XSF Discussion - 2020-12-04


  1. SamWhited

    November was when the announcement was sent out: https://web.archive.org/web/20021230183123/http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg21379.html

  2. SamWhited

    Damn, you've nerd sniped me. It was before the drat anyways; here's a reference from Jan 2002: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2002-January/069346.html

  3. SamWhited

    Sounds like it might have been an IETF term and "Jabber" was just one candidate protocol to be the IETFs "XMPP"

  4. SamWhited

    Oh no, definitely named within the Jabber community sometime before Jan 2002: https://web.archive.org/web/20020305041511/https://perl.jabber.org/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2002-01-09.html

  5. Zash

    IETF had the IMPP and CMP(?) things

  6. Zash

    So that February draft is the one mentioned in that jded post as for archival purposes

  7. SamWhited

    > [13:32] <stpeter> ick, i hate XMPP :P

  8. SamWhited

    :o

  9. Ge0rG

    Well, don't we all?

  10. Zash

    Hahaha. There's a discussion about what to do about inactive projects in listings in that chat log.

  11. dwd

    Well, we should come to a conclusion on that topic in another decade or two.

  12. Zash

    > [13:17] <Dave> Maybe we should have a "dead projects" section?

  13. dwd

    (Not me, in case anyone's confused)

  14. Zash

    I'm confused

  15. Zash

    There can be only one Dave!

  16. dwd

    Zash, Sadly not true.

  17. edhelas

    https://sodocumentation.net/xmpp/topic/3036/xmpp-addresses-aka--jids--jabber-identifiers- nice documentation

  18. edhelas

    I didn't found any PHP PRECIS libraries unfortunately

  19. SamWhited

    oh cool, they used my package as an example and I think used my graphs with some modifications, that makes me feel good

  20. SamWhited

    oh I see, this is taken from the old SO Documentation site before that was shut down, so definitely my graphs. Cool!

  21. Zash

    SO?

  22. jonas’

    stackoverflow

  23. SamWhited

    So I guess that "they" didn't so much "use my graphs" as "I wrote that" :)

  24. jonas’

    heh

  25. flow

    hmm, CC BY-SA violation?

  26. SamWhited

    It's got a link to contributors at the bottom (and we're both on there). Took me a while to find.

  27. arc

    Happy Friday everyone

  28. Zash

    ÄNTLIGEN

  29. ralphm bangs gavel

  30. ralphm

    0. Welcome

  31. ralphm

    Hi! Who do we have, and what's on your mind?

  32. arc

    Present

  33. Zash

    What's this? Board meeting? On a Friday?

  34. ralphm

    Zash: new round, new changes

  35. ralphm

    Seve, dwd, MattJ

  36. Seve

    Hello

  37. dwd

    Hiya.

  38. arc

    Dwd I think that is your turn to do the minutes this week

  39. ralphm

    It seems we're at:

  40. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  41. ralphm

    :-D

  42. dwd

    OK.

  43. ralphm

    2. Appointment of Officers

  44. ralphm

    I sent out an e-mail to both Alex and Peter.

  45. ralphm

    Peter responded with "Yes, of course!", so I motion we re-appoint him has Treasurer for the 2020/2021 term.

  46. ralphm

    +1

  47. Alex

    ralphm, received no mail. can you send it again?

  48. arc

    +1

  49. Alex

    But I will volunteer again

  50. dwd

    +1

  51. Seve

    +1

  52. Alex

    found in SPAM 🙄

  53. ralphm

    :-(

  54. ralphm

    Motion carries. Thanks Peter!

  55. ralphm

    I motion we appoint Alex as Secretary for the 2020/2021 term.

  56. ralphm

    +1

  57. dwd

    +1

  58. Seve

    +1

  59. ralphm

    arc?

  60. arc

    +1

  61. ralphm

    Motion carries. Thanks Alex!

  62. ralphm

    dwd: please make that full names in the minutes

  63. dwd

    Yup.

  64. ralphm

    3. Voting Process

  65. ralphm

    This item came up last week. Go!

  66. dwd

    It appears as though the bylaws description of how we vote doesn't entirely match the memberbot implementation. Which is correct, and what do we do about it?

