XSF Discussion - 2021-01-21


  1. syster

    As you may noticed: riseup.net is going to discontinue their xmpp service. They would have discontinued it even already if it wasn't for the reason Tails is using it for their MUC's. If you are unaware of the reasons to shut it down, those bits from an interview with riseup dating back to 2020/06 might be of interest to you: "However, for basic service, we have some details in the database of users, and probably their ‘buddy lists’. This service is not very well used, and we are considering discontinuing it because we’d rather not have any of this data." Prior to that, they where explaining how the FBI requested data from them. Shutting down everything that holds to much meta data protects riseup and so their users. You can read the full interview here: https://pramen.io/en/2020/06/interview-with-riseup-tech-collective/ Tails needs now a new home for their chat rooms. If it will be xmpp is undecided. The issue related to that can be found here: https://gitlab.tails.boum.org/tails/tails/-/issues/17956 If you believe you have helpful/usefull input on that matter, feel free comment in that issue or/and join tails-dev.conference.riseup.net

  2. syster

    As you may noticed: riseup.net is going to discontinue their xmpp service. They would have discontinued it even already if it wasn't for the reason Tails is using it for their MUC's. If you are unaware of the reasons to shut it down, those bits from an interview with riseup dating back to 2020/06 might be of interest to you: "However, for basic service, we have some details in the database of users, and probably their ‘buddy lists’. This service is not very well used, and we are considering discontinuing it because we’d rather not have any of this data." Prior to that, they where explaining how the FBI requested data from them. Shutting down everything that holds to much meta data protects riseup and so their users. You can read the full interview here: https://pramen.io/en/2020/06/interview-with-riseup-tech-collective/ Tails needs now a new home for their chat rooms. If it will be xmpp is undecided. The issue related to that can be found here: https://gitlab.tails.boum.org/tails/tails/-/issues/17956 If you believe you have helpful/usefull input on that matter, feel free comment in that issue or/and join xmpp:tails-dev.conference.riseup.net

  3. flow

    seems sensible from their POV. Now I wonder how others, like Matrix, protect the user data: Is it not on the server? Encrypted on the server?

  4. flow

    and a follow up question: does an xmpp server need access to the roster if no session of the user is connected?

  5. Ge0rG

    flow: limited roster access is needed

  6. Zash

    You need rosters for access control, like PEP

  7. Zash

    I suppose you could get away with just not responding to presence probes if they're offline.

  8. Ge0rG

    flow: I'm sure that a server implementation can be written that will store all user data encrypted asymmetrically, with a password that the client provides on login to unlock the private key, and one-way-hashes of JIDs for ACLs

  9. Ge0rG

    but that probably requires rewriting from scratch

  10. flow

    Ge0rG, sure or confident that this is possible? ;)

  11. Zash

    I'm pretty sure you can. I did a proof-of-concept once doing precisely what Ge0rG describes

  12. flow

    ok, but that means at least that third parties are able to check if a JID is in the roster, right?

  13. flow

    and hence, brute force

  14. flow

    (with a list of known JIDs)

  15. Ge0rG

    Zash: a subset of what I described. And it wasn't ever tested.

  16. Ge0rG

    flow: yes

  17. Ge0rG

    flow: third parties that have read access to your storage

  18. Zash

    Ge0rG, oh, sorry, didn't read until the end of that 🙂

  19. Zash

    But it derived a key from login data and used that for a subset of user data.

  20. Ge0rG

    I'd love to migrate yax.im to this kind of storage, but it needs to be using efficient encryption and storage mechanisms, not RSA in base64 in lua serialized tables

  21. Zash

    Not rosters tho

  22. emus

    Again the question: Do I need to ask for any permissions on blog posting? Is there another native offering to review (Sam recommended)?

  23. SamWhited

    Personally I'd just get someone who's a native speaker who you trust not to change your words to do an editing pass before merging. Ie. just let them change it freely and hit merge without going back and forth.

  24. SamWhited

    As long as it's only editorial and doesn't change what you're saying it would probably make things quicker.

  25. emus

    Fine for me, but if one is doing so, please announce to not have cross editing

  26. SamWhited

    emus (sorry, no idea how to PM on my laptop and I got tired of using my phone): I'm not sure who has permission to merge a blog post and is a native speaker, sorry. I assume someone from the comm team would be best, but I don't know who's on that

  27. SamWhited

    Although XSF policy appears to be "board has to approve everything and there's little point to delegating authority to committees" as far as I can tell, so maybe a board person?

  28. SamWhited

    (although I also can't remember why I formed that opinion, something recently where a committee wasn't allowed to tweet or something; no idea if it also applies to the website)

  29. Zash

    Commteam?

  30. emus

    Dunno, havent got any respone

  31. Ge0rG

    Yeah, commteam

  32. moparisthebest

    I thought emus was (most/part) of the commteam

  33. emus

    Yes I am^^

  34. SamWhited

    oh, that's not very helpful then as far as getting more eyes on it and having a native speaker do an editing pass before hiting merge :)

  35. emus

    I ask, about approval, but no one replied

  36. SamWhited

    I mean, I can keep pointing out grammar that doesn't sound quite right, it will just be a lot of round trips.

