XSF Discussion - 2021-02-05

  1. mathieui

    Am I the only one who thinks that the stickers XEP could use BOB?

  2. Zash

    mathieui: Plausibly.

  3. Zash


  4. mathieui

    Ah right, BOB requires XHTML-IM, and we cannot have nice things anymore

  5. Zash

    Does it?

  6. Zash

    Couldn't you plausibly send a cid:-URI in OOB or anything?

  7. mathieui

    That is technically allowed as far as I am aware

  8. Zash

    Obviously we can't have nice things tho.

  9. mathieui

    although that makes yet another thing which is not end-to-end encrypted leading to a data leak, and we cannot have nice things

  10. Link Mauve

    We’d have to migrate to OMEMO++ first.

  11. jonas’

    Link Mauve, do we?

  12. Link Mauve

    I think so?

  13. jonas’

    FSE (full stanza encryption) is possible with OMEMO v0.3 IIRC

  14. jonas’

    FSE (full stanza encryption) is possible with OMEMO v0.7 IIRC

  15. Link Mauve

    Current deployed OMEMO doesn’t support it, as that’s 0.3 or something.

  16. jonas’

    Link Mauve, but then we just need OMEMO vdeployed++, not OMEMO++

  17. jonas’

    (which I read as "a replacement for OMEMO")

  18. mathieui

    Link Mauve, that still does not cover the <iq/> file retrieval

  19. Link Mauve

    mathieui, oh?

  20. jonas’

    mathieui, XMPP over IBB over <message/>!

  21. Link Mauve

    jonas’, my bad, that’s what I meant.

  22. mathieui

    Link Mauve, or does it?

  23. Link Mauve

    mathieui, <iq><omemo-encrypted><iq/></omemo-encrypted></iq>

  24. mathieui

    oh yeah, in an hypothetical future that may work

  25. jonas’


  26. jonas’ scratches head

  27. mathieui

    also that is still some kind of leak

  28. jonas’

    I’m sure that will work just fine.

  29. mathieui looks at XTLS

  30. Zash

    mixmaster over XMPP?

  31. Zash

    or ... what was that email thing called?

  32. vanitasvitae

    > mathieui, <iq><omemo-encrypted><iq/></omemo-encrypted></iq> I tried to come up with a solution for encrypted <iq>s in sce

  33. vanitasvitae


  34. jonas’

    ha, it even uses BOB as example

  35. vanitasvitae


  36. vanitasvitae

    So if someone does some experiments with it, please share feedback

  37. arc

    Good morning everyone

  38. vanitasvitae

    hi arc

  39. arc

    Board meeting in 15 minutes. Do we have everyone this week?

  40. MattJ


  41. arc

    There's also the foss foundations virtual drink up after the board meeting. Which would normally be held at this time in Brussels

  42. ralphm bangs gavel

  43. ralphm

    0. Welcome

  44. ralphm


  45. ralphm

    Who do we have today?

  46. arc


  47. MattJ


  48. ralphm

    dwd, Seve?

  49. Seve


  50. arc

    That is technically quorum? Not ideal though

  51. ralphm

    I see 4 out of 5

  52. arc

    I typed that when we only had three 😋

  53. ralphm


  54. ralphm

    I didn't see minutes, but I think we said we'd start with GSoC. Any other topics?

  55. arc

    Are we as a board tackling the summit? That probably would have otherwise taken place this last week?

  56. ralphm

    Actually right now.

  57. ralphm

    FOSDEM is tomorrow

  58. arc

    It does not seem that SCAM is active right now

  59. Zash

    Accurate. Last I looked, SCAM had no activity for months.

  60. ralphm

    I think the last meeting was in October

  61. arc

    I'm not criticizing, it happens to all of us. I'm just saying that we as a board should not be deferring to an inactive committee.

  62. ralphm

    And I think that's understandable, with lockdowns and stuff.

  63. ralphm

    We haven't actively asked SCAM to look into a virtual Summit

  64. arc

    In any case, we should perhaps put that on the intended today. since we are virtual this year we can always tackle it next week or two weeks from now

  65. ralphm


  66. Daniel

    I'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.

  67. Daniel

    Saying this as a scam member

  68. Daniel

    Not sure about my fellow team members

  69. Daniel

    So feel free to send an official inquiry

  70. ralphm

    This 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.