  67. ralphm

    For Board/Council or Members?

  68. Kev

    (FWIW from the peanut gallery, I feel quite strongly that the two options are doing what the Bylaws say, or updating the Bylaws, I don't think continuing to not follow them should be an option we consider)

  69. dwd

    Possibly both, but certainly Board/Council was mentioned.

  70. ralphm

    Kev: definitely, with a strong lean towards doing what the Bylaws say

  71. SamWhited

    From the peanut gallery: I say the opposite: if it ain't broke don't fix it. Just ignore the bylaws and do what we're doing today unless an actual change is needed.

  72. ralphm

    SamWhited, that's not how things work usually.

  73. SamWhited

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ who cares? I'm not trying to be silly, I really don't see the point of messing with it unless there's some actual reason to change things.

  74. ralphm

    I am not interested in legal challenges, TBH

  75. Zash

    We have enough undocumented lore in the protocols.

  76. SamWhited

    Why would there be a legal challenge?

  77. SamWhited

    Anyways, just my opinion; don't make more work for yourselves.

  78. dwd

    Right, "fixing" the bylaws is easy enough.

  79. ralphm

    I don't know, but this is not a book club

  80. Kev

    Ralph: You mean 'not interested in' as in "don't care that there's the posibility of" or "don't wish to see"?

  81. ralphm

    Kev: the latter obviously

  82. Kev

    Ralph: For the sake of clarity :)

  83. Zash

    Having the bylaws match reality is a good thing, regardless of which part(s) need to be changed for them to match.

  84. ralphm

    My point is that we are still a legal entity with rules and just ignoring them is not an option

  85. dwd

    SamWhited, So the problem is that people noted that the Council, for example, wasn't voted in in the way that the Bylaws say.

  86. ralphm

    Ok, so let's discuss what we have and what we think it should be.

  87. Kev

    I think the sticking point is that currently we might see a Board or Council made up of individuals who aren't eligible to be on them, based on the number of votes they received.

  88. dwd

    SamWhited, So someone who stood for, but didn't get into, the Council could complain. Nobody has, but still.

  89. Kev

    Every member of Board and Council must have received a +1 from the majority of (voting) members.

  90. dwd

    So the bylaws appear to state that we select the people with the most votes, as long as they have more than 50% of the vote.

  91. dwd

    Whereas the memberbot only allows people to vote for 5 people.

  92. dwd

    In principle, the bylaws allow a member to vote for all the candidates or none of them.

  93. Kev

    I'm not sure the bylaws suggest how voting has to happen, do they?

  94. Kev

    Merely how B/C must be selected based on the votes cast.

  95. Kev

    They *imply* how it has to happen, for it to not then break in the face of many candidates.

  96. ralphm

    So to follow the bylaws, for Council we should've had the possibility of casting 7 votes explicitly

  97. Alex

    IIRC the board was dedicing on how many seats there are for board and council. A long time ago it was 3, and then got increased to 5

  98. dwd

    Kev, I think the most obvious reading of the bylaws would lead to being able to vote more than 5 times.

  99. Alex

    but not sure where this is covered in the bylaws exactly

  100. dwd

    Alex, IIRC, it is the members who set that limit not the Board.

  101. ralphm

    The Bylaws state that the membership decides the number of seats. I think we did that, long time ago.

  102. Alex

    dwd, possible as well, we would need to research the old member mails

  103. ralphm

    Section 3.13 Voting Procedure for Election of Board and Council. Election of individuals to serve on the Board of Directors and on the XMPP Council shall proceed as follows. First, the number of individuals to serve on each body shall be limited beforehand by the Members as specified in Section 4.4 and Section 8.1 of these Bylaws for the Board and Council, respectively. Second, the Members shall vote on the candidates standing for election in accordance with Section 3.9 of these Bylaws. Third, the individuals elected shall be those receiving the highest percentage of votes cast, up to the limit set by the Members and with the proviso that no individual receiving less than a majority of votes cast shall be elected. Fourth, in the case of a tie for the final remaining position, the final individual shall be chosen in accordance with the procedures defined in “RFC 3797: Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection” published by the Internet Engineering Task Force.

