XSF Discussion - 2020-10-20

  1. Guus

    I'm getting feature requests from two different, seemingly unrelated end users to 'prevent people from leaving a chat' (which I interpret as instructing a client to hide leave/close options in the UI). Have others received similar requests?

  2. MattJ

    Not that I'm aware of

  3. Zash

    Closest I can think of is read-only autojoin bookmarks

  4. emus

    I just need to think of that Clockwork Organe scene^^

  5. Guus

    Zash it's explicitly not (just) that (that was my first thought too)

  6. mdosch

    > I just need to think of that Clockwork Organe scene^^ Don't toltschok your users, drug.

  7. emus

    toltschok? what? 😅

  8. Zash

    Guus: I mean, people have asked for "make all users be in this chatroom", tho I don't remember anything about preventing them from leaving. Could have been implied, haven't heard such requests in a while.

  9. mdosch

    > toltschok? what? 😅 I thought you read clockwork orange. 🤨

  10. mdosch

    Seems it's tolchok https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:A_Clockwork_Orange#T

  11. emus


  12. theTedd

    Guus, I suspect it may be as bad as that: they want to prevent people from leaving; I'm guessing the reason behind it is they want a persistent communication channel, and that's one way they can see it working, so that's what they suggest.

  13. mdosch

    If those people use conversations which joins every MUC automatically on invite this would be terrible.

  14. theTedd

    it's obviously a misuse of muc/chatrooms, but it solves the problem from their point of view in a way they can understand; there are better alternatives, but they're not aware those are possible

  15. theTedd

    people tend to have a problem, look for a solution, and then ask for help with the solution, instead of explaining the problem and asking for a good solution

  16. Zash

    The old X/Y problem?

  17. theTedd


  18. theTedd

    it's probaby worth confirming with them what it is they actually want (the problem they want to solve) - ask for an example instead of an explanation

  19. jonas’

    Ge0rG, can I get a quick formal ack? https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/990

  20. Ge0rG

    jonas’: 👍

  21. jonas’


  22. Ge0rG

    jonas’: is that related to an eventual Last Call?

  23. jonas’ scratches head

  24. jonas’

    good question

  25. Ge0rG

    I wonder when is the best place to sneak in XEP-0393

  26. jonas’

    formally, I can’t merge this as an LC is to be in progress

  27. Ge0rG

    jonas’: isn't an LC a matter of asking an editor?

  28. jonas’


  29. jonas’

    > The Approving Body must agree that the XEP is ready to be considered for advancement. Once the Approving Body so agrees, it shall instruct the XMPP Extensions Editor to (1) change the status of the XEP from Experimental (or Deferred) to Proposed and (2) issue a Last Call for open discussion on the Standards list. The Last Call shall expire not less than fourteen (14) days after the date of issue.

  30. jonas’

    I’m going to go with the intent of the approving body here, which was to gather early feedback, and including the A/V section will help with getting useful feedback

  31. Ge0rG


  32. Ge0rG

    I'm sure that all of Council were aware of the pending addition of AV