  71. Zash

    Observation: pep. left the XSF some time after that.

  72. MattJ

    Daniel, I don't think you're alone, and I agree that online is far from ideal compared to in-person meetups

  73. ralphm


  74. MattJ

    I get the impression that FOSDEM have struggled to find speakers, I believe interest has been lower

  75. arc

    But we can't shut down as an organization just because we can't do in person events

  76. MattJ

    But I also don't believe we can legitimately take a year off

  77. MattJ

    I agree

  78. MattJ

    Less than ideal is better than nothing

  79. Zash

    Suggestion (hat:xsf member): Postmortem for this would be good.

  80. ralphm

    Last 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.

  81. Kev

    I 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.

  82. Zash

    Kev, we could see it as a stress-test of online meeting things, then split into focus groups to argue about XEPs.

  83. arc

    I 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

  84. MattJ

    arc, agreed

  85. arc

    My experience with online events is there better when they're shorter

  86. Kev

    I 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.

  87. MattJ

    Shorter and more focused. I'm sure not going to hang around all day in a 40-person online video conference

  88. Daniel

    Time zones will probably also put a limit on it

  89. Kev

    But not disagreeing to the point that I’m going to argue it shouldn’t happen.

  90. Daniel

    Probably something in the European pm

  91. ralphm

    Daniel, with your scam hat on, do you think your team would pick up planning / organising something like this?

  92. Daniel

    If the team is just me then the honest answer to that is no

  93. ralphm

    Well, officially SCAM is also Guus and nyco.

  94. Daniel

    What's the amount of organzing you want to put into this

  95. Daniel

    Like should we just pick a week day and have four weeks after each other with 2-3 hours each?

  96. MattJ

    I think the logistics of organizing an online event (or multiple) are far lower than an in-person event

  97. MattJ

    i.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.

  98. ralphm

    Sure. Starting with a wiki page for collecting ideas seems prudent.

  99. MattJ

    I would try help out with that, but the next few weeks will be difficult for me

  100. arc

    Let's continue discussion after the meeting

  101. arc

    We do have the agenda item of gsoc

  102. ralphm


  103. ralphm

    1. GSoC

  104. ralphm


  105. ralphm

    So, last time I remember, arc explained that payments by Google are lower and suggested the XSF compensates.

  106. arc

    I would actually suggest that we compensate by shifting to outreachy this year

  107. Kev

    Lower, but the time is lower too isn’t it? Aren’t students expected to do half the work for half the pay?

  108. arc

    Yep. But they also shut down several other programs, we may be looking at the last year, or years, of gsoc

  109. lskdjf

    It'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.

  110. ralphm

    For those here (including floor) who've mentored, are shorter projects expected to be effective (enough)?

  111. Kev

    I 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.

  112. ralphm

    Oh, don't take me wrong. I am just curious if the change would work *for us*.

  113. Kev

    So 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).

  114. arc

    I think it is still worth doing.

  115. SamWhited

    FWIW 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.

  116. arc

    I'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

  117. Zash

    There'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.

  118. ralphm

    There is, but it is later

  119. arc

    GSoC is about writing code, not "documentation"

  120. Zash

    I'm referring to Season of Docs

  121. arc


  122. ralphm

    I think, if they do it again, it will be announced in March

  123. Zash

    Indeed, so ignore me until then 🙂

  124. larma

    I 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

  125. ralphm

    I 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.

  126. ralphm


  127. arc

    I have some response from there.

  128. SamWhited

    ¿Por qué no los dos?

  129. arc

    For both programs we mostly need an idea's list

  130. ralphm

    SamWhited, I am not sure what the overhead is of running both

  131. ralphm

    Organisationally, paying out is different. For Outreachy, we'd have to do this ourselves.

  132. ralphm

    arc: can you start collecting ideas, while we figure this out?

  133. arc

    Yep, happy to.

  134. ralphm

    (i.e. do the wiki thing)

  135. ralphm


  136. larma

    ralphm: I don't think we do the payouts with outreachy, we just provide the money.

  137. arc

    That is true.

  138. ralphm

    which is differnt from GSoC, I haven't looked at the specifics

  139. arc

    We supply the funding, but the people in charge of outreachy do the payouts.

