DanielI'm personally not the biggest fan of online invents. The few events I attended last year haven't been very fun. I might attend a summit but I'm personally not super keen on organizing something I wouldn't really enjoy myself.
DanielSaying this as a scam member
DanielNot sure about my fellow team members
DanielSo feel free to send an official inquiry
ralphmThis is the last meeting, where they explicitly stated that 2021 is not an in-person event and there was scepticism on having a virtual one. That said, I like the ideas presented last week and we should go ahead with them.
ZashObservation: pep. left the XSF some time after that.
MattJDaniel, I don't think you're alone, and I agree that online is far from ideal compared to in-person meetups
MattJI get the impression that FOSDEM have struggled to find speakers, I believe interest has been lower
arcBut we can't shut down as an organization just because we can't do in person events
MattJBut I also don't believe we can legitimately take a year off
MattJLess than ideal is better than nothing
ZashSuggestion (hat:xsf member): Postmortem for this would be good.
ralphmLast week it was pointed out that not having any type of gathering would leave us without concentrated discussions on protocol, as we usually have at the Summit.
KevI think, FWIW, FOSDEM’s appeal as a virtual event would be lower than the Summit’s. But I could be very wrong about how effectively we can have a 30/40 person remote Summit.
ZashKev, we could see it as a stress-test of online meeting things, then split into focus groups to argue about XEPs.
arcI think an online event would be better if we spread it out. Instead of everyone getting together for one day, split the topics up and have several focused meetings
arcMy experience with online events is there better when they're shorter
KevI don’t agree with that, FWIW. It’s much easier for me to block out one day that’s going to be an event to attend than work an hour here and there into my work week.
MattJShorter and more focused. I'm sure not going to hang around all day in a 40-person online video conference
DanielTime zones will probably also put a limit on it
KevBut not disagreeing to the point that I’m going to argue it shouldn’t happen.
DanielProbably something in the European pm
ralphmDaniel, with your scam hat on, do you think your team would pick up planning / organising something like this?
DanielIf the team is just me then the honest answer to that is no
ralphmWell, officially SCAM is also Guus and nyco.
Dele Olajidehas left
DanielWhat's the amount of organzing you want to put into this
DanielLike should we just pick a week day and have four weeks after each other with 2-3 hours each?
MattJI think the logistics of organizing an online event (or multiple) are far lower than an in-person event
MattJi.e. I don't really care if SCAM isn't going to do anything. Multiple community members do want to do something, and I hope we can self-organize.
ralphmSure. Starting with a wiki page for collecting ideas seems prudent.
MattJI would try help out with that, but the next few weeks will be difficult for me
arcLet's continue discussion after the meeting
arcWe do have the agenda item of gsoc
ralphmSo, last time I remember, arc explained that payments by Google are lower and suggested the XSF compensates.
arcI would actually suggest that we compensate by shifting to outreachy this year
KevLower, but the time is lower too isn’t it? Aren’t students expected to do half the work for half the pay?
arcYep. But they also shut down several other programs, we may be looking at the last year, or years, of gsoc
lskdjfIt's not just that the payments are lower, the projects are also supposed to be _shorter_. So the payment per time stays the same. Google apparently wants to try and open gsoc to more people, and they think that shorter projects are beneficial for that goal.
ralphmFor those here (including floor) who've mentored, are shorter projects expected to be effective (enough)?
KevI don’t want to shit on Google for making the change, they can do what they like with the programme. But a lot of the overhead for mentors and orgs is frontloaded.
ralphmOh, don't take me wrong. I am just curious if the change would work *for us*.
KevSo the amount of code produced is much lower relative to mentor/admin effort, and the change (I predict with no data) of integrating people into the community is lower (but there is a counter argument that it might be higher because it’s less mercenary).
arcI think it is still worth doing.
