XSF Discussion - 2021-02-12

  1. theTedd

    gentle reminder for 20-21 submissions 😁

  2. Ge0rG

    There is still time!

  3. theTedd

    thanks already to Sam and Thilo ;)

  4. theTedd

    there is! hence the reminder

  5. jonas’

    I’m still lacking inspiration

  6. theTedd

    how would 200 imaginary euros inspire you?

  7. jonas’

    more like: what to put into the application

  8. jonas’


  9. theTedd

    the joys of developing with aioxmpp?

  10. MattJ

    If jonas’ doesn't want the imaginary euros I'll gladly take them off your hands

  11. theTedd

    sold to the Matt with the J!

  12. MattJ

    I'll try not to spend them all at once

  13. theTedd

    14 reasons why you you should start using jabbercat NOW! number 4 will amaze you!!!!!!!

  14. Zash

    Inb4 "How I got 200 imaginary euros" by MattJ

  15. MattJ


  16. Ge0rG

    "Implement Passive Income with the XMPP Standards Foundation"

  17. theTedd

    pubcoin - a pubsub bitcoin model for online payments

  18. Zash

    "How we brought back the <payment-required/> stanza error"

  19. theTedd

    that one secret all xmpp developers don't want you to know

  20. MattJ

    I'm making notes

  21. theTedd

    cool 👍

  22. Zash

    "How async day saved the, a tale of+++CARRIER LOST"

  23. theTedd

    that's enough fermented potato juice, Zash

  24. Zash

    Not enough you say? Well it is friday after all.

  25. theTedd


  26. SamWhited


  27. SamWhited

    oh, summit 2021? Sorry, wasn't sure what submissions these were or how I'd submitted one :)

  28. theTedd

    can you claim lack of coffee?

  29. SamWhited

    No, plenty of coffee this morning, just didn't know what "submissions" meant without context and got confused by the 2021 with a typo (I assume) dash in the middle :)

  30. Zash

    "submissions" is SMTP over TLS for email submission, silly!

  31. theTedd

    no typo, it's 20-21 (Feb 2021)

  32. jonas’

    such confusion

  33. SamWhited


  34. jonas’

    no, 20th - 21th february

  35. Zash


  36. jonas’

    no, 20th - 21st february

  37. SamWhited

    ooooh, it's a day range

  38. jonas’

    .oO(21st february fox)

  39. theTedd

    the 22st will confuse everyone

  40. arc

    Almost time for the board meeting

  41. arc

    Ralph, dwd, Seve, mattj

  42. Seve


  43. MattJ


  44. arc

    Just flagging everyone because I know it helps remind me

  45. arc

    ralphm: are you here? Realizing I spelled your name wrong before

  46. arc

    Okay well we have quorum in any case, do we have an agenda?

  47. Seve

    I'm not aware of any

  48. arc

    The only agenda item I would have is gsoc and nobody has submitted any project ideas yet

  49. arc

    And at 15 minutes after are at the point of having to cancel the meeting

  50. SamWhited

    I'll put something on the wiki today.

  51. SamWhited

    I would also still like to re-add if the agenda is shifting a discussion about the XSF acting as a fiscal sponsor for XMPP related projects.

  52. arc

    Yeah we have barely even discussed outreachy

  53. SamWhited

    arc: actually, I don't fully understand what the wiki is asking. Does it want a list of gsoc teasers or the full project that would be the gsoc task if someone were to subscribe?

  54. arc

    Project ideas just like previous years.

  55. arc

    I will write an email too members@ though I am fully aware that most people just ignore those emails

  56. SamWhited

    Neustradamus: I don't want to get into an edit war with you on the wiki, but I changed the title of that SASL/SCRAM page for a reason, why do you think it needs a list of every possible mechanism on the home page?

  57. Kev

    I read all the members@ mails.

  58. arc

    I stand mistaken

  59. Kev

    Kev doesn’t, therefore most must be wrong :D

  60. Neustradamus

    SamWhited: it is for search engine.

  61. Neustradamus

    SamWhited: it is for search engines.

  62. arc

    Your point is valid and accepted. I was mistaken

  63. MattJ

    Neustradamus, the wiki is for people, not search engines

  64. Neustradamus

    The wiki is indexed in search engines.