  37. emus

    I can write an email to board if you prefer, but I thought discussion here is better

  38. Zash

    Maybe thing to do is to just publish it, then it's guaranteed to be reviewed by someone who will find every typo! 🙂

  39. Ge0rG

    emus: yeah, just commit it already!

  40. emus

    🤯️

  41. SamWhited

    I feel like it doesn't look great if we publish a blog post with a lot of bad grammar (not that I blame emus of course, not being a native speaker, just that the official XSF language is English so it doesn't seem great to go straight to the web without review)

  42. emus

    If Sam says there is a lot weird stuff, I prefer to get it right - at least give it another roung

  43. emus

    d

  44. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: didn't you do a review of the grammar already?

  45. moparisthebest

    on the other hand if no one can review it in 3 days just go, better than nothing, most of it looks fine to me except the one thing I pointed out

  46. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: I did a quick pass, but I wasn't sure what some of it meant at all so I couldn't make suggestions and what not.

  47. moparisthebest

    not *perfect* but *fine*

  48. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: I fully agree

  49. SamWhited

    Give me 30 seconds to go through it again if you don't mind, if I see anything really weird I'll point it out, otherwise I don't have any authority here anyways :)

  50. emus

    take 30 minutes if you like

  51. SamWhited

    The only real thing I'd say needs to change still is the title, it doesn't really make sense to me and sounds a bit odd (though I don't know if it's technically incorrect grammar)

  52. SamWhited

    I'm struggling to think of something that says what you're trying to say though

  53. emus

    Take your time if you can

  54. emus

    I want to say in a more clear way: The decision about you communication is a decision about the technology, not about the chat app/ instant messenger you use

  55. SamWhited

    That makes sense, I'm not sure how to condense that into a snappy title that sounds correct though. I'll think about it.

  56. Ge0rG

    "Messaging is not about the app" maybe

  57. SamWhited

    Oh yah, that sounds a lot better

  58. Ge0rG

    "Instant Messaging: it's not about the app"

  59. emus

    Sounds fine to me

  60. emus

    Instant Messaging is not about the choice of the app

  61. emus

    ?

  62. emus

    I would like to have it as a sentence

  63. Ge0rG

    Instant Messaging is not about which app to choose

  64. SamWhited

    That one sounds odd again; it's not wrong, the phrasing just makes it longer than it needs to be and it has more articles than are necessary

  65. SamWhited

    All three of Ge0rG's sound pretty good

  66. emus

    I'm gonna send the final version to board/council, so at least I informed them

  67. SamWhited

    All of Ge0rG's are valid sentences too, so I wouldn't be concerned about that. Titles don't really need to be sentences anyways.

  68. Ge0rG

    The second one is IMHO the most catchy one and might intrigue to read what it is about

  69. emus

    Instant Messaging is not about which app to choose

  70. emus

    yes

  71. SamWhited

    That one works

  72. emus

    Okay, I go with Georg second

  73. Ge0rG

    Brevity is king

  74. SamWhited

    +1 ⤴️

  75. emus

    can I write it like this?

  76. emus

    Instant Messaging: It is not about the app

  77. SamWhited

    "it's" sounds better to me (but it doesn't matter)

  78. emus

    or Should it really be It's

  79. emus

    ok

  80. SamWhited

    just nit picking now

  81. emus

    yeah thats good

  82. emus

    I would like to pin it to twitter

  83. emus

    other one is 5 yrs old

  84. SamWhited

    Left a few more comments, nothing major.

  85. emus

    (still good)

  86. SamWhited

    "I could have stood up" still sounds weird to me too, but I have no idea how to fix it or if it's even technically wrong, so whatever.

  87. emus

    ok, let me go through it

  88. emus

    Sam, the second sub title: It's not about the app but about the technology (works?)

  89. Ge0rG

    Isn't it about interoperable technology?

  90. emus

    lets keep it simple here I think

  91. SamWhited

    emus: yah, that sounds fine to me

  92. emus

    Ge0rG but I will name it in the list

  93. SamWhited

    By "very evaluated" did you mean "educated"?

  94. SamWhited

    It reads better to me if you drop the "very" and just make it "educated", but I'm not sure if that's what you meant

  95. emus

    I acutall meant evaluation

  96. emus

    like "reviewing"

  97. SamWhited

    I don't think that's how that' snormally used

  98. emus

    Okay, let me think about it, in the meanwhile: can you confirm zashs comments? https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/871

  99. emus

    https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/871#discussion_r562152494

  100. SamWhited

    I think I already replied to them :)

  101. emus

    ok cool

  102. emus

    --> well-founded ?

  103. SamWhited

    "because they made a well-founded choice." sounds good to me. That means the same thing as an educated choice.

