XSF Discussion - 2021-01-26


  1. marek has left
  2. marek has joined
  3. emus has left
  4. neshtaxmpp has left
  5. govanify has left
  6. govanify has joined
  7. govanify has left
  8. govanify has joined
  9. sonny has left
  10. sonny has joined
  11. debacle has left
  12. edhelas has left
  13. arc It looks like you're going to have a foss foundations drinkup on BigBlueButton video conference on Feb 5 at 7pm Brussels time.
  14. adiaholic has left
  15. adiaholic has joined
  16. govanify has left
  17. govanify has joined
  18. marek has left
  19. marek has joined
  20. krauq has left
  21. krauq has joined
  22. Neustradamus There is a problem with xmpp.com/www.xmpp.com, on Google, when we search XEP, the results can be https://www.xmpp.com instead of https://xmpp.org.
  23. antranigv has left
  24. moparisthebest Does the xsf own that domain?
  25. moparisthebest It looks like it points to our servers, but the certs are wrong
  26. sonny has left
  27. sonny has joined
  28. Neustradamus Yes
  29. moparisthebest Needs cert and a 301 redirect
  30. adiaholic has left
  31. adiaholic has joined
  32. govanify has left
  33. govanify has joined
  34. krauq has left
  35. alex-a-soto has left
  36. krauq has joined
  37. govanify has left
  38. govanify has joined
  39. govanify has left
  40. govanify has joined
  41. stp has left
  42. alex-a-soto has joined
  43. marek has left
  44. marek has joined
  45. chronosx88 has joined
  46. murabito has left
  47. murabito has joined
  48. govanify has left
  49. govanify has joined
  50. Yagiza has joined
  51. govanify has left
  52. govanify has joined
  53. Andrzej has joined
  54. Adi has joined
  55. marek has left
  56. marek has joined
  57. krauq has left
  58. krauq has joined
  59. stp has joined
  60. Andrzej has left
  61. stp has left
  62. Lance has joined
  63. Lance has left
  64. alacer has joined
  65. lorddavidiii has joined
  66. Tobias has joined
  67. arc has left
  68. arc has joined
  69. arc has left
  70. arc has joined
  71. alacer has left
  72. alacer has joined
  73. Seve has joined
  74. jcbrand has joined
  75. arc has left
  76. arc has joined
  77. Mikaela has joined
  78. sonny has left
  79. sonny has joined
  80. Mikaela has left
  81. emus has joined
  82. govanify has left
  83. govanify has joined
  84. adiaholic has left
  85. karoshi has joined
  86. adiaholic has joined
  87. wurstsalat has joined
  88. goffi has joined
  89. neshtaxmpp has joined
  90. sonny has left
  91. sonny has joined
  92. goffi has left
  93. alacer has left
  94. govanify has left
  95. govanify has joined
  96. ti_gj06 has joined
  97. jonas’ those are our nameservers, so yeah
  98. mdosch has left
  99. mdosch has joined
  100. moparisthebest has left
  101. marc has joined
  102. marc has left
  103. mdosch has left
  104. Daniel has left
  105. mdosch has joined
  106. moparisthebest has joined
  107. Daniel has joined
  108. Daniel has left
  109. Daniel has joined
  110. marc has joined
  111. lorddavidiii has left
  112. lorddavidiii has joined
  113. mathijs has left
  114. mathijs has joined
  115. Daniel has left
  116. Daniel has joined
  117. Daniel has left
  118. Daniel has joined
  119. ti_gj06 has left
  120. mdosch has left
  121. mdosch has joined
  122. LNJ has joined
  123. marc has left
  124. chronosx88 has left
  125. chronosx88 has joined
  126. mathijs has left
  127. mathijs has joined
  128. edhelas has joined
  129. jcbrand has left
  130. jcbrand has joined
  131. Guus has joined
  132. eevvoor has left
  133. eevvoor has joined
  134. Guus has left
  135. derdaniel has joined
  136. derdaniel has left
  137. esil has joined
  138. esil has left
  139. Andrzej has joined
  140. chronosx88 has left
  141. chronosx88 has joined
  142. chronosx88 has left
  143. chronosx88 has joined
  144. goffi has joined
  145. ti_gj06 has joined
  146. Andrzej has left
  147. Andrzej has joined
  148. Seve has left
  149. Kevin Smith has joined
  150. Kevin Smith has left
  151. Kevin Smith has joined
  152. Kevin Smith has left
  153. Kevin Smith has joined
  154. Kevin Smith has left
  155. antranigv has joined
  156. marc has joined
  157. govanify has left
  158. govanify has joined
  159. Seve has joined
  160. chronosx88 has left
  161. chronosx88 has joined
  162. adiaholic has left
  163. lorddavidiii has left
  164. adiaholic has joined
  165. ti_gj06 has left
  166. adiaholic has left
  167. adiaholic has joined
  168. lorddavidiii has joined
  169. matkor has left
  170. antranigv has left
  171. stp has joined
  172. goffi has left
  173. goffi has joined
  174. raghavgururajan has left
  175. ti_gj06 has joined
  176. goffi has left
  177. Neustradamus Crash?
  178. stp has left
  179. adiaholic has left
  180. antranigv has joined
  181. Dele Olajide has joined
  182. Dele Olajide has left
  183. Dele Olajide has joined
  184. adiaholic has joined
  185. goffi has joined
  186. stp has joined
  187. mukt2 has joined
  188. antranigv has left
  189. arc has left
  190. arc has joined
  191. arc has left
  192. arc has joined
  193. marc has left
  194. marc has joined
  195. marc has left
  196. marc has joined
  197. Wojtek has joined
  198. Mikaela has joined
  199. Mikaela has left
  200. Dele Olajide has left
  201. Dele Olajide has joined
  202. Steve Kille has left
  203. raghavgururajan has joined
  204. Steve Kille has joined
  205. Mikaela has joined
  206. goffi has left
  207. marek has left
  208. marek has joined
  209. stp Hi, did anyone ever try to make Google replace the term Jabber with XMPP in the Android contacts?
  210. flow i guess that would first require us to have a clear stance that this is what we want
  211. flow anyhow, I am not aware of any such attempt
  212. lorddavidiii has left
  213. lorddavidiii has joined
  214. ti_gj06 has left
  215. stp flow, According to a discussion I initiated in this MUC some days ago the Jabber term should not be used anymore.
  216. esil has joined
  217. esil has left
  218. ti_gj06 has joined
  219. jonas’ says who?
  220. jonas’ my impression was that we’re split in two fractions: one fraction who wishes to market XMPP, one fraction who wishes to market a different term, and for lack of a better one, Jabber is currently their favourite.
  221. dwd Market to whom, is a key deciding factor, I feel.
  222. jonas’ that, too
  223. jonas’ given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to users" though
  224. ti_gj06 has left
  225. jonas’ given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to (IM) users" though
  226. dwd Ah, right. Yes, if we're marketing to users than XMPP is not ideal.