SamWhitedFWIW I had been thinking about trying to get my project into GSoC this year under the XSF organization. I haven't done it before, but smaller projects would actually fit in with the handful of ideas I had much better than the old larger ones.
arcI'm just suggesting we start to shift to outreachy. Because GSoC has always been a valuable program, and should it come to an end with this year, it would be ready to fully shift over
ZashThere's a GSoC for documentation, right? Anyone have any experience with that? May be closer to the core XSF thing of writing specifications, and FOSS projects are often struggling with keeping their docs up to date.
ralphmThere is, but it is later
arcGSoC is about writing code, not "documentation"
ZashI'm referring to Season of Docs
ralphmI think, if they do it again, it will be announced in March
ZashIndeed, so ignore me until then 🙂
larmaI don't see an issue with smaller projects. Surely needs some adjustments to how we do things, but probably still worth it. At least for the projects that are not backed by companies
ralphmI understand (from last meeting) that arc would be happy to admin (if no one else is interested) and that Kev would be around to help if he has spare cycles. Arc also suggested shifting to outreachy but I haven't seem any response on that here.
arcI have some response from there.
SamWhited¿Por qué no los dos?
arcFor both programs we mostly need an idea's list
ralphmSamWhited, I am not sure what the overhead is of running both
ralphmOrganisationally, paying out is different. For Outreachy, we'd have to do this ourselves.
ralphmarc: can you start collecting ideas, while we figure this out?
arcYep, happy to.
ralphm(i.e. do the wiki thing)
larmaralphm: I don't think we do the payouts with outreachy, we just provide the money.
arcThat is true.
ralphmwhich is differnt from GSoC, I haven't looked at the specifics
arcWe supply the funding, but the people in charge of outreachy do the payouts.
ralphmGood to know.
larma(And they charge a huge cut for the processing)
ralphmNext week, let's discuss if we want to do GSoC, Outreachy, or both and how. For now let's gather the ideas.
ralphmI think that's all the time we have today.
ralphm2. Date of Next
SeveThank you guys!
larmaI think we should get this to the mailing list, because I'm missing inputs from flow, vanitasvitae and other previous gsoc mentors/admins
lskdjfSince GSoC doesn't require the XSF to contribute money, I don't understand why the XSF doesn't just go with it as long as GSoC exists and there are project maintainers that want to make use of it.
SamWhitedReading through the outreachy community guidelines and I really like how they structure this. Seems like it would be a lot more work for the XSF since we'd have to be the fiscal sponsor and we'd probably be able to sponsor fewer interns who would have to pick the project they want to work on from among all the people vying to be their mentor, but it seems like it would be a good fit
KevFWIW, I’m a little uneasy about the XSF using its limited funds to pay for development of some projects over others. If the money came from the projects themselves that concern goes away.
SamWhitedThe XSF probably wouldn't pick the projects, projects would just apply and the interns would pick them I think. The XSF is just paying interns.
KevWell, surely the XSF chooses which internships get selected, like GSoC.
moparisthebestcould just require all code written by XSF-funded interns to be AGPLv3 , then there is no conflict of interest problems if a company wants free labor :D
SamWhitedI think it would just pick the students though, give them a list of projects that applied for an intern, and the students would pick the project, but maybe not.
MattJKev, you've raised that issue in the past, and I have to say I think I increasingly dislike it as time goes on
SamWhitedAnd the XSF could just not vet the projects beyond "it meets the criteria defined by the program" (which is basically "OSI approved license"
MattJI mean, dislike having that as a rule the XSF should follow
larmaThe issue seems to be that Outreachy targets open-source communities but the XSF isn't an open-source community but an open-standards organization.
SamWhitedThe XSF would just be the fiscal sponsor acting as an umbrella like we do for GSoC, in my mind.
MattJIf the code funded by the XSF is open-source then I have no problem with the XSF funding projects
MattJI *would* have issue with it funding closed-source projects
SamWhitedIf the XSF doesn't want to directly fund projects, they could also create a pool that projects and individuals can donate too and just be the fiscal sponsor without using any of their own money
moparisthebesthow do you define "is open-source" ? like I think SamWhited 's "OSI approved license" is correct, but that has to be the license it's submitted under too, ie, no CLA's ?
