XSF Discussion - 2021-01-29

  1. stp

    Hello, I just read https://tigase.net/tigase-im-mix. Until now I didn't know that a public server was already offering MIX although XEP-0369 is still flagged as experimental. Will this year see the broad rollout of MIX supporting servers and clients or is that expected to be to early?

  2. Zash

    Maybe, I guess we'll see.

  3. stp

    Zash, what's the trend on developers side in regards to the experimental status of the XEP? Is that hindering them or is the XEP so close to final that they can develop full steam ahead anyway?

  4. Zash

    Not hindered at all. Lots of Experimental XEPs deployed to production. You just have the risk of the XEP changing and everyone ending up on different versions, creating a fragmented mess.

  5. Zash

    Experimental mostly means that the author is pretty free to do whatever they want.

  6. stp

    Zash, Ok, thanks for that explanation.

  7. Zash

    In the end, features users want tend to get implemented and deployed, regardless of the state of XEPs

  8. jonas’

    Zash, thanks for explaining what I meant to lovetox :)

  9. jonas’

    your words were better than mine

  10. paul

    hi all, I have a quick question about MAM, xep doesn't seems to says the Fin element should have a queryid attribute, still I see that ejabberd set one. Anyone knows if it's ok to have one? (maybe I missed something in the xep)

  11. Zash

    paul, that's probably a leftover from when <fin> was carried in a message

  12. paul

    aah ok make sense, (prosody is setting it to)

  13. paul


  14. Zash

    Yeah, an implementation that supports/-ed multiple versions of MAM returned the same <fin> payload in a message or iq depending on version.

  15. Zash

    Does anything depend on it?

  16. paul

    correct me if I'm wrong, but currently, sending a fin in an iq with a queryid is against the xep? Or should the xep says it's allowed?

  17. Daniel

    I think it's technically against the spec. But it's also easy to ignore

  18. Zash


  19. paul

    I'm using the xmpp-rs lib, and parsing is very strict :(

  20. Zash deletes it

  21. Holger

    Maybe it should be added to the spec 🙂

  22. jonas’

    paul, a library should not reject unexpected attributes anyway

  23. Holger


  24. Zash

    You should generally ignore what you don't understand.

  25. Holger

    Within know namespaces?

  26. jonas’

    Holger, yeah, learnt that againts an ejabberd instance ;)

  27. Holger

    But we probably had this discussion 1.000 times.

  28. jonas’

    it still sent the @code on <error/>, which isn’t in the recent RFCs anymore

  29. jonas’

    but also cases like these with <fin/>… the choice is to only be compatible with 100% bugfree software, or ignore unknown stuff :)

  30. Holger

    You might consciously choose to cope with bugs, either with arbitrary bugs or (IMO better) just with known bugs.

  31. jonas’


  32. Holger

    But that's different from saying "I can send what I want because the spec tells ehe recipient to ignore crap".

  33. Daniel

    jonas’, technically it's not an unknown atttribute but an entire elment

  34. jonas’

    Daniel, huh?

  35. Daniel

    ah sorry. never mind

  36. Holger

    I hadn't even heard of this issue until today, in all those years. Because everyone just ignores all crap :-)

  37. Zash

    We sorta added back error/@code to Prosody, the new error model library is shared with the HTTP stack. And MUC uses numeric codes.

  38. Link Mauve

    Holger, that’s the very reason for xmpp-parsers to be that strict, to find and eventually fix other implementations. :)

  39. Holger

    Link Mauve: Absolutely.

  40. Link Mauve

    Holger, that’s the very reason for xmpp-parsers to be that strict, to find and eventually fix issues in other implementations. :)

  41. Holger

    There's a dead link to <http://www.xmpp.org/schemas/archive-management.xsd>, I guess that's just a placeholder for when the XEP is no longer Experimental?

  42. paul

    > Zash: /me deletes it

  43. paul

    thanks, that was quick \o/

  44. Zash

    And then I got complaints immediately from the CI 🙁

  45. paul


  46. Neustradamus

    Holger: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/413

  47. Holger

    Isn't that yet another story?

  48. arc

    Board time

  49. MattJ

    No way

  50. MattJ

    Where did a week go?

  51. arc


  52. Holger

    paul: Oh I just committed (but not yet pushed) an ejabberd fix. Hadn't seen your PR. Yours breaks the mam:0 case where the queryid attribute must be included.

  53. Zash

    I'm glad to hear you're having enough fun to forget the time 😀

  54. Holger

    paul: Would you like to fix that, or would you rather avoid the CLA and/or the work anyway? :-) (I don't care at all.)

  55. Zash

    paul, Holger: Either of you got stats on mam:0 usage?

  56. Holger

    (Sorry this should be PMs I guess.)

  57. Holger

    Zash: Not me, sorry.

  58. Zash

    Or non-latest usage.

  59. Holger

    ejabberd supports :tmp because 'some customer' ;-)

  60. arc

    There he is!

  61. ralphm bangs gavel

  62. ralphm

    0. Welcome

  63. ralphm


  64. MattJ


  65. ralphm

    Who do we have and do you bring any agenda items?