  227. dwd Especially as the XMPP Standards Foundation doesn't appear to want to market to users.
  228. MattJ FWIW it's not only Android, iOS also has a Jabber field
  229. MattJ It probably stems from vCard
  230. dwd Probably not; we added in jabber as a non-standard extension in our standard.
  231. MattJ Oh really?
  232. dwd IIRC, anyway.
  233. dwd Yeah, XEP-0054§2, third para.
  234. MattJ vCard 4 has IMPP it seems
  235. jonas’ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350#section-6.4.3
  236. dwd Does Android actually use vCard4?
  237. MattJ I'd be surprised
  238. LNJ has left
  239. Zash https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 applies to earlier vCard too I think
  240. stp Zash, hm, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 just mentions XMPP.
  241. lskdjf has joined
  242. mdosch Marketing Jabber is also a problem as you scare away people who associate it with 'Cisco Jabber' (happened to me twice) and it's a trademark from Cisco. So as long as there is no better term I call it XMPP even if this is not ideal.
  243. Zash stp, the abstract says that it's an URI, the Introduction lists a number of examples
  244. Zash Only mention of XMPP I see is that + informative reference to the xmpp URI spec
  245. stp While the term XMPP may not be ideal, how many products world wide became very successful using names which were probably not ideal? Having *two* names for the *same* thing though is way worse, near fatal even especially since with XMPP there are also all those client names in the mix and to an extent XMPP provider names. I also think XMPP isn't that bad actually.
  246. LNJ has joined
  247. dwd The IETF would never refer to XMPP as Jabber. The name XMPP was literally invented to avoid that.
  248. stp Zash, ok, but no mention of Jabber.
  249. Zash But that wasn't what that tangent was about
  250. dwd stp, You might notice that "HTTP" and "The Web" are two different names, yet seem to work OK.
  251. stp dwd, those are two different things though.
  252. Zash That was about the IMPP vCard property predating vCard4, and is what's used to store Jabber/XMPP addresses in address books, unless some non-standard property like X-JABBER is used
  253. matkor has joined
  254. stp Since I lack the knowledge I'm confused now regarding the Android contacts/Vcard topic. So to clear that up: Does Google just follow what the vCard standard specifies?
  255. fuana has joined
  256. flow I think it was labeled "Jabber" in Android many, many years ago
  257. flow Back then Jabber was more used. And nobody ever revisited the name
  258. goffi has joined
  259. fuana has left
  260. sonny has left
  261. stp flow, I can confirm that in 2011 is was already labeled Jabber.
  262. stp flow, so probably since Android was started.
  263. Zash Looks like this old Android uses X-JABBER in vCard 2.1
  264. chronosx88 has left
  265. chronosx88 has joined
  266. Tobias has left
  267. Tobias has joined
  268. eevvoor has left
  269. eevvoor has joined
  270. fuana has joined
  271. fuana has left
  272. fuana has joined
  273. fuana has left
  274. sonny has joined
  275. sonny has left
  276. sonny has joined
  277. ti_gj06 has joined
  278. antranigv has joined
  279. alacer has joined
  280. alacer has left
  281. alacer has joined
  282. alacer has left
  283. andy has joined
  284. wladmis has joined
  285. mukt2 has left
  286. Andrzej has left
  287. andy has left
  288. mukt2 has joined
  289. Andrzej has joined
  290. Neustradamus has left
  291. Neustradamus has joined
  292. andy has joined
  293. antranigv has left
  294. mukt2 has left
  295. marc has left
  296. andy has left
  297. marc has joined
  298. Mikaela has left
  299. emus has left
  300. emus has joined
  301. lorddavidiii has left
  302. Andrzej has left
  303. antranigv has joined
  304. Mikaela has joined
  305. Paganini has left
  306. nyco has left
  307. edhelas has left
  308. Neustradamus has left
  309. Neustradamus has joined
  310. Neustradamus has left
  311. nyco has joined
  312. Neustradamus has joined
  313. Neustradamus has left
  314. edhelas has joined
  315. Neustradamus has joined
  316. Paganini has joined
  317. lskdjf has left
  318. Ge0rG In my legacy Android XMPP code from ten years ago, I have support for imto://jabber/ URIs
  319. Daniel That's still useful today
  320. Ge0rG but it looks like I have no code to actually handle those intents.
  321. Ge0rG oh, it just ignores the scheme. If host == "jabber" then chatWith(path[0])
  322. lorddavidiii has joined
  323. stp So is there any place where it would make sense to file an issue regrading the use of Jabber or XMPP in Android contacts?
  324. mukt2 has joined
  325. matkor has left
  326. matkor has joined
  327. Ge0rG stp: I think that'd be a task for the Jabber Software Foundation
  328. andy has joined
  329. moparisthebest Cisco?
  330. Ge0rG moparisthebest: oh please no
  331. moparisthebest I figured "Jabber Software Foundation" was "Cisco", don't know who else it'd be :)
  332. jonas’ moparisthebest, old name of the XSF, nowadays nonexistent.
  333. Daniel I'm not even sure there is anything in 'android' calling it Jabber. Isn't it just the contacts apps
  334. moparisthebest right, nowadays it's Cisco
  335. Daniel You can probably PR the aosp contact apps
  336. Daniel Or other relevant open source contacts apps
  337. Daniel But that only buys you so much
  338. Ge0rG As a member of the "use Jabber™ for the federated IM network, XMPP for the protocol" faction, I oppose that change.
  339. mdosch Isn't IMPP the vcard standard for im?
  340. Neustradamus The XMPP network :)
  341. stp Daniel, since all contacts app I came across called that field "Jabber" I suspected that that is baked into a layer below the contact apps. Or also possible that all those apps were just reskinned AOSP contact apps.
  342. Ge0rG I have written multiple SMTP messages about that which can be obtained from the IMAP and the HTTPS networks.
  343. Daniel stp: yes a lot of them are probably forked from the asop app
  344. mdosch > Isn't IMPP the vcard standard for im? But at lest Wikipedia mentions X-JABBER as extension.
  345. moparisthebest if "email" were owned by google I'd be opposed to using the word "email" too
  346. Zash Have fun: https://github.com/aosp-mirror/platform_packages_apps_contacts/search?q=Jabber
  347. mdosch > Daniel, since all contacts app I came across called that field "Jabber" I suspected that that is baked into a layer below the contact apps. Or also possible that all those apps were just reskinned AOSP contact apps. Let's have a look at RFC6350 😃
  348. stp Ge0rG, That's the worst solution of the four for marketing the system to the general public.
  349. Ge0rG stp: What do you mean by "that", and what four solutions are you talking about?
  350. ti_gj06 has left
  351. mukt2 has left
  352. Ge0rG As the developer of Bruno the Jabber™ Bear, I am proud to say that I have both the XSF's and bear's approval to use that name.
