XSF Discussion - 2020-09-29

  1. pep.

    I already sent it here and there but just in case: I published things on https://joinxmpp.org/. I don't think I'll attribute time for this project any time soon, so I'd rather have someone motivated take care of it.

  2. jonas’

    baguette

  3. pep.

    Some are missing context :p

  4. Zash

    🥖️

  5. emus

    📬📨 The end ot the month is close. If you haven't taken the chance do place your news of your project of interest to the XMPP Newsletter, now is the right time! https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/756 ✎

  6. Zash

    emus, did you mean https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/787 ?

  7. emus

    📬📨 The end ot the month is close. If you haven't taken the chance do place your news of your project of interest to the XMPP Newsletter, now is the right time! https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/787 ✏

  8. emus

    Zash: Indeed 😅

  9. eevvoor

    I just had a weird experience: in a MUC jid1 asked jid2 whether jid2 knows me.

  10. eevvoor

    When I asked why that is relevant first in the MUC and then via PM to jid1, this person kindly asked me to be more careful and never send him / her a PM.

  11. eevvoor

    Is there some netiquette about that?

  12. Shell

    generally speaking lots of people don't like being PMed without asking them in the MUC first.

  13. eevvoor

    hm, Shell I see, but I asked in the MUC first and received not answer.

  14. Shell

    then you're probably not gonna get an answer.

  15. eevvoor

    The person also did not tell me why it wants to know whether somebody else knows me.

  16. eevvoor

    Ok, I'll just forget about it and view it as a new kind of trolling.

  17. pep.

    Maybe they're more into “cooption” rather than “everybody's welcome”

  18. pep.

    Each circle has their own rules anyway

  19. eevvoor

    yes perhaps, I just dropped out ...

  20. jonas’

    I sent an LC extension for XEP-0411 on 2020-09-01

  21. jonas’

    I did not get a reflection of that from the mailing list or it went missing

  22. jonas’

    did anyone receive that message? Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0411 (Bookmarks Conversion) Message-ID: <7436475.Z5bLfmyHiY@sinistra>

  23. Zash

    Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:05:23 -0000

  24. Zash

    is the last matching 0411 I have

  25. pep.

    Same, Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:05:23 -0000

  26. pep.

    20200804160705.E61288F7@atlas.jabber.org

  27. Zash

    No 0411 on https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-September/thread.html either

  28. pep.

    I'm always curious about what to do next, when a thing is vetoed by council with no way forward. (https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972#issuecomment-700754653). Is it that council thinks this is not an issue worth solving (I don't personally know if it is)? Or is it that council doesn't give opinions on whether it's worth solving? Or..?

  29. pep.

    jonas’, am I following correctly that there's been something accepted?

  30. pep.

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/971#issuecomment-700757865

  31. pep.

    nvm then

  32. pep.

    Even though it's not exactly the first time I want to highlight that there's no way forward ✎

  33. pep.

    Even though it's not exactly the first time I want to highlight that there's no proposed way forward ✏

  34. jonas’

    #972 was rejected in favour of #971, superseded by #975

  35. pep.

    k

  36. jonas’

    I mean, there’s a reason why council gives rationales

  37. jonas’

    a rationale is always a statement about what’s wrong

  38. jonas’

    you can go and fix what’s wrong

  39. pep.

    If you have a clue how, sure

  40. jonas’

    and if you’re unsure how or if there are other problems, council members *are* human beings

  41. jonas’

    I added more data to the #972 closure notice

  42. pep.

    Thanks

  43. jonas’

    thanks for pointing it out