  104. Alex

    the 50% rule definetly can be an issue when we have a huge numer of applicants, then in theory none of them could get 50% of the votes

  105. dwd

    Alex, Yes, but only if you restrict the number of votes. Otherwise the risk is more ties, but we have a solution for that.

  106. Zash

    Bylaws made for a larger organization than what we are now?

  107. SamWhited

    If it's approval voting which this seems to suggest you could get less than 50% no matter how many members there are

  108. SamWhited

    no matter how many positions, that is.

  109. ralphm

    Zash: I don't think the XSF was much bigger when founded

  110. dwd

    SamWhited, That is true.

  111. arc

    And we have saved basically the same size sense

  112. arc

    Since

  113. ralphm

    If we'd done the Council voting as we do for (re-)electing members, it would have been according to 3.13, I think.

  114. dwd

    As a concrete proposal, then: I motion we change the memberbot to handle Board/Council votes as a simple y/n for each candidate.

  115. ralphm

    dwd: that's equivalent to what I wrote, right? In that case +1

  116. dwd

    ralphm, I think it is equivalent, yes.

  117. arc

    +1

  118. Seve

    +1

  119. dwd

    +1 from me as well.

  120. ralphm

    Motion carries.

  121. dwd

    FWIW, I cannot remember who raised this originally - I'll have to go look in the chatroom logs for this room.

  122. ralphm

    Now the remaining question is, do we need to re-do or re-evaluate the way these elections were done?

  123. Zash

    <hat:member>Anyone considered a nominating committee?</hat:member>

  124. Kev

    (And from the peanut gallery, seems sensible to just change memberbot)

  125. dwd

    ralphm, Board is unaffected. Council might have been affected.

  126. SamWhited

    For board no one received under 50%, for Council only I did (and I do not contest the results, because that would be stupid).

  127. ralphm

    SamWhited, hehe

  128. Kev

    Neither Council nor Board is affected.

  129. arc

    Years ago Memberbot required exactly five votes for both board and Council. I'm the one that pointed out that error, and we continued to run the ongoing vote and just corrected it for the next year

  130. Kev

    The only people with less than 50% vote were not in the top 5.

  131. dwd

    Kev, Yes, but the ordering might have altered, I suppose. That would affect my seat most likely.

  132. SamWhited

    ahhh, that's fair.

  133. arc

    So I would propose that we just say that we will apply this going forward

  134. Kev

    dwd: I don't believe the limit on the number of votes per person is actually a conflict with the Bylaws, it just leads to a problem with 50% votes.

  135. ralphm

    I happy to keep the results as-is. If the membership disagrees, they have the ability to appeal.

  136. ralphm

    Note that memberbot did allow for having less than 5 yes votes

  137. Kev

    (I'm wrong, 3.9 says that what memberbot does is wrong, but I still agree with just changing memberbot and moving on)

  138. Kev

    (Or at least arguably says that)

  139. dwd

    I am forced to argue that we should actually re-do the Council vote, despite it really not being in my self-interest to do so.

  140. dwd

    ralphm, Want to propose a motion one way or the other?

  141. arc

    Dwd I would argue that that would break precident

  142. arc

    I already made a motion

  143. dwd

    arc, Oh, so you did.

  144. ralphm

    arc: indeed

  145. ralphm

    Let's vote on arc's motion

  146. Kev

    At this point, I'm inclined to agree with Sam's "Don't make work" :)

  147. ralphm

    +1

  148. Seve

    +1

  149. ralphm

    arc, dwd?

  150. ralphm

    (yes, you have to vote on your own motion)

  151. arc

    +1

  152. dwd

    Ugh. Redoing the Council election would be a lot of work, but I feel it is the correct thing to do, so -1.

  153. Seve

    > I happy to keep the results as-is. If the membership disagrees, they have the ability to appeal. It would be fair, dwd, but I also agree with ralphm, membership can appeal.

  154. Ge0rG

    dwd: can't you abstain due to conflict of interest? ;)

  155. dwd

    Ge0rG, If I were going to vote in favour, I would abstain for that reason.