  353. mdosch https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350#section-6.4.3
  354. mdosch So, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com
  355. mdosch So, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com ?
  356. Zash mdosch, this is the way
  357. dwd Zash, The IETF Has Spoken.
  358. stp Ge0rG, Those four being | XMPP | Jabber | Jabber for the network, XMPP for the protocol | Jabber-XMPP or vice versa.
  359. Ge0rG stp: #5 is "zimpy" :P
  360. SamWhited I don't especially care what we call the public network (Jabber or something else) as long as we don't call it "XMPP", so I'm with Ge0rG. They are two different things and shouldn't share a name.
  361. stp Ge0rG, never heard that, but by four I meant the possiblities without introducing an entirely new name.
  362. SamWhited (and also XMPP is a fine name for a protocol, because "who cares?", it's not a fine name for a product. See also the "email/IMAP" example others have also given)
  363. SamWhited stp: "zimpy" is a joke, some people pronounce "XMPP" that way.
  364. Ge0rG SamWhited: it's only half a joke
  365. SamWhited Heh, I was just typing "well, I duno if Ge0rG means it as a joke or not"
  366. Zash It's all fun and games until Big Corporation owns the trademark.
  367. Ge0rG SamWhited: I think it's a good serious alternative name for jabber in case that one day Cisco wakes up and retracts the XSFs rights
  368. stp The E-Mail comparison is wrong, since E-Mail covers multiple protocols.
  369. SamWhited I don't see what that has to do with anything
  370. Ge0rG But I'm pretty sure that we have enough power to use and re-license Jabber™ in a fashion appropriate for the federated network
  371. SamWhited email is the network, IMAP/SMTP/JMAP are protocols, I wouldn't lump them all together under one name.
  372. dwd stp, X.400?
  373. Ge0rG as long as Cisco doesn't stand up to threaten us or users of the name, I think the permissions given by Jabber Inc to the XSF are sufficient and safe enough to keep the well-established Jabber™ name
  374. Ge0rG stp: so why do you think using "Jabber" for the network is bad?
  375. moparisthebest relying on the goodwill of cisco once the name is in widespread use seems like a terrible plan
  376. Daniel Ge0rG: because jabber is the crappy Cisco product
  377. moparisthebest and that ^
  378. Ge0rG Daniel: most people don't even know it.
  379. Ge0rG also IIRC Cisco has been rebranding it to WebEx-something
  380. SamWhited I tend to agree with Ge0rG that XMPP is a bad name for general users, but also with Daniel et al. that relying on the good will of Cisco seems like a bad idea.
  381. arc has left
  382. arc has joined
  383. Ge0rG SamWhited: stpeter repeatedly made the claim that we are not relying on their goodwill but on our contracts with them.
  384. moparisthebest I've been telling people to install either Quicksy or Snikket, depending if they want to host it themselves or not...
  385. SamWhited Ge0rG: it's the same thing when one side has billions of dollars and lawyers and the other side doesn't.
  386. stp Ge0rG, I don't think it's bad, but the legal uncertainty make it a no-go and the XMPP term already became too prominent by the constant use of terms like Jabber/XMPP and more recently you come across the XMPP more often even than Jabber.
  387. Ge0rG moparisthebest: yes, but people then don't understand that they can use Quicksy to talk to Snikket users
  388. Ge0rG stp: I think this is only true among protocol nerds
  389. moparisthebest I explain that with an analogy to email where they can email someone @outlook.com with their @gmail.com address
  390. Ge0rG And regarding the legal uncertainity, yes, we are in a sh*tty place. If we (the Jabber Software Foundation) had a million dollars, we could establish Zimpy as the new name of Jabber
  391. mathieui There would probably be a better use for a million dollars though.
  392. SamWhited Personally, if I were making a chat service I probably just wouldn't mention either at all. Maybe a blurb that says "Also chat with your friends on these networks and more!" and stick the conversations logo or what not at the bottom
  393. stp Ge0rG, I don't think so when websites of public XMPP servers don't even mention Jabber.
  394. Zash Sam: Like Snikket!
  395. SamWhited Probably wouldn't even mention Jabber and *definitely* wouldn't mention XMPP, so maybe it wouldn't matter at all to me.
  396. chronosx88 has left
  397. SamWhited Zash: indeed!
  398. chronosx88 has joined
  399. dwd SamWhited, I think that at some point, a list of networks becomes unweildy, and you need a collective name.
  400. Zash Tho if you read until the very end of the page about "The Snikket Network", it does say XMPP there
  401. SamWhited dwd: I don't have to actually list every possible thing, just a handful of nice products with good logos. Maybe the last one is the XSF logo and it links to the list of public servers or something.
  402. Ge0rG stp: is that a personal impression or do you have stats? Jabber is a very common term in some Jabber communities, e.g. in Russia
  403. Zash Something something chat-network-interconnect? Inter-chat-net? Internet?
  404. moparisthebest some people call xmpp "part of the fediverse" but that's confusing to me too
  405. Ge0rG SamWhited: that only achieves the effect that only people interested in protocols will realize the important fact that it's federated and interoparble, but they already know that.
  406. stp Ge0rG, no stats, but by personal impression the term jabber get's used less and less.
  407. SamWhited Ge0rG: no, it means nobody has to care and users will just see "Oh, my friend used that fancy Snikket logo, maybe I can talk to him too!"
  408. SamWhited Only people interested in protocols will care what "federated" means in the first place
  409. chronosx88 has left
  410. chronosx88 has joined
  411. Ge0rG SamWhited: users will think "oh no, please not yet another chat app!"
  412. dwd stp, It feels as though you have decided your conclusion and are now working on supporting it with evidence.
  413. SamWhited I don't see why that would be the case if it lists a bunch of shiny logos. If it just says "Compatible with Jabber" though they now have to know that it's not a specific service.
  414. dwd stp, Also, nearly all of my work for the past decade has been with XMPP, but virtually none of it with public chat networks.
  415. SamWhited But I dunno, I have zero idea how a marketing person would approach this
  416. moparisthebest stp, regardless you have your answer, a small group of protocol enthusiasts can't agree on what to call it, good luck convincing anyone else :D
  417. Ge0rG We are getting beaten to death by Matrix marketing.
  418. moparisthebest Ge0rG, matrix marketing or element or riot or ?
  419. moparisthebest naming, it's hard
  420. Daniel I think the approach that snikket and to an extend Conversations are taking (establish your own brand) is the way to go
  421. Ge0rG moparisthebest: for some reason they don't have any issue with just re-using other brands' names.
  422. Daniel And just put xmpp compatible in a corner somewhere
  423. mathieui moparisthebest, it does not matter, they are marketing it as a bundle (and element = riot nowadays)
  424. dwd mathieui, Aren't both of them New Vector?