  140. ralphm

    Good to know.

  141. larma

    (And they charge a huge cut for the processing)

  142. ralphm

    Next week, let's discuss if we want to do GSoC, Outreachy, or both and how. For now let's gather the ideas.

  143. ralphm

    I think that's all the time we have today.

  144. ralphm

    2. Date of Next

  145. ralphm


  146. ralphm

    3. Close

  147. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  148. ralphm bangs gavel

  149. Seve

    Thank you guys!

  150. larma

    I think we should get this to the mailing list, because I'm missing inputs from flow, vanitasvitae and other previous gsoc mentors/admins

  151. lskdjf

    Since 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.

  152. SamWhited

    Reading 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

  153. Kev

    FWIW, 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.

  154. SamWhited

    The 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.

  155. Kev

    Well, surely the XSF chooses which internships get selected, like GSoC.

  156. moparisthebest

    could 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

  157. SamWhited

    I 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.

  158. MattJ

    Kev, you've raised that issue in the past, and I have to say I think I increasingly dislike it as time goes on

  159. SamWhited

    And the XSF could just not vet the projects beyond "it meets the criteria defined by the program" (which is basically "OSI approved license"

  160. MattJ

    I mean, dislike having that as a rule the XSF should follow

  161. larma

    The issue seems to be that Outreachy targets open-source communities but the XSF isn't an open-source community but an open-standards organization.

  162. SamWhited

    The XSF would just be the fiscal sponsor acting as an umbrella like we do for GSoC, in my mind.

  163. MattJ

    If the code funded by the XSF is open-source then I have no problem with the XSF funding projects

  164. MattJ

    I *would* have issue with it funding closed-source projects

  165. SamWhited

    If 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

  166. moparisthebest

    how 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 ?

  167. MattJ

    The XSF... or another organization (back into that loop :) )

  168. SamWhited

    (since we're a US 501(c)3 but projects likely aren't and don't have a legal entity they can use)

  169. SamWhited

    moparisthebest: they have a definition on their website, I don't think we need to care beyond whatever they say

  170. Zash whispers "Snikket CIC"

  171. larma

    MattJ: 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...

  172. Kev

    MattJ: 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.

  173. SamWhited

    *nods* any org would do

  174. MattJ

    Zash, Snikket may be too opinionated for this particular case (despite having sponsored a bunch of open-source development in the past 12 months)

  175. moparisthebest

    doesn't that assume projects don't directly help XMPP Standards Development? that seems wrong

  176. MattJ

    Zash, OTOH maybe not, if it's a separate "fund the ecosystem" thing

  177. MattJ

    moparisthebest, I agree, I think that's my thinking. Throwing money into standards development (??) is not what XMPP needs right now

  178. Kev

    (FWIW, while I don’t know how effective it is, I am glad Snikket is doing what Snikket is doing)

  179. SamWhited

    I 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

  180. moparisthebest

    I'd argue helping fund development on these projects *is* throwing it directly into standards development

  181. Kev

    If 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.

  182. moparisthebest

    "standards development" isn't anything anyone here has ever done, am I wrong on that?

  183. SamWhited

    That 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

  184. moparisthebest

    instead, you have a need in a project/product/whatever, and standards come out of that

  185. Kev

    All standards work is mean to be writing standards for things that are needed, I’m not sure what that point is.

  186. Kev

    Certainly people here have written standards, and certainly before implementations (and even without needing to implement it themselves).

  187. SamWhited

    board 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.

  188. moparisthebest

    that 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

  189. Kev

    That is demonstrably wrong. We have written Standards to solve problems, before thinking about the code to go with them.

  190. moparisthebest

    so, funding code for project == funding standard development, in my opinion

  191. SamWhited

    moparisthebest: I think the best specs do that, but lots of them do it with no code written

  192. moparisthebest

    hehe, yea that's how you get standards no one implements

  193. moparisthebest

    MIX for example

  194. Kev

    Some of the worst specs come out of writing code before thinking about standardising too :)

  195. moparisthebest

    that's also fair

  196. moparisthebest

    so let's say "funding code for a project where standards are thought about from day 1" == "funding standard development"

  197. Zash

    moparisthebest, https://xkcd.com/844/

  198. SamWhited

    I 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

  199. Zash

    also Kev

  200. Zash

    The worst code comes from writing code!