MattJThe XSF... or another organization (back into that loop :) )
SamWhited(since we're a US 501(c)3 but projects likely aren't and don't have a legal entity they can use)
SamWhitedmoparisthebest: they have a definition on their website, I don't think we need to care beyond whatever they say
Zashwhispers "Snikket CIC"
larmaMattJ: I share that opinion, but IIRC the XSF is believed to be neutral regarding open source vs closed source and this would be non-neutral...
KevMattJ: There is pragmatism in my reason, FWIW, not just dogma. Getting sponsors happy to give money to random projects rather than directly helping XMPP Standards Development seems questionable. Maybe I’m wrong.
Although I do know that some sponsorship hasn’t happened in the past because one of Board was mouthing off about the XSF not supporting anyone who wanted to make money off XMPP.
SamWhited*nods* any org would do
MattJZash, Snikket may be too opinionated for this particular case (despite having sponsored a bunch of open-source development in the past 12 months)
moparisthebestdoesn't that assume projects don't directly help XMPP Standards Development? that seems wrong
MattJZash, OTOH maybe not, if it's a separate "fund the ecosystem" thing
MattJmoparisthebest, I agree, I think that's my thinking. Throwing money into standards development (??) is not what XMPP needs right now
Kev(FWIW, while I don’t know how effective it is, I am glad Snikket is doing what Snikket is doing)
SamWhitedI would actually be open to filing paperwork to start a thing that just accepts donations on behalf of XMPP projects, acts as a fiscal sponsor on OpenCollective or somewhere, does things like this, etc. if anyone is interested
moparisthebestI'd argue helping fund development on these projects *is* throwing it directly into standards development
KevIf the XSF wants to do Outreachy, why not try to get sponsors specifically for money to spend on Outreachy? That would render my concerns completely irrelevant.
moparisthebest"standards development" isn't anything anyone here has ever done, am I wrong on that?
SamWhitedThat sounds reasonable too, I do think the XSF is already positioned to be a fiscal sponsor for projects, it doesn't have to necessarily put its own money towards it
moparisthebestinstead, you have a need in a project/product/whatever, and standards come out of that
KevAll standards work is mean to be writing standards for things that are needed, I’m not sure what that point is.
KevCertainly people here have written standards, and certainly before implementations (and even without needing to implement it themselves).
SamWhitedboard people: is this something that could go on the board meeting next week to discuss? Ie. can the XSF act as a fiscal sponsor for projects (where it just keeps track of money for them)? If so, I'd volunteer to help with that. If not, I'd volunteer to start an organization specifically for that.
moparisthebestthat process doesn't start out by writing standards though, it starts out by having a problem and thinking about how to solve it with code, in a project
KevThat is demonstrably wrong. We have written Standards to solve problems, before thinking about the code to go with them.
moparisthebestso, funding code for project == funding standard development, in my opinion
SamWhitedmoparisthebest: I think the best specs do that, but lots of them do it with no code written
moparisthebesthehe, yea that's how you get standards no one implements
moparisthebestMIX for example
KevSome of the worst specs come out of writing code before thinking about standardising too :)
moparisthebestthat's also fair
moparisthebestso let's say "funding code for a project where standards are thought about from day 1" == "funding standard development"
SamWhitedI think the worst specs come from *deploying* code before thinking about standardizing, not necessarily writing it :) writing it, then standardizing is sort of like writing unit tests before the code; you end up going back and forth and making changes, but it's good to have at least some basic unit tests to flush out the general shape of it first
ZashThe worst code comes from writing code!
SamWhitedsorry, before it gets lost, /cc ralphm, arc, other board people see question above
KevSo, to avoid any misunderstanding, I’m concretely in favour of the XSF gathering sponsorship to pay for some Outreachy interns, and doing Outreachy with it.