  425. Ge0rG Daniel: from each project's perspective, focusing on its own marketing is the most reasonable. But from an ecosystem perspective, everybody will profit from a common name.
  426. stp Calling SMS just that worked too, so the general public should've enough brain power to remember a four letter acronym.
  427. Ge0rG Something something local maxima
  428. mathieui dwd, Matrix is not New Vector, even if it is by and large the same people, they have nonprofit UK foundation
  429. SamWhited stp: I don't think that's true. It's completely anecdotal, but everyone I know knows what "text messaging" are but have no idea what "SMS" or "MMS" are
  430. stp Daniel, "And just put xmpp compatible in a corner somewhere" I would agree on that, though in the current state there would still be a debate to rather put "Jabber-compatible" there.
  431. SamWhited If it's just a brand with a tiny XSF logo in the corner I'm not sure that it matters as much if I put "Jabber" and someone else puts "XMPP"
  432. Ge0rG SamWhited: well, let's use the XSF logo then!
  433. moparisthebest actually not a bad idea
  434. Ge0rG "Bruno, the XSF-compatible Chat Bear"
  435. stp SamWhited, in which part of the world is that?
  436. Ge0rG My biggest (but rather small) point with that is that XMPP is more than just federated IM
  437. SamWhited stp: U.S.
  438. dwd Ge0rG, I'm not convinced by "Chat". Or "Bear".
  439. dwd Ge0rG, And yes, as I noted above, I've done a lot with XMPP, some of it federated, none of it on the Internet for consumer chat.
  440. dwd Well, almost none.
  441. stp Why does the XSF not do a democratic vote to settle the matter before it's too late (if it isn't already)?
  442. Ge0rG stp: it's probably too late by 17 years.
  443. moparisthebest probably get a different answer today vs tommorow
  444. moparisthebest and you are asking for a democratic vote between what? 30 people?
  445. SamWhited What is the goal of actually picking one for everybody to use when saying what their messenger is?
  446. dwd stp, The XSF doesn't market consumer chat *at all*.
  447. dwd stp, So a vote would be largely pointless.
  448. Ge0rG SamWhited: to make people understand that their messenger can messenge with other messengers that are not named the same
  449. moparisthebest dwd, except for when it does? :) https://xmpp.org/2021/01/instant-messaging-its-not-about-the-app/
  450. dwd stp, You'd need to get the membership to agree to start marketing consumer (and/or enterprise) chat first.
  451. dwd moparisthebest, I'm not sure that is either, actually.
  452. SamWhited I dunno, I'm pretty convinced it won't matter at all unless we get one or two big well known networks using it again. "XMPP" or "Jabber" as a marketable concept basically died with Google Talk IMO. If you don't have a popular brand to advertise compatibility with, it hardly matters if that compatibility is called "Jabber" or "XMPP".
  453. SamWhited So let's get Conversations or Snikket really popular or something first, then we can hash out what logo to put in the corner when it actually matters.
  454. LNJ has left
  455. stp SamWhited, but it matters if it's called both variantly.
  456. Daniel I've been advocating for 'Conversations compatible' for a while
  457. moparisthebest dwd, I mean it's certainly not an article targeting developers "Several people have recently reached out to me asking what kind of messenger they should be using now" (first sentence) sounds like consumer chat to me
  458. SamWhited stp: I don't think it does if no one cares about the compatibility anyways
  459. SamWhited I'm not even really convinced it does if there were a giant popular service using it, but at least then there's maybe an argument that it actually maters in some real way
  460. chronosx88 has left
  461. chronosx88 has joined
  462. moparisthebest the point I've seen everyone (including me) trying to push lately is that *federation* is what matters
  463. dwd moparisthebest, And then it goes onto suggest that the technology matters more than anything else. If that's marketing to consumers, it's terrible marketing. :-)
  464. SamWhited What dwd said. Nobody outside of a fairly tiny tech crowd cares what federation is or what technology is in use under the hood as long as they can chat with their friends and it has shiny features.
  465. dwd moparisthebest, And broadly, yes, I agree that Federation is a crucial feature.
  466. moparisthebest they do care about federation though, they just don't know the word
  467. moparisthebest they would care if they couldn't email people at different domains though
  468. andy has left
  469. stp SamWhited, so how would an Monal on iOS user figure out that he can chat with his Conversations using friend?
  470. dwd moparisthebest, SamWhited - I think moparisthebest is right here, users don't know the word federation, but they do understand the outcome.
  471. SamWhited Yah, that's fair, but the point is that still means we shouldn't market federation as a feature (at least not by that name).
  472. papatutuwawa has joined
  473. SamWhited Get a big popular chat product, then market as "compatible with other big popular chat product!" and people will use it and still won't know that it's federated.
  474. stp It also created a mess when consumer electronic manufacturer all introduced their own name for HDMI-CEC.
  475. moparisthebest right, I think the question is how to say "this app federates with all the other XMPP app" in a way a normal person would understand
  476. dwd moparisthebest, Exactly that.
  477. Zash Call it "bridges" for confusion bonus
  478. stp Small XSF badge on app's, server's and provider's logos would be a start.
  479. SamWhited Exactly. And I doubt they'd understand "Jabber" or "XMPP", so that's why I suspect it would need a big popular service everything can glomp on to (that's a technical term) first.
  480. andy has joined
  481. SamWhited But sure, put the badge in the corner for those that understand it. They'll probably understand it whether it says "XMPP" or "Jabber", so I doubt it matters the more I think about it.
  482. moparisthebest the point is to *not* get a big popular service though, it's to get a healthy distributed/federated service going, at least in my mind anyhow
  483. moparisthebest "you can use any or all of these and still be able to communicate with everyone who chose differently"
  484. SamWhited I didn't say it had to be the only service, but if literally none of them are popular at all it's not helpful
  485. SamWhited Because it doesn't matter what we do, Google or whomever *will* develop a big popular chat service. The question isn't "can we compete with them as a network", because the answer to that is "no". The question is "can we be compatible with them because we convinced them to use a federated protocol"
  486. SamWhited And then use that to our advantage and get people on other nodes.
  487. debacle has joined
  488. dwd I think there are actually two big "Magical Things"; one is federation (You can talk to us with any compatible service!) and the other is the End To End Principle (If you're both using our great app Discussions, you can use our great new feature).
  489. moparisthebest I'm not so sure, it's obvious people will switch en-masse very quickly
  490. SamWhited Even better "then can we also convince <other big popular messenger> to be compatible because Google is" or whatever. Then again, maybe we've already seen that the answer to that is also "no", I'm not sure.
  491. dwd SamWhited, Actually, it was other things starting to hook into Google Talk that appeared to pressure Google into dropping interop.
  492. Ge0rG SamWhited: Google is developing a big popular chat service once a year.
  493. Ge0rG dwd: "other things" being spambots?
  494. dwd Ge0rG, Also true Probably XMPP again next year.