  201. SamWhited

    sorry, before it gets lost, /cc ralphm, arc, other board people see question above

  202. Kev

    So, 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.

  203. Kev

    Although 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 :)

  204. arc

    I am reading, SamWhited. And remember I've been talking about seeking outside funding for a while.

  205. moparisthebest

    assuming 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

  206. SamWhited

    arc: 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

  207. arc

    As 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.

  208. SamWhited

    To be clear, the XSF wouldn't be distributing funds itself or deciding how they get distributed.

  209. arc

    I 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

  210. SamWhited

    For 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.

  211. SamWhited

    If 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.

  212. arc

    I understand. I have served on the boards for a few fiscal sponsors.

  213. arc

    I am in favor of that. It is really not that much work for the small number of organizations we have.

  214. 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)

  215. SamWhited

    And I would volunteer since it's easier than starting a separate entity for me.

  216. arc

    Actually this might be an ideal time for this conversation. The FOSS foundations online drink up just started

  217. SamWhited

    arc: link?

  218. arc

    Which is literally the people that you should be talking to 😋

  219. SamWhited

    I looked for FOSS Foundation when you mentioned it earlier but couldn't find anything?

  220. SamWhited

    I'm curious about this though

  221. arc


  222. SamWhited

    Although it's only 1300 here, but meh, it's time for a beer somewhere

  223. arc

    It is 10:00 a.m. here

  224. SamWhited

    arc: are you still in Portland?

  225. arc


  226. SamWhited

    Cool, a friend of mine is trying to move there right now (from Seattle)

  227. mdosch

    Too much rain, 'eh?

  228. mdosch

    Oh no, 'eh is vancouver. 😂

  229. arc

    I would recommend South Portland. Close to downtown, not terribly expensive, but quiet and not so much crime

  230. arc

    It'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.

  231. arc

    This is a great example for the need for better foss a/v meeting software. Of course, xmpp based! BigBlueButton has problems

  232. Zash

    Well you've got Zoom and Jitsi.

  233. arc

    Zoom isn't foss?!

  234. Zash

    Nope. Touch of XMPP in there at least.

  235. arc

    I didn't know that. Not the first time I've been shocked. But I'm not talking about another multichat clone

  236. arc

    See 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

  237. arc

    Especially with these larger meetups.

  238. SamWhited

    I 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

  239. arc

    And if someone were to work that out, AGPLv3 licensed, using xmpp, we win.

  240. arc

    Because it was instantly become they go to for every social group in the world

  241. mathieui

    arc, that is not true, jitsi meet does not do that

  242. Zash

    Wishing for something where you could, say, break off into smaller groups and talk more easily? Or whisper to whoever sits "next to you"?

  243. mathieui

    Also, zoom actually has "breakout rooms" which let you do just that (and it is nice in quite a lot of scenarios)

  244. SamWhited

    I'd push back on the AGPLv3 thing, but the "using xmpp" part sounds good :)

  245. SamWhited

    I think this has breakout rooms too, but I haven't tried it

  246. arc

    I'm thinking less formal. More like, groups in a room. Having two levels of microphone.

  247. ralphm

    SamWhited: added to Trello

  248. arc

    Less 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.

  249. arc

    SamWhited I thought you liked the AGPLv3

  250. Zash

    2D location something and mic/speaker volume scaling?

  251. arc

    I wouldn't use or emulate location. Just letting people join circles.

  252. arc

    People have suggested using certain video games that do location based talking

  253. ralphm

    So ad hoc backchannels

  254. SamWhited

    arc: I am very strongly against AGPL (or basically everything GNU does); maybe that should be my controversial opinion :)

  255. arc


  256. Kev

    Sam: You’re only allowed one.