KevAlthough if we have reason to suspect this will be the last year of GSoC, there is a strong argument for trying to get money out of Google while we can :)
arcI am reading, SamWhited. And remember I've been talking about seeking outside funding for a while.
moparisthebestassuming board decides it wants to do this at all, sounds like they need to decide 1. if it can be funded "normally" or 2. if it needs special funding
SamWhitedarc: my question isn't necessarily about outside funding (although the XSF could help raise that too for things like Outreachy) but about if I as a project want to take donations in many places I need a legal entity. Some NGOs act as fiscal sponsors and take donations that they keep separated out for other projects, and if the XSF was willing to act that way for open source projects that would probably be a big help to the ecosystem
arcAs a general rule, organizations that do things, are able to get funding to continue doing those things. We should not devolve into arguing about the distribution of those funds.
SamWhitedTo be clear, the XSF wouldn't be distributing funds itself or deciding how they get distributed.
arcI would be in favor of that. Especially since most XMPP projects are fairly small with only a few developers, and it is a big overhead for them to serve as their own fiscal sponsors
SamWhitedFor example, let's say my project (Mellium) wants to take donations. Right now those go to me, I am personally liable, they are not tax deductible, and most organizations that process donations won't touch me with a 10 foot pole.
SamWhitedIf the XSF were my fiscal sponsor though, the donation button on my website would go to the XSF and they'd just put it in the "Mellium" account or whatever. Other projects could do the same.
arcI understand. I have served on the boards for a few fiscal sponsors.
arcI am in favor of that. It is really not that much work for the small number of organizations we have.
SamWhited👍 (I've been specifically looking for one to use for some projects on OpenCollective and vaguely considering trying to start something, but at least for Mellium the XSF would be a logical place if it's something we have enough peopel to work on)
SamWhitedAnd I would volunteer since it's easier than starting a separate entity for me.
arcActually this might be an ideal time for this conversation. The FOSS foundations online drink up just started
arcWhich is literally the people that you should be talking to 😋
SamWhitedI looked for FOSS Foundation when you mentioned it earlier but couldn't find anything?
SamWhitedI'm curious about this though
SamWhitedAlthough it's only 1300 here, but meh, it's time for a beer somewhere
arcIt is 10:00 a.m. here
SamWhitedarc: are you still in Portland?
SamWhitedCool, a friend of mine is trying to move there right now (from Seattle)
mdoschToo much rain, 'eh?
mdoschOh no, 'eh is vancouver. 😂
arcI would recommend South Portland. Close to downtown, not terribly expensive, but quiet and not so much crime
arcIt's not one of the rich people's neighborhoods. But if you wanted to go boating, eg, I live about two blocks from a boat launch.
arcThis is a great example for the need for better foss a/v meeting software. Of course, xmpp based! BigBlueButton has problems
ZashWell you've got Zoom and Jitsi.
arcZoom isn't foss?!
ZashNope. Touch of XMPP in there at least.
arcI didn't know that. Not the first time I've been shocked. But I'm not talking about another multichat clone
arcSee the problem is that all the multi-chat software treats the room as if it were a stadium with a microphone. People step up on stage, speak into the microphone, sit down. Its slow and frustrating
arcEspecially with these larger meetups.
SamWhitedI don't think I've ever seen a good system for managing that in real life either that we could take as a metaphore for software
arcAnd if someone were to work that out, AGPLv3 licensed, using xmpp, we win.
arcBecause it was instantly become they go to for every social group in the world
mathieuiarc, that is not true, jitsi meet does not do that
ZashWishing for something where you could, say, break off into smaller groups and talk more easily? Or whisper to whoever sits "next to you"?
mathieuiAlso, zoom actually has "breakout rooms" which let you do just that (and it is nice in quite a lot of scenarios)
SamWhitedI'd push back on the AGPLv3 thing, but the "using xmpp" part sounds good :)
SamWhitedI think this has breakout rooms too, but I haven't tried it
arcI'm thinking less formal. More like, groups in a room. Having two levels of microphone.
ralphmSamWhited: added to Trello
arcLess breakout rooms, more "circles". So you can wander through a room and talk to different circles. But everyone hears the person with the room microphone.
arcSamWhited I thought you liked the AGPLv3
Zash2D location something and mic/speaker volume scaling?
arcI wouldn't use or emulate location. Just letting people join circles.