  495. dwd Ge0rG, No, Microsoft, for one.
  496. SamWhited Ge0rG: exactly, so let's convince them to do new ones that are actually compatible
  497. SamWhited dwd: how so? I thought their argument was "no one else will federate with us, so why bother?"
  498. Ge0rG SamWhited: I'm sure you know as well as I do that federated messaging is the opposite of the vendor lock-in goals the bigcorps are following
  499. SamWhited Ge0rG: of course? I don't understand your point
  500. Ge0rG SamWhited: unless by "convince" you meant "create legislation"
  501. SamWhited If you want people to understand federation and actually switch to smaller providers, they have to be able to talk to their friends on the big providers. If they start on the big providers, then their friend says "I use small provider with more features", they can switch easily. Also it makes it easier for us to say "Compatible with Google Talk 2.0!" or whatever because everyone will know and care what that is.
  502. SamWhited Ge0rG: sure, I dunno if it's possible or even easy, I just think it's the necessary thing we should be working towards if we're going to talk about marketing names.
  503. SamWhited err, "easy or even possible", you know what I mean.
  504. Ge0rG SamWhited: if it would align with their business interests, we would have it for decades now. If it would be orthogonal to their business needs, we'd have somthing like google talk 1.0
  505. Ge0rG Unfortunately, it's opposite to their business needs
  506. SamWhited I'm not sure that it is, we just have to position it correctly.
  507. Ge0rG I'm sure Google would disable federation for gmail as soon as they could get away with it.
  508. Ge0rG SamWhited: please tell me more!
  509. SamWhited There were murmors interanlly at HipChat (though I never convinced anyone to let me start on it before it all went under) that if we were federated people would use us because their contractors could be on a different instance, for example. That made handling security between the two domains easy. It also made it easy to bring in a random one-off customer or something into a chat without having to buy them a seat
  510. SamWhited We never got buy in because the feature would have been so expensive to develop, but there were at least a lot of discussions about how it could be a selling point.
  511. Ge0rG SamWhited: good point; it's important to the business customers
  512. Ge0rG I'm using MS Teams day-to-day, and its "federation" is just a cruel joke.
  513. Ge0rG And technically it's not even federation because it's all in the same clown.
  514. SamWhited I think you could argue the same for a lot of individual chats too though. Chat isn't where you're making your money if you're Google, it's a value add. Is it a bigger value add if your friends can talk to their friends on Microsoft Chat and say "wow, yours is doing that? That's terrible! You should switch your email to Google, I'm chatting on them right now and it will keep working with all your other friends"
  515. moparisthebest SamWhited, I disagree, just have to make it easy to convince your friends on big providers to talk with you from not-big-provider account
  516. SamWhited (or whatever the thing you're actually competing on is, I suspect email isn't a money maker for them either)
  517. Neustradamus Gaim is the old name of Pidgin Jabber is the old name of XMPP
  518. SamWhited moparisthebest: that's the point, if they can still talk to their friends you can move them over 1 by 1 based on a feature or something they'd like and not have the complete blocker (for most people) of adding another chat app and moving their entire network at once.
  519. moparisthebest all big providers actively block 3rd parties from connecting, that's a non-starter
  520. moparisthebest you make it easy for them to install an app to talk to you
  521. Ge0rG SamWhited: vendor lock-in means that once you have a critical mass, federation is harmful to your growth
  522. SamWhited That was the whole point, I was aruging we shoudl be trying to convince them that federation is in their best interest, and then it's also in the interest of the smaller providers
  523. moparisthebest you'll never get there
  524. SamWhited Ge0rG: not if it's only a value add and not your primary product (I think)
  525. moparisthebest I mean, it's a good goal, wouldn't hurt to try, I'd just bet money it wouldn't happen
  526. moparisthebest "hey buddy I know your entire goal is vendor lock-in but how about you implement this thing that works against vendor lock-in as a favor to me?"
  527. Ge0rG SamWhited: if it's only a value add, then it's a means to get people onto your vendor solution
  528. SamWhited Ge0rG: sure, so Google wins because they convince people to switch to Google Docs or whatever without losing their social networking bits, and we win because we can convince people to switch to smaller providers by saying "Wow, compatible with Google Talk 2!" or whatever
  529. moparisthebest that's how you get people who hate crappy XMPP because pidgin+google talk sucked
  530. SamWhited Sure, but that's not a problem that we're going to solve by calling it "XMPP" vs "Jabber" and trying to market direct to consumer either.
  531. stp Pidgin and Google Talk sucked? I think it was great at the time.
  532. SamWhited Anyways, I've pretty much convinced myself that we need someone marketing to big providers, but I'm not sure who that is, and the best thing for smaller services is to just ignore XMPP/Jabber and create their own brand, because ours isn't going to do them any favors.
  533. chronosx88 has left
  534. chronosx88 has joined
  535. SamWhited stp: at least for me a lot of people I know really liked it at the time, but everyone moved off of it when other providers came along with more features and Google Talk / Pidgin never moved on.
  536. moparisthebest maybe modernxmpp can agree on a logo that means "compatible", perhaps also host a page it can link to to explain in human words what it means, that all projects that want to can link to? cc MattJ
  537. Zash Pidgin and GTalk was probably great ... in 2006. And then it stayed mostly the same.
  538. SamWhited Good idea! I like that
  539. moparisthebest whether that's XSF logo or not no idea
  540. Ge0rG moparisthebest: ModernXMPP is even more cumbersome than XMPP
  541. dwd Ge0rG, Now there's a statement we can all get behind.
  542. MattJ moparisthebest, I agree with that sentiment, for sure
  543. stp SamWhited, Yes, same for our circle of people allthough we only changed when Goolge announced they would scrap their federating XMPP service and we left Pidgin when it couldn't keep up with XMPP developments.
  544. SamWhited Ge0rG: it doesn't have to say "ModernXMPP", it just has to be a pretty page with some logos on it that says "This service is compatible with all these other services!" o
  545. SamWhited Or be a page that has some general advice on how to do that, which seems like something ModernXMPP would be good at providing
  546. jonas’ .oO(Snikket?)
  547. dwd A new logo that tesselated might be a fun thing.
  548. moparisthebest yes exactly what SamWhited said
  549. Zash Might be something to learn from "The Fediverse" aka ActivityPub/MastoPub
  550. LNJ has joined
  551. MattJ ModernXMPP probably isn't the best term for users, but that can be solved
  552. moparisthebest I mean it'd be cool if xmpp.org could host the page too/instead but that seems more controversial :)
  553. Ge0rG SamWhited: let me remind you of XMPP Compliance Suite Compliance Badges.
  554. dwd Bagders!
  555. MattJ What ModernXMPP is missing most is wider participation. A few people have contributed a few things, and that's great. But for it to work it needs to be far more comprehensive, well-structured and supported/reviewed by XMPP developers
  556. dwd Badgers!