  66. arc


  67. ralphm

    dwd, MattJ ?

  68. MattJ


  69. ralphm


  70. MattJ

    I second FOSDEM/SCAM

  71. ralphm

    3 is a narrow quotum, but let's go

  72. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  73. ralphm

    I forget who's up

  74. arc

    dwd: ?

  75. MattJ

    I don't think I've done it for a while, so I volunteer

  76. ralphm


  77. ralphm

    2. FOSDEM / SCAM

  78. ralphm


  79. arc

    Actually last week we didn't do this one because we needed you

  80. arc

    The only thing I can cover is Outreachy

  81. arc

    Outreachy and GSoC should be on the agenda too

  82. ralphm


  83. MattJ

    Main question I have is: did someone apply for a FOSDEM "stand"?

  84. ralphm

    So, on (virtual) FOSDEM, I didn't put in much effort. I guess primarily because I see most value in face-to-face events.

  85. ralphm

    So I didn't apply for a "Stand"

  86. MattJ

    Ok, that's a shame

  87. ralphm

    There _is_ a RTC devroom

  88. MattJ

    Yes, and mine is the only XMPP talk in it afaik

  89. ralphm


  90. Zash

    (only XMPP mention in all of FOSDEM afaics)

  91. MattJ

    I don't think we can just pause all engagement with the community until face-to-face is possible again

  92. ralphm

    I do agree, I've just been busy with other stuff and wasn't sure if the FOSDEM stand thing would bring anything virtually

  93. MattJ

    I would have contributed content, and I'm sure other projects would have also

  94. MattJ

    But anyway, what's done is done, at least we know

  95. ralphm

    Yup, dropped the ball.

  96. ralphm


  97. MattJ

    I think that means there is nothing else XSF-related for FOSDEM this year

  98. MattJ

    SCAM can work on the summit (or not), I think other community members are pressing forward on that

  99. MattJ

    Which is good to see

  100. ralphm

    yeah, I saw that. Yay

  101. arc

    The summit feels more important anyway

  102. ralphm nods

  103. MattJ

    I agree there is not a pressing need to locate an online summit temporally with FOSDEM

  104. MattJ

    But something needs to happen

  105. ralphm

    What are you thinking of? A communications push?

  106. MattJ

    Some kind of online replacement for the summit. Otherwise we'll basically have a year off making progress on various protocol matters.

  107. MattJ

    I think the idea of focus groups would be good to organize

  108. MattJ

    Maybe just as we do IRL, asynchronously gather topics on the wiki

  109. MattJ

    and we assess interest, and schedule some times for each topic

  110. arc

    I am kind of relying on the summit to gather sprint topics for March

  111. arc

    But we could always build the agenda purely on the wiki and do a breakout over 6 weeks on topics

  112. ralphm

    That makes sense to me. I think it would be good to coordinate with theTedd on his tales/talks effort

  113. ralphm

    (as he's scheduled it for next week)

  114. ralphm

    or indeed pick a later time

  115. Seve

    Sorry, I did not have Internet connection

  116. MattJ

    Sure, we can work it out

  117. ralphm

    I'm not aware of discussions in SCAM (Guus, nyco, Daniel), but let this be our notice of intent. Doesn't mean they need to do it.

  118. ralphm

    Who'd like to take this on?

  119. MattJ


  120. arc

    I already have my hands full

  121. ralphm

    Ok, not seeing a response, but we can do this async.

  122. ralphm

    3. GSoC

  123. ralphm

    I think we need to decide to do or don't do this, and we also require an admin for it.

  124. arc

    Outreachy community sign ups are going on right now. I would be happy to be the admin for GSoC.

  125. arc

    If no one else is interested

  126. Kev

    (No-one asked, but I don't have cycles to admin this year)

  127. Kev

    (But am always around to help if I can)

  128. arc

    Outreachy differs in that it's not targeting college students, but women of all age. And in the United States, racial minorities traditionally underrepresented in the field

  129. arc

    And we need to pay for the outreachy students

  130. ralphm

    If I remember correctly, in 2020, we had flow and marvin as admin and co-admin.

  131. ralphm

    Let's keep those topics separate

  132. arc


  133. ralphm

    Last time there was a concern around the lowered rewards

  134. ralphm

    We can apply starting today, until 19. Let's check if, besides arc and Kev, anyone wants to help out.

  135. ralphm

    And we then discuss next week what we want to do in terms of payments.

  136. arc

    Sounds good

  137. ralphm

    I think we also need to punt on Outreachy in that regard, so let's have that as a second item next week.

  138. arc

    We actually need to get the application for outreach today or tomorrow

  139. ralphm

    4. AOB

  140. ralphm


  141. ralphm

    Well, while I'd like to support any such effort, if we haven't even reached a decision on payments w.r.t. GSoC, I don't think it is realistic to do so today or tomorrow for Outreachy. Opinions?

  142. arc

    I would suggest we start the process now, and discuss it further next week. Signing up is a multi-week process.

