XSF Discussion - 2020-06-25


  1. Neustradamus

    There is a solution about spam in MUC Rooms? Example in the Conversations MUC Room?

  2. moparisthebest

    Neustradamus: yes, the solution is for the admin of the room to ban them

  3. Neustradamus

    moparisthebest: another solution ah ah

  4. Neustradamus

    Because it is not the first time

  5. Neustradamus

    Now it is Gajim MUC Room!

  6. pep.

    or mod_firewall and have fun :x

  7. pep.

    (to do that automagically-ish)

  8. pep.

    I wonder if it's possible actually to do that in MUC with mod_firewall

  9. moparisthebest

    When the cat's away the mice will play

  10. moparisthebest

    Same problem with mailing lists, forums, IRC channels etc etc

  11. pep.

    yeah

  12. moparisthebest

    If you have a solution though Neustradamus please share

  13. Neustradamus

    Ejabberd MUC Room now!

  14. Neustradamus

    Prosody MUC Room too!

  15. pep.

    it's 4:40am CEST, not sure many people care in these rooms :/

  16. moparisthebest

    The point I was trying to make is I don't think there is a solution or someone would have already discovered it

  17. moparisthebest

    You can slap a little rate limiting on and they'll just use multiple accounts or adjust speed

  18. pep.

    moparisthebest, they need to realize it first. then they'll come back with another solution indeed. as you're aware it's just a battle of resources

  19. moparisthebest

    Yep, game of cat and mouse

  20. MattJ

    We already have some controls in place in prosody@ (we've dealt with worse than this before now)

  21. MattJ

    You may notice the number of spam messages in prosody@ is far fewer than e.g. conversations@ (where it highlighted each person)

  22. ralphm bangs gavel

  23. ralphm

    0. Welcome

  24. ralphm

    Who do we have today?

  25. pep.

    !

  26. ralphm

    Also hi

  27. MattJ

    o/

  28. ralphm

    Sorry for not sending an agenda. Will do better next week.

  29. Guus is neck-deep into contract hell

  30. Guus

    save me.

  31. Guus

    I mean: hi.

  32. pep.

    If there isn't more board members joining I guess we can hear your opinion on the CLA thing ralphm if you have one, to add to last week's

  33. ralphm

    Virtual hugs, Guus.

  34. pep.

    Opinion / wisdom, if you have hints as to why :p

  35. Guus

    (I have a full page of feedback written down. I'm at page 6 of a 33-page contract)

  36. ralphm

    pep., sure

  37. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  38. ralphm

    I'll take this.

  39. pep.

    Thanks

  40. ralphm

    2. Contributor License Agreement on GitHub contributions.

  41. ralphm

    I do agree (again) that we need these.

  42. ralphm

    Like our XEP submission process explicitly mentions this, we similarly need to know what the position is of other contributions.

  43. Guus

    'position' ?

  44. ralphm

    I know that there are opposing opinions on this topic (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8287), that consider this to be mostly cargo culting, but I think they are fine for what we want them for.

  45. ralphm

    I mean making it explicit what the license of the contibuted work is, and what entity holds the corresponding rights.

  46. Guus

    in that case: 'other' ?

  47. Guus

    (isn't the providing of the XEP the contribution?)

  48. ralphm

    other than XEPs

  49. Guus

    We have CLA in place only for contributing of XEPs, afaik.

  50. Guus

    are you saying that we should have this in place for other contributions too?

  51. ralphm

    I mean other than 'whole XEPs', i.e. the initial contribution.

  52. Guus

    Like subsequent modification of the XEP?

  53. Guus

    in any case, XEP-authoring-related contributions?

  54. pep.

    Thanks for the link, didn't know it. As an aside I'm generally against CLAs, but it's just because I'm happy to deal with the consequences of having to contact people or rewrite code to change the license of a project (and that's the extent of my understanding of the legal stuff). (That also doesn't mean I'm opposing the CLA here)

  55. ralphm

    I haven't really considered other contributions, but maybe.

  56. ralphm

    Guus: yes, subsequent contributions.

  57. Guus

    Ok, that's how I understand the current CLA. Sorry for the noise.

  58. pep.

    Guus, "We have CLA in place only for contributing of XEPs, afaik." tbh this part wasn't entirely clear to me

  59. pep.

    The xeps repo does contain a license file with the IPR policy in it

  60. Guus

    pep. I ment to say that we currently do not ask for a CLA when you, for example, submit a PR to change our website

  61. pep.

    Ah for the website no, but say the .. xep template

  62. Guus

    (and I was wondering if that was something that ralphm was referring to, which we now have established he was not)

  63. pep.

    That xslt transformation etc.

  64. Guus

    let's circle back to that if we need to

  65. Guus

    but focus on the XEP stuff first, as that is what we already have in place.

  66. ralphm

    Right.

  67. ralphm

    I don't think there's anything to change at this point.

  68. ralphm

    Regarding the rest of our repos, website, there's an open discussion item that we should pick up (not today)

  69. Guus

    This topic partly stems from a (mostly technical) desire to change _how_ we record the CLA.

  70. pep.

    this ^

  71. ralphm

    I'm ok with a procedure like mentioned in Q2 in the trello item.

  72. ralphm

    But for now, if you do not want to do the clabot thing, you can send an e-mail.

  73. ralphm

    Oh, and I don't think the downside of retracting consent isn't there. I don't think you can do this retroactively, and if you no longer want to abide by the IPR, you can stop contributing.

  74. pep.

    What do you mean? It's not possible to retract consent?

  75. Seve regrets being so late

  76. ralphm

    You either contribute according the IPR, or we don't accept the contribution.

  77. ralphm

    You can't contribute according the IPR, and then later say: oops, haha.

  78. Guus

    Can we conclude that a) CLAs for XEP contributions remain to be signed, and b) there's no need to immediately restore clabots functionality, if the editoring process moves away from GitHub - as long as the CLAs are supplied via the email route?

  79. ralphm

    I think so

  80. Guus

    jonas’ does that sufficiently resolve your issues?

  81. Guus

    does that / would that

  82. ralphm

    I'm happy to receive that answer asynchronously. Have to go into another meeting in a few minutes, so can't go over time.

  83. Guus

    (he's probably not here)

  84. jonas’

    .

  85. Guus

    (he probably is)

  86. jonas’

    thanks, good enough info for me

  87. Guus

    Do we need to motion this?

  88. Guus

    It effectively isn't much of a change ot current policy?

  89. Guus

    It effectively isn't much of a change of the current policy?

  90. ralphm

    I don't think so

  91. ralphm

    So moving on

  92. ralphm

    3. AOB

  93. MattJ

    None here

  94. Guus

    Nada

  95. pep.

    Nope

  96. ralphm

    4. Date of Next

  97. ralphm

    +1W

  98. ralphm

    5. Close

  99. MattJ

    wfm

  100. ralphm

    Thanks people!

  101. pep.

    Thanks

  102. ralphm bangs gavel

  103. Seve

    Thank you very much everyone

  104. jonas’

    Guus, having the current policy reconfirmed is what I was after, so thanks for that