  557. SamWhited Ge0rG: is your argument that because one thing never materialized another project shouldn't bother making a page or providing guidance?
  558. MattJ I also would like some actual UX people involved
  559. Ge0rG SamWhited: not at all. I think that ModernXMPP is a good home for this kind of effort (only second to the Jabber Software Foundation)
  560. marek has left
  561. MattJ My other problem with ModernXMPP is that moving an open ecosystem is like herding cats... it can be done, but it's painful and takes time
  562. moparisthebest we got that solved, I think Neustradamus can create issues for each project to link the new page+logo ? :D
  563. marek has joined
  564. Ge0rG moparisthebest: oh dear god please no
  565. moparisthebest this logo seems pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#/media/File:Fediverse_logo_proposal.svg
  566. SamWhited Please don't even joke about that 😤
  567. Ge0rG moparisthebest: the xmpp network logo needs to have client tentacles on all those circles
  568. mdosch moparisthebest: A colorful pentagram? > this logo seems pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#/media/File:Fediverse_logo_proposal.svg
  569. jonas’ tentacles!
  570. moparisthebest fediverse has clients too and they aren't on that logo
  571. Ge0rG moparisthebest: ITYM web browsers
  572. SamWhited https://share.samwhited.com/sam/wAUrEUtGPcemFGBL/bestlogointheworld.png
  573. SamWhited Done!
  574. moparisthebest we got those clients too!
  575. Ge0rG SamWhited: missing "Zimpy"
  576. SamWhited Damn it. It was so close to perfect too.
  577. Ge0rG https://www.quickcompany.in/trademarks/3620784-zimpy-label
  578. mdosch I'd like the pentagram turned 180° 🤘🏽
  579. Zash I'd just like to mention this glorious logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NROL_39_vector_logo.svg
  580. SamWhited oh man, the US military and intelligence agencies come up with awesome logos all the time
  581. Ge0rG maybe we need to hire a designer to make an awesome logo
  582. Zash Ge0rG, worked for Snikket
  583. Ge0rG if it has some pyramid-eye or kraken symbol, it will trigger the fediverse, and as we all know bad press = good press
  584. Zash all press is good press indeed
  585. SamWhited IDGI, is that some fedivserse conspiracy theory iconography?
  586. Zash just don't mention "the competition"
  587. Ge0rG Zash: the snikket logo is cute, not controversial
  588. SamWhited Actually, I probably don't want to know
  589. Zash Ge0rG, I mean the "hire a designer" part
  590. Ge0rG SamWhited: nah, it's just the usual conspiracy theory iconography
  591. SamWhited *sigh* okay, TIL. I do not need or want to know more.
  592. SamWhited The garage I've been trying to find funds to open for years uses a font from an old CIA operation. So far no one has noticed, but I'm waiting for the day that people decide we're a front for a secret government takeover of auto mechanics or something
  593. Andrzej has joined
  594. dwd SamWhited, But that's just what you *want* me to think, right?
  595. SamWhited dwd: how'd you know? Who's been talking?
  596. dwd SamWhited, https://xkcd.com/2169/
  597. Zash Everyone knows it, educate yourself!!!11!!eleven
  598. SamWhited classic
  599. Zash Obs: That was satire. Do not use in actual debates.
  600. moparisthebest MattJ what if you toot out a call to the fediverse for logo proposals, seem to be a fair share of graphic-ly inclined people on there? or lazily use the XSF logo, I have no opinions :)
  601. MattJ I think using the XSF logo would confuse matters too much :)
  602. Ge0rG Using the XSF logo for what exactly?
  603. dwd Ge0rG, Everything.
  604. SamWhited I tend to lazily use the XSF logo and see a lot of other sites doing it, but I tend to agree that having something else for "compatible with lots of other things" would be better if we can manage it and make it catch on somehow
  605. moparisthebest the image+link to simple "explains why this is compatible to normal person" page
  606. Ge0rG SamWhited: I agree that the logo is actually good enough for that.
  607. Zash XMPP logo on top of a globe and the text "NOBODY IS BEYOND YOUR REACH"
  608. Ge0rG the logo, embedded into a catchy compliance badge
  609. Ge0rG Zash: and a kraken.
  610. Ge0rG can we put a pyramid with an eye into the bottom half of the "X"?
  611. Zash Kraken in the XMPP logo colors?
  612. Ge0rG Zash: yeah, or the fediverse rainbow. Your choice.
  613. dwd I am concerned that there is no discussion of Cthulu in our logo plans.
  614. dwd (Also amused that Kraken was, after all, a popular XMPP-to-anything transport gateway back in the day)
  615. moparisthebest this is why we need graphic-ly inclined people and not developers
  616. vanitasvitae Iͬ̿̋͡҉̸̩̩̣'̸̶̛̹͖̳̐̇̋m̛̜͙̳͐͒̽̀͢ ̧ͬ͑ͥ͏̟̮̟̀h̽̈́͌҉̛̲̜̖͝ę̶̼̭̰̄ͣ̿̕ȓ́ͩ҉̡̢̣̮͕e̡̘̥͋ͪ̊͠͠ͅ ̸̵̪̺̦ͤͣ̇͡t̶̸̨̬̠̤̂͛̈ơ̡̧͕̰͇̄ͦ̚ ̢̹̙̬̾ͭ̊͞͡s̴̸̭͉̲̐̒͑͝t̵̫̰̞̃̍ͭ͟͜ä̛̰͈̞͋̚͝͠ņ̶̨̜͉̜͒ͦ͊d̴͕͙͚ͯ̈̓́͞ạ̢̠̹̏ͪͫ́́r͔͕̫ͬ͗̓́́͢ḍ̴̴̛̱̺̎͑̿i̵ͨͭ̚͏̹̝̝͢ž̸̹̣̬̔ͪ̀͘ȩ̶̵̫͎̹̌͐͆ ̧̢̩̯̙̓̒̑͜y̷̛̮̠͍̏ͬ͌͠ơ̢͕̜̦̊͐ͬ͞u̴̶̷̻̭̗̾̅̚r̵̓̈̚̕҉̲̫͇ ̧̧̠̹̠͆̋ͬ̀c̴̓̊ͧ͏̵̹͚̙o̡̰̙̺̓̏ͣ͠͝m̨̨̛̹̞̝̽̈̓m̸̙̥̖̽̂̄͘͟ų̸̱̝̜̉̿̋͜n̴̴̪̘̲͊̈́̈́͞i̴̸͎͎̩̐̄́͝c̴͚͈̫͒̌͌́͞à̖͍̼̓ͨ͡͡͡t͕̺̂͆̍͘͢͠ͅi̗̘͙̋͆̅̕͞͡o͕̰̮ͨ͋̈́͝͠ņ̶̆ͯ͗҉̳̦̭s̴̡͔̲̪ͮ͛ͥ͜
  617. jonas’ that looks fun in the dino preview :D
  618. mimi89999 Hello vanitasvitae
  619. vanitasvitae mimi89999: hello there!