  156. ralphm

    Noted. Let the record clearly show that Board recognises that the Board and Council election hasn't been done in accordance with the XSF Bylaws (for multiple years) and that Memberbot shall be adjusted to allow everyone to cast a yes/no vote for each candidate, instead of a maximum of 5 yes votes. If the membership disagrees they may appeal Board's decision to keep the results nonetheless, noting that Dave voted against.

  157. SamWhited wonders if dave just bit off more than he can chew with board *and* council and is trying to wiggle out of it and pass the burden onto Marvin (okay, sorry, I will stop interrupting the meeting and shut up now)

  158. ralphm

    SamWhited, you have the right to speak up during Board meetings.

  159. dwd

    SamWhited, Oh, no - I *want* to do both.

  160. SamWhited

    Yes, but one should probably avoid unnecessary jokes that don't contribute to the meeting :)

  161. ralphm

    With that:

  162. ralphm

    4. AOB

  163. ralphm

    We're over time and I have fries waiting for me.

  164. arc

    Cold fries are dead fries, let's wrap

  165. Seve

    None here

  166. ralphm

    5. Date of Next

  167. ralphm

    +1W

  168. ralphm

    6. Close

  169. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  170. ralphm bangs gavel

  171. Seve

    Thank you all! Have a good weekend :)

  172. dwd

    And the minutes should be in your inboxes.

  173. lovetox

    regarding that codepoint/byte discussion

  174. lovetox

    obviously bytes would be retarded solution for python

  175. lovetox

    but i recognize that the solution needs to fit all languages

  176. lovetox

    all talk only about the one direction, finding a reference with start and end point

  177. Zash

    I'd just go with Unicode characters. Should be good enough.

  178. lovetox

    but how woudl the other way around work in python

  179. lovetox

    i have a string i know i want to quote 5 - 20

  180. lovetox

    now i encode that to utf8

  181. lovetox

    how do i find out start and end in the utf8 bytes

  182. Zash

    Loop? The answer to all computer questions is loop.

  183. lovetox

    i could encode 0-4 and then get the length off that

  184. Zash

    start := str[0:5].encode("utf8").len end := str[0:20].encode("utf8").len ???

  185. lovetox

    yeah

  186. Zash

    Counting UTF-8 sequences is easy if you have bytes too, using the magical construct called "loop".

  187. Zash

    Was there prior art from elsewhere in the beginning of this thread?

  188. Zash

    (or, the previous thread rather)

  189. SamWhited

    If you don't care about efficiency you can encode it then decode it. I assume it has a unicode package or something where you can loop and do it quicker as Zash said too. Been a long time since I've done Python, but something like this if you had a range of 0-6 bytes: "ⅧⅧⅧ".encode()[0:6].decode()

  190. lovetox

    i dont see any point to make this as efficient as possible

  191. lovetox

    its not like i have to resolve 10.000 references per second

  192. lovetox

    of course i would want to operate on strings with python

  193. Zash

    If you select some text in your GUI framework, what data do you get?

  194. lovetox

    because its natural and easy and needs no calculations at all

  195. lovetox

    strings Zash

  196. lovetox

    but this is a matter of the bindings

  197. SamWhited

    Some people work in different environments than you do.

  198. SamWhited

    In GTK you can generally operate on bytes or on some string like concept that they have that I don't know how it works internally that lets you access "characters". If you do operations on that they're all cached to make them fast enough to be okay on the UI thread.

  199. lovetox

    it totally depends on the bindings you use

  200. SamWhited

    Sure, bindings might do extra work to adapt that to whatever language you're using. But in GTK itself it works as I described.

  201. Zash

    *a*̈

  202. lovetox

    feels like a discussion with no correct solution

  203. lovetox

    some will have more work with one solution, others less

  204. lovetox

    and efficiency is no argument at all for me

  205. Zash

    Unicode code point array looks like the middle point to me.

  206. lovetox

    we decode and encode so much to put it on the stream or read it or display it in the GUI

  207. lovetox

    here and there a reference is a drop in the bucket

  208. SamWhited

    Another possible way of thinking about it (although I'm not yet sure if it matters or is helpful or not) is that a range in bytes corresponds to the XML where you have UTF-8. A range in Code points effectively corresponds to UTF-32, which is not what exists in the XML. I'd like the range to make sense in an XML document representing a session, not just after we've done some work at a higher level.