  104. emus

    Ah okay, educated sounded like school to me 😀

  105. emus

    but I guess thats just my German mind^^

  106. emus

    On the other hand, I also see they usually do not switch platforms because they made a very well-founded choice for one specific messenger, which is also not easy.

  107. SamWhited

    I'd drop the "very" personally, it's not necessary.

  108. emus

    ok

  109. emus

    gone

  110. emus

    Sam, are you at least "okay" with it now? :D

  111. SamWhited

    I still don't understand that sentence even without the "very". I know what you're trying to say because we've been talking about it, but I don't think I get it from that sentence.

  112. SamWhited

    The "which is also not easy" doesn't follow from what you said before, for example. I'm not sure what you mean by that part.

  113. SamWhited

    What's not easy?

  114. SamWhited

    Making a well-founded choice?

  115. emus

    On the other hand, I usually do not see they made a well-founded choice (which is also not easy) for one specific messenger.

  116. SamWhited

    I dunno, I wouldn't listen to me though. I can keep nit picking, but I'm not a great editor so if we don't actually have anyone who approves these things or is a good editor it's probably fine to just merge. I appreciate you valuing my opinion, but it's probably not worth listening to me :)

  117. emus

    Does the simpler version work? ^

  118. emus

    Sam you are really helping, yes its taking time, but I think that was worth it. Is alright!

  119. SamWhited

    Actually, I'm not even sure how this is an "on the one hand, on the other" situation. Aren't these two things the same thing? They're just making a quick decision and it's not very well thought out sound like the same thing to me

  120. emus

    is board@xmpp.org correct?

  121. SamWhited

    oooh, wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding entirely. Are you saying that even when people make an educated choice they still switch frequently?

  122. emus

    nope 🙂

  123. emus

    wait

  124. emus

    Many people just make a short-term decision about their communication software and this usually is not a well-founded choice for one specific messenger. So, the people just switch again and again.

  125. SamWhited

    ahh, yah, that makes a lot of sense to me

  126. SamWhited

    Only little nit pick on that is "Many people make short-term decisions about their…"

  127. mdosch

    Maybe s/Many/Often?

  128. mdosch

    Or spontaneous?

  129. SamWhited

    "Often, people make short-term decisions about their" sounds good to me too, either way.

  130. emus

    yes

  131. SamWhited

    I'd also maybe consider "So the people switch again and again, or add yet another messenger to their collection"

  132. SamWhited

    Or "Many people switch again and again or add yet another messenger to their list" or something like that

  133. SamWhited

    But that doesn't matter as much, I'm just trying ot avoid the "Actually," which IMO breaks up the thought and is a bit jarring.

  134. SamWhited

    (but it's not "wrong" per say)

  135. emus

    Let me have the line break there (please :))

  136. emus

    I want to continue the thought actually

  137. emus

    I think, as long the gramma is okay, its fine

  138. SamWhited

    yah, I think that one's fine, I'm just nitpicking at this point.

  139. emus

    Done?

  140. SamWhited

    Sure

  141. emus

    Hi arc, dave (dwd ?), matthew (Wild?), ralphm and Seve - please approve and merge if you are satisfied: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/871

  142. arc

    I don't know who even has access to do that

  143. emus

    And thanks Sam for giving it a second try.

  144. emus

    arc, If you all give me your go, I can do it myself

  145. emus

    arc, If you all give me your "Go", I can do it myself

  146. emus

    Also a sub-question: One said that the bylawys state english as official XSF language. So if I would like to offer translations, thats a no go or it just needs to published else where, or possible to have that as follow-up posts?

  147. Zash

    I don't see "english" or "language" in https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/bylaws

  148. emus

    Yeah - okay, with or without it basically makes sense

  149. Zash

    I suspect that difficulties publishing translations on the website may be more of a technical nature than legal (or whatyoucallit what the bylaws says)

  150. Zash

    Bunch of wording that IIRC is to explicitly allow remote communication for meetings and such is the closes I can find.

  151. Zash

    Maybe there's something about language inherited from the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, but I'm not going to venture into that.

  152. emus

    okay, you mean it has a different meaning in another language?

  153. Zash

    Huh?

  154. Zash

    I'm afraid I don't follow.

  155. emus

    Me, too 😀 What were your three statements about, I think I didnt understand correctly

  156. Zash

    1. I'm not sure if publishing translations is easy with Pelican. 2a. Our bylaws says nothing about an official language. 2b. I don't know if any other law that may apply says anything about language.

  157. emus

    Ah okay, I just thought publishing new blog post with clear reference as translation of the english artocle

  158. emus

    Ah okay, I just thought publishing new blog post with clear reference as translation of the english article

  159. emus

    2b, lets wait for the board

  160. MattJ

    There is no problem with the XSF publishing translations of its blog posts

  161. MattJ

    The bylaws are about how the organization is run, not about what gets posted on the blog

  162. emus

    ok, thx

  163. purplebeetroot

    > Instant Messaging is not about which app to choose I like it. Here's another option: Communication is not about which app to choose. And then starting to explain what's important for/while having a conversation and how that aplies to xmpp.