  620. vanitasvitae Zimpy, the brother of Zalgo
  621. Ge0rG vanitasvitae: that's my quote of the day
  622. vanitasvitae 🏆
  623. Ge0rG vanitasvitae: just one minor nitpick. We need to be gender-neutral, so it should be "sister/brother/sibling"
  624. vanitasvitae Or given how dusty XMPP as a protocol is, simply its Ancestor
  625. Ge0rG XMPP: Supporting Zalgo since 1999 and Emoji since 2010.
  626. Steve Kille has left
  627. Steve Kille has joined
  628. jonas’ /nick :robotface:
  629. lorddavidiii has left
  630. papatutuwawa has left
  631. ti_gj06 has joined
  632. matkor has left
  633. lorddavidiii has joined
  634. x51 has joined
  635. raghavgururajan has left
  636. alameyo has left
  637. marc has left
  638. marc has joined
  639. sonny has left
  640. Andrzej has left
  641. murabito has left
  642. raghavgururajan has joined
  643. Andrzej has joined
  644. lskdjf has joined
  645. murabito has joined
  646. marc has left
  647. marc has joined
  648. mukt2 has joined
  649. andy has left
  650. emus Hello fellows, it would be great to have a second reviewer for the French translation: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/875 For all of the other translation I have enough
  651. papatutuwawa has joined
  652. peetah emus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soone in the XSF github repo
  653. peetah emus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soon with the XSF github repo
  654. werdan has joined
  655. emus Ah okay, thats good to know
  656. emus Thanks
  657. mukt2 has left
  658. LNJ has left
  659. andy has joined
  660. lorddavidiii has left
  661. LNJ has joined
  662. alacer has joined
  663. alacer has left
  664. marc has left
  665. matkor has joined
  666. Dele Olajide has left
  667. Paganini has left
  668. nyco has left
  669. edhelas has left
  670. Neustradamus has left
  671. marc has joined
  672. mathijs has left
  673. mathijs has joined
  674. mukt2 has joined
  675. lskdjf has left
  676. Yagiza has left
  677. edhelas has joined
  678. Neustradamus has joined
  679. raghavgururajan has left
  680. raghavgururajan has joined
  681. nyco has joined
  682. Paganini has joined
  683. mukt2 has left
  684. lskdjf has joined
  685. mukt2 has joined
  686. LNJ has left
  687. mukt2 has left
  688. LNJ has joined
  689. Andrzej has left
  690. Andrzej has joined
  691. LNJ has left
  692. lorddavidiii has joined
  693. LNJ has joined
  694. Dele Olajide has joined
  695. j.r has left
  696. eevvoor has left
  697. chronosx88 has left
  698. chronosx88 has joined
  699. j.r has joined
  700. fuana has joined
  701. Dele Olajide has left
  702. chronosx88 has left
  703. fuana has left
  704. waqas has joined
  705. waqas has left
  706. waqas has joined
  707. waqas has left
  708. waqas has joined
  709. waqas has left
  710. fuana has joined
  711. LNJ has left
  712. chronosx88 has joined
  713. fuana has left
  714. LNJ has joined
  715. fuana has joined
  716. fuana has left
  717. Andrzej has left
  718. Andrzej has joined
  719. pasdesushi has joined
  720. fuana has joined
  721. LNJ has left
  722. LNJ has joined
  723. fuana has left
  724. sonny has joined
  725. lorddavidiii has left
  726. pasdesushi has left
  727. Andrzej has left
  728. Wojtek has left
  729. emus Hello, I would like to arrange an official mail for the CommTeam. What would be the steps?
  730. jonas’ emus, like in email address?
  731. jonas’ I think that topic came up in the past
  732. pasdesushi has joined
  733. emus Yes, but we stopped talking about it
  734. jonas’ I’m trying to find the discussion
  735. jonas’ I think we came to the conclusion that for the use case back then, it wasn’t necessary or useful
  736. jonas’ what has changed on your side?
  737. adiaholic has left
  738. emus several social network accounts with several private or non related mails
  739. emus An I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc.
  740. emus And I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc.
  741. j.r has left
  742. adiaholic has joined
  743. flow some orgs use private mailing lists for this
  744. pasdesushi has left
  745. pasdesushi has joined
  746. Andrzej has joined
  747. chronosx88 has left
  748. chronosx88 has joined
  749. ti_gj06 has left
  750. pasdesushi has left
  751. emus I don't need a have private mail list. I (we) need an email address which is related to XSF and not hosted on any private servers somewhere
  752. MattJ I don't know if we even have that capability currently
  753. MattJ We host mailing lists, I'm not sure if we host any actual mailboxes. I don't think we run an IMAP server, for example.
  754. MattJ But I could be wrong, I haven't looked
  755. jonas’ no IMAP
  756. jonas’ port 143 timeouts
  757. emus members@xmpp.org so those are all only mail list adresses
  758. MattJ Yes
  759. jonas’ yes, the contact addresses are all mailing lists
  760. jonas’ which, if you think about it, has some advantages (you can easily add/remove people with access for example)
  761. emus Ok, then that confused me. So there is no official email for xsf etc?
  762. jonas’ but you obviously cannot send messages from that address(*)
  763. jonas’ emus, there is. I think there’s info@ and board@ and trademark@…
  764. emus Yes, and I cannot register with that
  765. jonas’ though the latter may actually just be an alias for a single person
  766. emus Okay, but apart from capacities, I think it should be dealt with the account registrations and the XSF "sovereignty" on this
  767. jonas’ running a mail server is not easy™
  768. adiaholic has left
  769. emus Ok, I thought there is one running already
  770. jonas’ I’m doing that for myself and I’ve got it automated to large parts. I could replicate that setup for the XSF, but then I’d be the SPOF
  771. emus SPOF?
  772. jonas’ emus, partially. it only does inbound (SMTP) and mailing lists
  773. jonas’ single point of failure
  774. jonas’ it doesn’t do outbound (Submission) or mailboxes (IMAP)
  775. emus Yes - I see
  776. andy has left
  777. jonas’ so while it is technically a mail server, it is not a full mail setup
  778. moparisthebest isn't that really all you need for registering/maintaining accounts though? (a mailing list, recieve-only) ?
  779. jonas’ moparisthebest, in general, yes.
  780. jonas’ but emus seems to have special requirements?
  781. emus Okay, but I think the maintenance topic is severe already in general when I hear MattJ (also before). I think this is something that need kinda action. We cannot let basic infrastructure down (at least it sounds like this to me)
  782. moparisthebest I thought emus just wanted an email to use for, say, the twitter account? if so he's asking for a private email list for commteam ?
