined

  627. pep.

    (and then we'd only depend on gmail)

  628. Zash

    What's that, identity is Hard? :)

  629. andrey.g has joined

  630. paul has joined

  631. jonas’

    I created an export and it does not include the email

  632. jonas’

    it only includes user name + id

  633. Steve Kille has left

  634. Kev has left

  635. Shell has left

  636. Shell has joined

  637. Kev has joined

  638. Kev

    I'm not sure we need the email, I suspect we /do/ need the name.

  639. pep.

    I'd say we need something that binds to an identity. I doubt "we" (the XSF) need to know the full legal name. Just like I never gave that to github

  640. karoshi has left

  641. arc has left

  642. arc has joined

  643. karoshi has joined

  644. bear has left

  645. jonas’

    > Using emojis in names seems fun, but please try to set a status message instead pah, gitlab.

  646. jonas’

    (I do appreciate that they have a separate error message for that though :))

  647. !XSF_Martin

    Pah, XMPP… It also doesn't allow emoji in nicks.

  648. pep.

    "It depends"

  649. Wojtek has joined

  650. !XSF_Martin

    On what?

  651. jonas’

    on how lenient things are in enforcing or on how RFC 7622 they are

  652. Dele Olajide has left

  653. neshtaxmpp has joined

  654. mukt2 has joined

  655. lovetox has joined

  656. neshtaxmpp has left

  657. lorddavidiii has left

  658. karoshi has left

  659. karoshi has joined

  660. sonny has left

  661. neshtaxmpp has joined

  662. lovetox has left

  663. karoshi has left

  664. sonny has joined

  665. karoshi has joined

  666. mukt2 has left

  667. neshtaxmpp has left

  668. karoshi has left

  669. karoshi has joined

  670. bear has joined

  671. karoshi has left

  672. arc has left

  673. arc has joined

  674. karoshi has joined

  675. Daniel has left

  676. Daniel has joined

  677. LNJ has joined

  678. lovetox has joined

  679. karoshi has left

  680. karoshi has joined

  681. lovetox has left

  682. krauq has left

  683. adiaholic_ has left

  684. krauq has joined

  685. adiaholic_ has joined

  686. krauq has left

  687. Maranda has left

  688. paul has left

  689. LNJ has left

  690. Maranda has joined

  691. lovetox has joined

  692. jcbrand has left

  693. lorddavidiii has joined

  694. krauq has joined

  695. andy has joined

  696. bear has left

  697. jcbrand has joined

  698. neshtaxmpp has joined

  699. Nekit has left

  700. thorsten has left

  701. karoshi has left

  702. karoshi has joined

  703. neshtaxmpp has left

  704. paul has joined

  705. karoshi has left

  706. karoshi has joined

  707. LNJ has joined

  708. karoshi has left

  709. karoshi has joined

  710. LNJ has left

  711. LNJ has joined

  712. Lance has joined

  713. arc has left

  714. arc has joined

  715. debacle has left

  716. bear has joined

  717. Lance has left

  718. thorsten has joined

  719. karoshi has left

  720. karoshi has joined

  721. mukt2 has joined

  722. karoshi has left

  723. karoshi has joined

  724. neshtaxmpp has joined

  725. mukt2 has left

  726. adiaholic_ has left

  727. adiaholic_ has joined

  728. neshtaxmpp has left

  729. Yagiza has left

  730. neshtaxmpp has joined

  731. Nekit has joined

  732. jcbrand has left

  733. karoshi has left

  734. govanify has left

  735. govanify has joined

  736. Steve Kille has joined

  737. neshtaxmpp has left

  738. karoshi has joined

  739. karoshi has left

  740. mukt2 has joined

  741. marc has left

  742. marc has joined

  743. karoshi has joined

  744. werdan has joined

  745. govanify has left

  746. govanify has joined

  747. mukt2 has left

  748. Steve Kille has left

  749. Bifrost Bot has joined

  750. krauq has left

  751. Steve Kille has joined

  752. Steve Kille has left

  753. xsf has left

  754. thorsten has left

  755. stpeter has left

  756. moparisthebest has left

  757. xsf has joined

  758. mukt2 has joined

  759. alexis has joined

  760. robertooo has left

  761. eevvoor has left

  762. werdan has left

  763. karoshi has left

  764. karoshi has joined

  765. lorddavidiii has left

  766. karoshi has left

  767. karoshi has joined

  768. wurstsalat has left

  769. moparisthebest has joined

  770. mukt2 has left

  771. alexis has left

  772. alexis has joined

  773. alameyo has left

  774. alameyo has joined

  775. vanitasvitae has left

  776. lovetox has left

  777. neshtaxmpp has joined

  778. vanitasvitae has joined

  779. Nekit has left

  780. Nekit has joined

  781. arc has left

  782. arc has joined

  783. neshtaxmpp has left

  784. moparisthebest has left

  785. krauq has joined

  786. karoshi has left

  787. karoshi has joined

  788. mukt2 has joined

  789. debacle has joined

  790. karoshi has left

  791. neshtaxmpp has joined

  792. karoshi has joined

  793. karoshi has left

  794. karoshi has joined

  795. neshtaxmpp has left

  796. neshtaxmpp has joined

  797. Shell has left

  798. stpeter has joined

  799. mukt2 has left

  800. karoshi has left

  801. moparisthebest has joined

  802. vanitasvitae

    how good is XEP-0238: Moved adopted in clients?

  803. vanitasvitae

    I mean, are there many clients implementing that XEP?

  804. Mikaela has left

  805. alameyo has left

  806. alameyo has joined

  807. andy has left

  808. Alex has left

  809. neshtaxmpp has left

  810. arc has left

  811. arc has joined

  812. thorsten has joined

  813. _vanitasvitae has joined

  814. vanitasvitae has left

  815. _vanitasvitae has left

  816. arc has left

  817. arc has joined

  818. paul has left

  819. mukt2 has joined

  820. mukt2 has left

  821. emus has left

  822. alameyo has left

  823. alameyo has joined

  824. Neustradamus

    vanitasvitae: the XEP is https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0283.html