  143. arc

    The final list of participating communities is published March 1st

  144. arc

    After we are signed up as a community, we have to find funding. And that we can discuss next week. Signing up now does not actual participation

  145. ralphm

    I'm ok with that

  146. arc

    Because of the funding step it is not as simple as GSoC

  147. ralphm


  148. ralphm

    Seve, MattJ?

  149. arc

    And having participated in gsoc in the past does make the process more straightforward. We don't have to be vexed as a foss organization.

  150. ralphm nods

  151. Seve agrees

  152. ralphm


  153. ralphm

    then, if there's no other business, I'd move to

  154. arc

    Also just to throw this in, we don't necessarily have to fund every student we want. I can find other funding sources.

  155. ralphm

    5. Date of Next

  156. ralphm


  157. ralphm

    (arc: right)

  158. ralphm

    6. Close

  159. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  160. ralphm bangs gavel

  161. arc

    Thanks ralphm and mattj

  162. Seve

    Thank you guys, and apologies from my side

  163. larma

    fwiw, I'd be available to co-admin again.

  164. MattJ

    Sorry, had to dash at :30, will write up and send minutes later

  165. Kev

    arc: Is there a TL;DR for Outreachy, that someone who knows GSoC could read?

  166. arc


  167. arc

    It is basically GSoC without a single large corporate sponsor funding it, and focused on increasing diversity instead of solely focusing on college students

  168. arc

    For most of the world, it is focused on women

  169. Kev

    Ta. But the basic premises are the same - OSS, definite deliverable rather than just 'internship' type stuff?

  170. arc


  171. arc

    And prior participation in GSoC disqualifies candidates

  172. Kev

    Oh, looks like quite a number of the OSS XMPP projects wouldn't be eligible anyway, because you can't work on projects that have commercial versions as well.

  173. Kev


  174. Zash says nothing about Prosody Enterprise Edition

  175. Kev

    I guess Prosody doesn't have any features that are only available to people who pay, but Tigase, Ejabberd, Mongoose at least (Openfire and Spark in the past, but I don't think that's true these days) wouldn't be eligible. Swift we don't have an enterprise version yet, but it's possible we will, so probably shouldn't participate.

  176. flow

    I guess the situation with Openfire/Spark is even a little bit more complicated, as there is no company behind it

  177. flow

    e.g. what if someones writes an Openfire extension that is only available for money?

  178. Zash

    Extensions sure complicate it.

  179. Kev

    (The exact term is "There should be no difference in functionality between the free and paid versions of the open source project.")

  180. flow

    basically that is also true for commercial FOSS projects where the company behind it makes everything free to use, but a third party creates extensions for money

  181. moparisthebest

    So Conversations is eligible? Or not because of the push server?

  182. Kev

    Conversations is also interesting because of Quicksy, which has paid-only features, I think? (You can't use the directory unless you pay?) It does all sound a bit complicated compared to GSoC :)

  183. Zash

    Something as a Service

  184. larma

    The directory isn't Conversations though. The software can be used with an alternative directory server completely unpaid

  185. larma

    also the push server is open source, no? Don't see any issue for Conversations.

  186. larma

    I think this is mostly about the spirit of the project. And Conversations surely is in the spirit of free software even if some hosted services require payments

  187. Holger

    Quicksy users don't pay anyway, only those who *don't* use Quicksy do :-)

  188. larma

    > We do allow communities that provide paid hosting services.

  189. emus

    arc, ralphm: Thanks arc for suggestion to sign up at least. I dont know how much I missed of previous discussions. However, I would like to recommend to call for any interested developers and projects in GSoC and at the same time review what the XSF can offer to make it happen. Then the discussion of whether it suits GSoC can start. XSF/XMPP people have mostly worked entirely via remote, we shouldnt let this pass away because of Corona if we actually have interested people. (But I agree that the situation is at least different due to mental loads/issues for many. I hope you got the general point.)

  190. arc

    emus: GSoC have always been a remote program

  191. emus

    Yes, thats what I meant

  192. emus

    No actually I meant that counts for XMPP as well. We should make us of that and also that this is not the first time of GSoC, apart from the changes. And I also go with arc not to postpone things any further. If I can do something let me know.

  193. moparisthebest

    so is GSoC still a thing or it's been replaced by this outreachy thing?

  194. Kev

    They're independent things.

  195. Kev

    GSoC's still happening (a little differently this year, but still happening).

  196. moparisthebest

    ah thanks

  197. emus

    The blog post transaltions are online: https://xmpp.org/2021/01/messagerie-instantanee-il-ne-sagit-pas-de-lapplication/

  198. emus


  199. emus


  200. emus


  201. emus

    And here if one wants to share: https://fosstodon.org/web/accounts/180044

  202. emus

    Are there any volunteers to post on Twitter?

  203. mathieui

    emus, thanks for publishing all those translations!

  204. mathieui

    could you merge my PR for article metadata by the way?

  205. emus

    👍️ sure

  206. emus

    I would, but I cannot technically review this, I need help from someone how can confirm this