  783. emus No, receiving is minimum - sending would be "good", but for the moment I could work. But it does not make sense to create it on any non-XSF mail servers
  784. MattJ As has already been suggested, a private mailing list will suffice for that
  785. MattJ That's how the info@xmpp.org contact address for the XSF works
  786. moparisthebest *hopefully* no website exists where you have to *send* an email to verify identity, because email doesn't work that way
  787. emus Point is, when I register with an email to a service, they will only accept this mail in case there are any inquiries to the service
  788. emus yes, what mopar says
  789. jonas’ emus, do you have a concrete example of a service where that is the case and there is no contact form on the website or similar?
  790. moparisthebest emus, it's ok because you can fake the sender from any email account :)
  791. emus I dont know jonas' but, I prefer not to register such a one-way email realizing one day that there is a case where I "need" to sent an email.
  792. emus No, thanks moparistthebest
  793. Andrzej has left
  794. emus But in general, I think it is kind of weird and I am also a bit amazed, that we (the teams, responsible etc) don't have this possibility
  795. jonas’ emus, ftr, I’ve been registering on ~all services with one-way addreses for a few years now
  796. emus In terms of Single Points of Failures: I think that is an important topic if the infrastructure capabilities are low.
  797. jonas’ after I built a thing which allows me to get a throwaway, one-way email address via an XMPP ad-hoc command ;)
  798. emus jonas' okay, then I do so
  799. jonas’ emus, exactly, hence I propose we try to make do with what we have :)
  800. emus at least a way to have it collected
  801. moparisthebest emus, if a service EVER requires you SEND them an email, drop them, they are totally insecure and vulnerable to impersonation
  802. emus jonas', I see but I think even this is not good
  803. moparisthebest there is no way to validate an email you just recieved came from who you think sent it
  804. matkor has left
  805. moparisthebest email is not xmpp
  806. moparisthebest so, recieve-only is fine 100% of the time
  807. SnowCode has joined
  808. emus moparisthebest, I think maybe one day I (we) want to reach out to someone else via such an email.
  809. SnowCode has left
  810. moparisthebest 1. anyone can fake such an email right now 2. don't, just use it for twitter password resets
  811. adiaholic has joined
  812. emus I hope so. I think as a commteam... one wants to be able to send an email or provide this contact 🤷‍♂️️
  813. emus Okay, wait, I cannot use it as account email?
  814. mukt2 has joined
  815. moparisthebest a mailing list will just take whatever email was sent to it and forward it to your personal email (and everyone else's on the list)
  816. emus No, Im on what jonas' suggested
  817. emus no maillist (at least for now)
  818. moparisthebest you can send an email as bigboss@xmpp.org right now though and it's fairly likely to get through, maybe in spam, but probably will get through
  819. moparisthebest I thought jonas’ suggested a mailing list ?
  820. emus He suggested a receiving email only
  821. emus (I think)
  822. jonas’ emus, in case of the XSF infrastructure using a mailing list
  823. emus But I thought I cannot use this for account reference?
  824. jonas’ why not?
  825. emus Because any response to this is public I thought?
  826. jonas’ response?
  827. jonas’ you can also have mailing lists which are not (publicly) archived
  828. jonas’ and which are essentially just forwarders to one or more other email addresses
  829. moparisthebest emus, twitter emails a password reset link to commteam@xmpp.org, it gets forwarded to your email, and 2 other members of the commteam, that's it
  830. emus If I place this email to the XSF Fosstodon account, any they send any password or private stuff, then its public
  831. jonas’ no
  832. jonas’ just don’t enable (public) archives for the list, done.
  833. j.r has joined
  834. emus Okay, but there is still a non public archive for XSF responsibles?
  835. emus like, if you want to review a year later
  836. jonas’ depends on the configuration
  837. jonas’ you can have a public archive, a members only archive, or no archive at all
  838. deuill has left
  839. emus Would member only be legit for that purpose
  840. emus ?
  841. moparisthebest seems perfect for it
  842. jonas’ yep, I agree
  843. deuill has joined
  844. emus Then I would like to request such a list
  845. emus Should be better commteam_internal@xmpp.org
  846. jonas’ I’ll see what I can do
  847. emus Okay, take your time of course
  848. mukt2 has left
  849. pasdesushi has joined
  850. deuill has left
  851. deuill has joined
  852. emus But generally asking do we have real known Single Point of Failure?
  853. pasdesushi has left
  854. moparisthebest plenty
  855. moparisthebest also depends what you mean by "we"
  856. LNJ has left
  857. emus XSF
  858. LNJ has joined
  859. moparisthebest but, xmpp.org infrastructure-wise, or organization-wise, or this-muc-wise, or?
  860. mukt2 has joined
  861. emus XSF-wise, all critical points
  862. adiaholic has left
  863. lskdjf has left
  864. govanify has left
  865. govanify has joined
  866. moparisthebest offtopic PSA https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/01/26/3 looks like any user can get root using sudo since 2011, fun
  867. mukt2 has left
  868. jonas’ damn, couldn’t you have told me 10 minutes ago?
  869. jonas’ also, holy fuck
  870. moparisthebest I always knew locales were a mistake :)
  871. jonas’ brb updating all boxes
  872. jonas’ brb updating all my boxes
  873. Holger Quite a few people knew sudo is a mistake but nobody ever listened ...
  874. goffi has left
  875. Mikaela has left
  876. Zash has left
  877. Zash has joined
  878. Andrzej has joined
  879. x51 has left
  880. werdan has left
  881. SamWhited I always knew C was a mistake
  882. moparisthebest rust-sudo when
  883. lovetox seriously, everytime someone says to me, why dont you write that in C
  884. lovetox i think of these reports
  885. lovetox and then i think, nahh dont really want to get into this mess
  886. Zash moparisthebest, looks like that is a thing that exists, but all it does is make a program run itself with sudo....
  887. jcbrand has left
  888. j.r has left
  889. Andrzej has left
  890. Andrzej has joined
  891. Tobias has left
  892. antranigv has left
  893. chronosx88 has left
  894. adiaholic has joined
  895. papatutuwawa has left
  896. neshtaxmpp has left
  897. Andrzej has left
  898. Adi has left
  899. deuill has left
  900. alameyo has joined
  901. deuill has joined
  902. antranigv has joined
  903. jcbrand has joined
  904. nyco has left
  905. nyco has joined
  906. deuill has left
  907. xecks has left
  908. deuill has joined
  909. deuill has left
  910. Adi has joined
  911. nyco has left
  912. mathijs has left
  913. mathijs has joined
  914. nyco has joined
  915. deuill has joined
  916. antranigv has left
  917. deuill has left
  918. deuill has joined
  919. antranigv has joined
  920. deuill has left
  921. deuill has joined
  922. wurstsalat has left
  923. LNJ has left
  924. Seve has left
  925. Vaulor has left
  926. deuill has left
  927. deuill has joined
  928. debacle has left
  929. antranigv has left
  930. marek has left
  931. marek has joined