arcPeople have suggested using certain video games that do location based talking
ralphmSo ad hoc backchannels
SamWhitedarc: I am very strongly against AGPL (or basically everything GNU does); maybe that should be my controversial opinion :)
KevSam: You’re only allowed one.
ralphmAlso, I don't think it is controversial
arcRalphm yeah like adhoc breakout rooms. Which happen organically
ralphm(the opinion, not Sam)
SamWhitedarc: I can't remember what it's called, but have you used the virtual neighborhoods chat thing? You sort of walk around a map like it's a little 2d video game and when you walk up to people their videos and mics fade in as you get close. It sounds gimmicky, but I've found it works very well
arcPeople suggested that for this meeting. But here we are an hour on, still doing introductions
arcI don't think we should be limited to emulating the real world. I'm thinking, do better than real world
KevIt’d be good to start by not being worse than the physical world :)
arcWell it took an hour to mostly get through everyone's introductions 😂
moparisthebestarc, me and pep were the very pro AGPLv3 for everything ones :)
arcChris DiBona sitting with Linux Torvalds convinced me that AGPLv3 is really the only way forward for FOSS.
arcAfter that talk, I started relicensing everything. in increasingly lost interest in working on anything that's not.
SamWhitedI basically want an XMPP client but when you click a room on the left you get a video call on the right (possibly with chat too, but the focus is video calling). Which I guess is also like saying: Mumble with video. Instead of how most video call things work where you have semi-permanent rooms and you're really just in one at a time and can't switch between them rapidly
arcLike, I haven't contributed to Gnome because all those contributions were LGPL.
SamWhitedI basically feel the same way about (A)GPL as I do about politics; my actual deep-blood-of-the-worker-red comrades just think I'm pinko scum because I prefer the less limiting BSD, MIT, Apache, etc.
arcAnything less is exploitive. I know too many housing challenged foss developers, many with some form of autism, working on foss because they love it. Many who's work is freely used my large corporations to make billions, and at best sometimes toss pocket change to those people. At best.
arcThe only people who are really limited by copyleft are the ones exploiting the community's work for profit. A vast majority of end users don't care what the license is.
SamWhitedI agree with the desire to make large companies using open source pay their share, but I don't think licensing is the way to do it. It hurts me when there are more restrcitions in a license too even though I'm just also an open source dev who will try to use it correctly. Now I have to worry if I'm complying with every detail, what counts as linking and what doesn't and how that would be interpreted legally, do I have to change my license just because I want to use some sortware that has a ton of restrictions making it incompatible with it, etc.
arcI am paraphrasing here, but Chris DiBona was asked why code.google.com banned the AGPLv3. And his answer was shockingly honest: because AGPLv3 license would bankrupt them.
ZashAnd here I just wanna do my thing and not worry about licensing.
SamWhitedThere's also what Zash just said… I don't want to worry about it. Slapping a BSD like license on it and only using stuff that's slimilarly permissive lets me do that
arcSamWhited, that's why I offer commercial licenses. Or more specifically, licensed exceptions
moparisthebestarc, add this to the list of reasons: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ (sounds same as yours but it written form)
SamWhitedI'd ad that to the list of reasons against :) I have the same fear as an OSS dev doing my best to respect the wishes of other software authors. I want to respect their wishes, but what if I accidentally trigger the viral provision?
arcI offer extremely competitively priced exceptions. The only discrimination is against military and military contractors.
SamWhitedI do like the idea of offering commercial license exceptions
arcYeah then it's not exploitative anymore.
moparisthebest> here I just wanna do my thing and not worry about licensing.
that's another reason, I can use code licensed almost anything in an AGPLv3 project, so it's also handier for me
moparisthebestmeh, to be able to offer commercial exceptions you need CLAs which are equally sleazy
SamWhitedBut fewer people can use my project, I don't want them to have to worry either. I just want it out there. Hopefully companies will toss me a couple of bucks on occasion, or I can have some other way to monetize it that doesn't also make OSS devs have to jump through hoops if they want to use it and aren't using something compatible
arcLately I've been increasingly using a cooperative model. People who contribute code get a share of whatever comes from that code.
