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 hi
  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 *shrug*
  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 haha
  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. k
  398. MattJ 0) Role call
  399. Seve Very appreciated
  400. Guus ROLE!
  401. MattJ ;)
  402. pep. !
  403. Guus (sorry)
  404. Seve says hi
  405. MattJ Let's start with
  406. MattJ 1) Topics for decisions
  407. Guus somethignsomethingminutes
  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. Thanks
  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. (lag?)
  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 Yes..
  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 Sure
  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 (reading)
  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’ true
  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. k
  528. Guus ok
  529. MattJ 2) Time of next
  530. MattJ +1W
  531. MattJ 3) Close
  532. MattJ Thanks all
  533. Guus wfm
  534. Guus Thanks
  535. pep. Thanks
  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 Haha
  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 tx
  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. yeah
  597. jonas’ I see
  598. pep. It's one less (legally?) error-prone thing for editors to do as well
  599. jonas’ indeed
  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. that
  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