  257. ralphm

    Also, I don't think it is controversial

  258. arc

    Ralphm yeah like adhoc breakout rooms. Which happen organically

  259. ralphm

    (the opinion, not Sam)

  260. SamWhited

    arc: 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

  261. arc

    People suggested that for this meeting. But here we are an hour on, still doing introductions

  262. arc

    I don't think we should be limited to emulating the real world. I'm thinking, do better than real world

  263. Kev

    It’d be good to start by not being worse than the physical world :)

  264. arc

    Lol true

  265. arc

    Well it took an hour to mostly get through everyone's introductions 😂

  266. moparisthebest

    arc, me and pep were the very pro AGPLv3 for everything ones :)

  267. arc

    Chris DiBona sitting with Linux Torvalds convinced me that AGPLv3 is really the only way forward for FOSS.

  268. arc

    After that talk, I started relicensing everything. in increasingly lost interest in working on anything that's not.

  269. SamWhited

    I 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

  270. arc

    Like, I haven't contributed to Gnome because all those contributions were LGPL.

  271. SamWhited

    I 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.

  272. arc

    Anything 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.

  273. arc

    The 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.

  274. SamWhited

    I 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.

  275. arc

    I 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.

  276. Zash

    And here I just wanna do my thing and not worry about licensing.

  277. SamWhited

    There'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

  278. arc

    SamWhited, that's why I offer commercial licenses. Or more specifically, licensed exceptions

  279. moparisthebest

    arc, add this to the list of reasons: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ (sounds same as yours but it written form)

  280. SamWhited

    I'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?

  281. arc

    I offer extremely competitively priced exceptions. The only discrimination is against military and military contractors.

  282. SamWhited

    I do like the idea of offering commercial license exceptions

  283. arc

    Yeah then it's not exploitative anymore.

  284. 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

  285. moparisthebest

    meh, to be able to offer commercial exceptions you need CLAs which are equally sleazy

  286. SamWhited

    But 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

  287. arc

    Lately I've been increasingly using a cooperative model. People who contribute code get a share of whatever comes from that code.

  288. SamWhited

    arc: 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

  289. SamWhited

    On 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)

  290. SamWhited

    https://github.com/mellium/xmpp if anyone is willing.

  291. moparisthebest

    I also like the "high number of issues == low quality software" metric

  292. moparisthebest

    can't fix stupid I guess ? :'(

  293. SamWhited

    Exactly, basically the same thing.

  294. SamWhited

    When 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.

  295. moparisthebest

    I thought that kind of thing was a joke

  296. moparisthebest

    at work we joke that the contractors must be getting paid by the line, even though we know they aren't...

  297. Zash

    Don't they know it's the inverse of that! Also popularity ≠ quality!!11! Aaaargh, how do you become a potato farmer?

  298. moparisthebest

    npm install potato-farmer ?

  299. SamWhited

    In 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

  300. moparisthebest

    I thought stars were more like github-bookmarks

  301. SamWhited

    They are.

  302. moparisthebest

    like 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

  303. moparisthebest

    and, not things like curl, because I know where they are, and they are easy to find

  304. mdosch

    > I thought stars were more like github-bookmarks I use them like that. 😃

  305. SamWhited

    I 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.

  306. moparisthebest

    yea I've never done that once, interesting

  307. moparisthebest

    I must have missed the "github: how to use stars" class

  308. SamWhited

    I mean, I think that's fine, I just don't think that means other people should attribute meaning to "100 stars" or whatever

  309. Kev

    On 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 ...)

  310. SamWhited

    Oh man, my scam just feels so armetureish now. Kev wins.

  311. mdosch

    Kev, prince of Nigeria…

  312. SamWhited

    (but in all seriousness, I am trying to convince Open Collective to come up with some metric other than GitHub stars)

  313. mdosch

    What would be a good metric?

  314. Kev

    There isn’t one? :)

  315. SamWhited

    Yah, I think it's got ot be something you determine individually, not by something specific to a code hosting service

  316. SamWhited

    Maybe a mix of unique contributors, activity over time (including having multiple people consitsently active), etc.?

  317. Kev

    It also depends what you’re trying to measure. Quality, or ease of access as a contributor?

  318. Kev

    If it’s the former, number of contributors isn’t a particularly good metric. If the latter, it may well be.

  319. SamWhited

    I think they're trying to measure the health of the community

  320. Kev

    Your suggestions sound like a reasonable way to think about that then, yes. I assumed it was something project-related.

  321. SamWhited

    Sorry, 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

  322. SamWhited

    So 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.

  323. mdosch

    Afair 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. 🙂