XSF Discussion - 2020-07-02

dsf

pep.: As you know xmpp is incapable of providing group chat

I simply can't explain how I'm sending this message to you, rocket.chat I guess

> We went through great lengths to find the one xmpp protocol tool that doesn't implemt muc Like someone said in the other room: sendxmpp 😁

is it possible that they started their investigation before 2002 🤔

Didn't they say 'in 2016'

But afair even GAIM supported groupchat back in 2003 when I started using XMPP.

Apple is doing increasingly more crazy things... https://thomask.sdf.org/blog/2020/07/01/local-area-network-push-notifications.html

I was expecting apple devices proxying for one another and doing fancy multicast. Disappointed.

I suggest we do not dwell to much on that rocket chat comment. There's nothing for us to gain there. Lets focus on our strengths instead of someone else badly informed decisions. 🙂

Does anyone happen to know if Encrochat uses/used XMPP?

Seems they are talking about it in conversation's room Guus maybe they know something about it

Guus, I've found no evidence it is. Some similar services rebranded FOSS clients, theirs seems custom. They also have additional features, and their E2EE claims don't match the properties of any of the E2EE options on XMPP

So no hard evidence either way that I've seen, but I would lean towards something custom

Interesting

Maybe the criminals wanted group chat?

:)

Haha

Board meeting time

!

ralphm , MattJ ?

This does not bode well...

I don't remember many things in the agenda anyway

I'm fine skipping if you guys would like that.

I had added the item re the article on interoperability, but I removed it when I realized the date. I'm happy to discuss it if you're up for it, but judging by the number of answers on members@ it doesn't seem like many care

I don't have anything pressing myself

Then let's skip

ok

Alright

I'm leaning towards a 'lets not do that' on that interop text signature thingy, fwiw. Apart from arguments expressed by many others, I also have issues with the wording of that specific text. I find it to be aggressive, to the point of being almost offensive, which - even if other arguments wouldn't prevent me from wanting to sign - would make me wonder how signing that text reflects on others.

Can I ask where is the fact that the XSF acts as "neutral" on the website? git grep doesn't give many interesting results. I don't actually see an official stance for this

I don't know.

I don't really see the aggressive language fwiw. I only see people fed up with platforms lock-in and the economy that encourages this. It's not like there was no proof of all of what they say in there

Guus: I think the even more common point was to make a statement in general. just not to be passive on topics that concern us actually. So the signature attempt was an example. ✏

Write a statement / comment about it, but don't actually sign?

I guess I'll add an item for next week regarding the mission statement that conflicts with the culture of so-called neutrality around here

Let's work towards a resolution that puts this to bed, one way or the other. I've got the feeling that we're running in circles on issues like these.

Guus: but shouldnt the mission always be an kinda open point? at least question if it is heading the right way on a regular basis?

I also think so. Having the mission being reviewed every so often is kind of essential, even if it's just to say "still looks good"

pep., do you have the link to the open letter at hand?

my mua is still taking minutes to do things… I need to update Qt.

https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2019/06/14/for-the-interoperability-of-the-webs-giants-an-open-letter-from-70-organisations/

thank you

I don't mind reviewing these periodically - but the current frequency seems high.

current?

When was the last time

hmm I may vaguely remember a poll, 3 terms ago? 2? I don't exactly remember the content. Also I don't remember the discussion around it if there were any

And apparently that wasn't enough to make it up to the website

hi

will a XEP-0249 stanza always have type=groupchat? It's not mentioned in the XEP is it?

it never will

from the XEP examples, you should expect type='normal' (equivalent to absent @type)

Hmm I see

And something with a namespace of http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user will have which type?

seems normal too?

huh?

"something with a namespace of"?

If I understood correctly that ns is used on several occasions. For MUC presence, and for MUC invites. correct? And both cases it has type normal?

and for MUC PMs too I tihnk

the namespace has no type

I don’t understand what you’re asking

namespaces in general have no type

lets try another way :) so in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html example 135 is a message, in which I have a stanza which has that NS, the type of the message is "normal" since its not explicitly written?

I guess the question is which stanza types can be expected for stanzas with childs in that namespace. (But presence stanzas have no type=`normal`.)

yeah thats my question :)

jubalh: Yes.

ok

jubalh: But generally you can't conclude that you'll never receive a message of different type from looking at such examples. Esp. with `chat` vs. `normal`.

jubalh, terminology! A message is a stanza. A message does not contain stanzas, it may contain XML elements (and in case of <forwarded/>, it may contain nested stanzas, but that’s a special case; there is no example in '45 where a message contains a stanza)

ok