-
Neustradamus
There is a solution about spam in MUC Rooms? Example in the Conversations MUC Room?
-
moparisthebest
Neustradamus: yes, the solution is for the admin of the room to ban them
-
Neustradamus
moparisthebest: another solution ah ah
-
Neustradamus
Because it is not the first time
-
Neustradamus
Now it is Gajim MUC Room!
-
pep.
or mod_firewall and have fun :x
-
pep.
(to do that automagically-ish)
-
pep.
I wonder if it's possible actually to do that in MUC with mod_firewall
-
moparisthebest
When the cat's away the mice will play
-
moparisthebest
Same problem with mailing lists, forums, IRC channels etc etc
-
pep.
yeah
-
moparisthebest
If you have a solution though Neustradamus please share
-
Neustradamus
Ejabberd MUC Room now!
-
Neustradamus
Prosody MUC Room too!
-
pep.
it's 4:40am CEST, not sure many people care in these rooms :/
-
moparisthebest
The point I was trying to make is I don't think there is a solution or someone would have already discovered it
-
moparisthebest
You can slap a little rate limiting on and they'll just use multiple accounts or adjust speed
-
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
-
moparisthebest
Yep, game of cat and mouse
-
MattJ
We already have some controls in place in prosody@ (we've dealt with worse than this before now)
-
MattJ
You may notice the number of spam messages in prosody@ is far fewer than e.g. conversations@ (where it highlighted each person)
- ralphm bangs gavel
-
ralphm
0. Welcome
-
ralphm
Who do we have today?
-
pep.
!
-
ralphm
Also hi
-
MattJ
o/
-
ralphm
Sorry for not sending an agenda. Will do better next week.
- Guus is neck-deep into contract hell
-
Guus
save me.
-
Guus
I mean: hi.
-
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
-
ralphm
Virtual hugs, Guus.
-
pep.
Opinion / wisdom, if you have hints as to why :p
-
Guus
(I have a full page of feedback written down. I'm at page 6 of a 33-page contract)
-
ralphm
pep., sure
-
ralphm
1. Minute taker
-
ralphm
I'll take this.
-
pep.
Thanks
-
ralphm
2. Contributor License Agreement on GitHub contributions.
-
ralphm
I do agree (again) that we need these.
-
ralphm
Like our XEP submission process explicitly mentions this, we similarly need to know what the position is of other contributions.
-
Guus
'position' ?
-
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.
-
ralphm
I mean making it explicit what the license of the contibuted work is, and what entity holds the corresponding rights.
-
Guus
in that case: 'other' ?
-
Guus
(isn't the providing of the XEP the contribution?)
-
ralphm
other than XEPs
-
Guus
We have CLA in place only for contributing of XEPs, afaik.
-
Guus
are you saying that we should have this in place for other contributions too?
-
ralphm
I mean other than 'whole XEPs', i.e. the initial contribution.
-
Guus
Like subsequent modification of the XEP?
-
Guus
in any case, XEP-authoring-related contributions?
-
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)
-
ralphm
I haven't really considered other contributions, but maybe.
-
ralphm
Guus: yes, subsequent contributions.
-
Guus
Ok, that's how I understand the current CLA. Sorry for the noise.
-
pep.
Guus, "We have CLA in place only for contributing of XEPs, afaik." tbh this part wasn't entirely clear to me
-
pep.
The xeps repo does contain a license file with the IPR policy in it
-
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
-
pep.
Ah for the website no, but say the .. xep template
-
Guus
(and I was wondering if that was something that ralphm was referring to, which we now have established he was not)
-
pep.
That xslt transformation etc.
-
Guus
let's circle back to that if we need to
-
Guus
but focus on the XEP stuff first, as that is what we already have in place.
-
ralphm
Right.
-
ralphm
I don't think there's anything to change at this point.
-
ralphm
Regarding the rest of our repos, website, there's an open discussion item that we should pick up (not today)
-
Guus
This topic partly stems from a (mostly technical) desire to change _how_ we record the CLA.
-
pep.
this ^
-
ralphm
I'm ok with a procedure like mentioned in Q2 in the trello item.
-
ralphm
But for now, if you do not want to do the clabot thing, you can send an e-mail.
-
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.
-
pep.
What do you mean? It's not possible to retract consent?
- Seve regrets being so late
-
ralphm
You either contribute according the IPR, or we don't accept the contribution.
-
ralphm
You can't contribute according the IPR, and then later say: oops, haha.
-
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?
-
ralphm
I think so
-
Guus
jonas’ does that sufficiently resolve your issues?
-
Guus
does that / would that
-
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.
-
Guus
(he's probably not here)
-
jonas’
.
-
Guus
(he probably is)
-
jonas’
thanks, good enough info for me
-
Guus
Do we need to motion this?
-
Guus
It effectively isn't much of a change ot current policy?✎ -
Guus
It effectively isn't much of a change of the current policy? ✏
-
ralphm
I don't think so
-
ralphm
So moving on
-
ralphm
3. AOB
-
MattJ
None here
-
Guus
Nada
-
pep.
Nope
-
ralphm
4. Date of Next
-
ralphm
+1W
-
ralphm
5. Close
-
MattJ
wfm
-
ralphm
Thanks people!
-
pep.
Thanks
- ralphm bangs gavel
-
Seve
Thank you very much everyone
-
jonas’
Guus, having the current policy reconfirmed is what I was after, so thanks for that