  209. Zash

    Something just gave me a headache. Good night.

  210. SamWhited

    Maybe that doesn't really matter, but semantically it makes more sense to me.

  211. lovetox

    i have to say i dont care also as long as its doable

  212. lovetox

    and works

  213. Zash

    There's one perfect solution, it's called "Bring back XHTML-IM"

  214. SamWhited

    Yah, that would be really nice<script>haxor.zash(123)</script>

  215. SamWhited

    <font background=white color=yellow>if only we had XHTML-IM</font>

  216. SamWhited

    :)

  217. Zash

    <span id="ref1">SamWhited</span>: Everyone else is using HTML (not XHTML) in JSON and get away with it. Surely we can too.

  218. Zash

    And surely in our XML environment we can get away with XHTML.

  219. SamWhited

    Are they getting away with it though, or is the web a mess and every random product is generally trivially easy to break?

  220. Zash

    Styles can be filtered out.

  221. SamWhited

    But jokes aside, I don't even want to use this for styling but generally feel we do need a way to select ranges of text

  222. Zash

    <span>

  223. Zash

    solved

  224. SamWhited

    I kind of hate the idea that you'd have to duplicate the body if you wanted fallback support, then you run into all the issues with clients putting different things in each body, but maybe you're right.

  225. Zash

    There'll be problems regardless of method.

  226. SamWhited

    Indeed

  227. Zash

    People showing 393 into HTML-passtrough Markdown libraries tells me that entire approach didn't solve the "XHTML-IM is insecure" problem.

  228. Zash

    I don't think that's solvable, that's the web being .. the web.

  229. SamWhited

    Has anyone done that? I mean, yah, that would be bad

  230. Zash

    Yes.

  231. Zash

    Someone did that.

  232. SamWhited

    But I really didn't think people would do that because it obviously wouldn't be 393. You'd just end up with markdown and like 2 of the styles would be the same and the rest would be different

  233. SamWhited

    Link?

  234. Zash

    "This looks like Markdown. I'll use this markdown library. Done! Ship it!"

  235. Zash

    Converse.js plugin IIRC

  236. SamWhited

    cool, I'll go look. I've seen their implementation and it wasn't using a library, but maybe there was an older one

  237. SamWhited

    Thanks

  238. Zash

    Probably mentioned in the logs here or council@

  239. SamWhited

    I don't think I've ever been able to find anything in chat logs ever, but I'll look :) THe earliest commit I see linked on the repo was a custom implementation anyways

  240. Zash

    Aha: https://github.com/igniterealtime/Pade/issues/79

  241. SamWhited

    That specifically says it's not XEP-0393, doesn't look like a mistaken implementation, looks like they just wanted markdown?

  242. Zash

    Note the edit

  243. SamWhited

    oh cool, I don't think I realized you could see history. "As much of XEP-0393 as possible" still makes me wonder, but yah, fair enough

  244. Zash

    Not sure if I've seen other cases of 393 vs markdown confusion, but I do remember that this one

  245. SamWhited

    "My use case will be markdown code pasted from GitHub or elsewhere" still sounds like they deliberately wanted markdown

  246. Zash

    The confusion was pointed out and a bunch of the comments have since been edited

  247. Zash

    Still. There was confusion at first.

  248. Zash

    Aaaaaaand then: https://github.com/markedjs/marked#usage

  249. SamWhited

    yah, you're right, found an edited comment where he specifically said that it was markdown but would *also* give XEP-0393 compatibility, looks like the author just messed with the history

  250. Zash

    Maybe 393 should have a red blinking comic sans warning :)

  251. Zash

    THIS IS NOT MARKDOWN!!!!!1eleven

  252. SamWhited

    Still, they noticed and it didn't get shipped, so 🤷

  253. Zash

    How many others might have made that mistake without me or someone being around to panic about it?

  254. SamWhited

    I dunno, I just assume they'd at least try styling once and realize the styles didn't actually work, but maybe that's optimistic for "the web"