SamWhitedarc: I'd be really curious how you handle that? I like the co-op model a lot which is why I tend to split the copyright among all contributors, but I don't really make any money on anything I work on outside of <dayjob> so I'd love to know how it works when there's an actual big community rpoject
SamWhitedOn a tagentially related note: would anyone with a GitHub account help me prove a point about why github stars are a bad metric for anything by starring a repo of mine? (I will not be making any benefit from this, it's just to prove a point that my project with no contributions from anyone except me can have a lot of stars)
SamWhitedhttps://github.com/mellium/xmpp if anyone is willing.
moparisthebestI also like the "high number of issues == low quality software" metric
moparisthebestcan't fix stupid I guess ? :'(
SamWhitedExactly, basically the same thing.
SamWhitedWhen I was in school I did an internship with a defense contractor that gave raises based on the number of lines of code written in a git blame for the year. As you can imagine, it was the most ridiculously bloated software. All the stupid tricks like putting one argument per line even in small function calls would get called out in code review, but people still did things in stupid round about ways.
moparisthebestI thought that kind of thing was a joke
moparisthebestat work we joke that the contractors must be getting paid by the line, even though we know they aren't...
ZashDon't they know it's the inverse of that! Also popularity ≠ quality!!11! Aaaargh, how do you become a potato farmer?
moparisthebestnpm install potato-farmer ?
SamWhitedIn this case it's popularity ≠ robust community. I started talking to someone from Open Colletive befor the FOSDEM call ended, so we're emailing to have the converation about why I think stars aren't anywhere close to their metric and my small project shouldn't have to jump through more hoops than a project that's equally small but a trendy tech and more people bookmarked it
moparisthebestI thought stars were more like github-bookmarks
moparisthebestlike I have a couple hundred line arduino code snippets that haven't been touched since 2012 that I think might come in handy one day starred
moparisthebestand, not things like curl, because I know where they are, and they are easy to find
mdosch> I thought stars were more like github-bookmarks
I use them like that. 😃
SamWhitedI think a lot of people do, but a lot also use it to say thanks when someone makes something they use, which is I think where the "it obviously means it's popular" comes from.
moparisthebestyea I've never done that once, interesting
moparisthebestI must have missed the "github: how to use stars" class
SamWhitedI mean, I think that's fine, I just don't think that means other people should attribute meaning to "100 stars" or whatever
KevOn a tagentially related note: would anyone with a PayPal account help me prove a point about why being rich is a bad metric for anything by sending me all their money? (I will not be making any benefit from this, it's just to prove a point ...)
SamWhitedOh man, my scam just feels so armetureish now. Kev wins.
mdoschKev, prince of Nigeria…
SamWhited(but in all seriousness, I am trying to convince Open Collective to come up with some metric other than GitHub stars)
mdoschWhat would be a good metric?
KevThere isn’t one? :)
SamWhitedYah, I think it's got ot be something you determine individually, not by something specific to a code hosting service
SamWhitedMaybe a mix of unique contributors, activity over time (including having multiple people consitsently active), etc.?
KevIt also depends what you’re trying to measure. Quality, or ease of access as a contributor?
KevIf it’s the former, number of contributors isn’t a particularly good metric. If the latter, it may well be.
SamWhitedI think they're trying to measure the health of the community
KevYour suggestions sound like a reasonable way to think about that then, yes. I assumed it was something project-related.
SamWhitedSorry, should have explained up front. Open Collective accepts projects into their fiscal host only if they have >100 stars on GitHub. I believe that is a bad metric. I said so as the "controversial opinion" question in a call earlier and someone form Open Collective reached out and asked if I was talking about them and why I thought it was a bad idea
SamWhitedSo I thought before I sent an email I'd try and get my project with literally no community up to that number and link them to it and a few others I know that are at or close to that.
mdoschAfair I even got a star on github for a repo that was automatically cloned into my account when I just PRed something minor like a typo. 🙂