  65. SamWhited

    Neustradamus: that is not useful, the main page doesn't need to be what comes up when someone searches for a specific sasl mechanism. The page in question will have them listed, that seems good enough. I am going to undo that edit, it just clutters up the main page.

  66. arc

    Does our robots.txt even permit search engine indexing?

  67. arc

    Though I would find the methods interesting, they could be on a sub page?

  68. Neustradamus

    It is really important

  69. Neustradamus

    Official sources are on it

  70. SamWhited

    Neustradamus: giant bold lists in the sidebar are not important, I promise.

  71. SamWhited

    The official source is already the page itself, which still has all of these mechanisms listed.

  72. Neustradamus

    Which help people.

  73. SamWhited

    They don't need to be listed every single place that links to them.

  74. SamWhited

    One day I will figure out how to add links on this wiki… after like 4 tries I finally remembered the syntax, but for one link it works and for the second link it doesn't even though they appear identical *grumble, grumble*

  75. SamWhited

    arc: added a possible project that I think will be big enough to take up the whole time

  76. arc

    Cool thanks

  77. SamWhited

    Actually, going to add a second one that I care less about but which might be more useful to the community or more interesting to the students, I assume it's okay to have multiple and the students pick what they want to do if we get some?

  78. SamWhited

    > A list of teaser tasks is given in the Project Ideas overview arc: does this mean we should add a link to teaser tasks too? That's what was confusing me I think

  79. arc

    Teaser tasks are for students who are applying because we, like most organizations, require students to contribute some code as part of their application process

  80. arc

    Though I'm not sure how the wiki was intended, I really just copied last year's format

  81. arc

    And yes you should provide several ideas for students, and keep in mind that students are not required to select from the list

  82. SamWhited


  83. Kev

    I *think* how I used to do it was to have the Projects listed on the XSF wiki, and the teasers listed on the software group’s pages. I neither pretend that it’s impossible I misremember, nor that this must have been optimal.

  84. SamWhited

    I'll go back and look how it was done in past years, thanks

  85. Daniel

    i, for example, used to tag certain issues as 'teaser-task' and then linked to a filtered list on my issue tracker

  86. arc

    The task list is the most important thing. That is required to actually submit an application

  87. SamWhited

    I reformatted the page with a few project ideas and linked to my "Good intro tasks" tag, although maybe for GSoC students I should add some more difficult stuff. We'll see if anyone is actually interested then I can direct them at other issues I guess.

  88. mimi89999


  89. mimi89999

    I dislike several things about XEP-0389 data forms.

  90. mimi89999

    First of all, I don't like that forms can have a title. I think that the client should make it clear that it's a form sent by the server or an evil server (I know that registering on an untrusted server is bad) can make the client show a form that would look like a form to log in to a trusted server.

  91. mimi89999

    I said more about it here: https://github.com/dino/dino/pull/990#discussion_r575390603

  92. mimi89999

    Another issue I noticed is that servers might present the same elements under very different UIs. Let's take the ToS as an example. Some servers can show it in the instruction, others can put it in a fixed field or as a label of a bool setting.

  93. mimi89999

    Were there any attempts to improve the situation?

  94. Zash

    There was https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/tos.html

  95. Zash

    And data forms are defined by XEP-0004, not 389. And we all hate it, but also don't really want to change it since it's used by everything.

  96. Zash

    And they do present quite an UI/UX challenge.

  97. mimi89999

    Only Gajim implentented 389 fully and can show forms from every server correctly.

  98. Zash

    389 is implemented? This is news to me

  99. mimi89999

    Dino has partial support, that I tried to improve and Siskin also.has partial support.

  100. mimi89999

    Conversation and Monal.don't support them at all

  101. mimi89999

    See this

  102. SamWhited

    I didn't realize that, good to know. I'm all for defining different challenges, I hate dataforms, it was just the thing that's available so I used it.

  103. mimi89999


  104. mimi89999

    Or the screenshots under https://github.com/dino/dino/issues/988

  105. lovetox

    iv Gajim does not implement 0389

  106. lovetox

    Gajim does not implement 0389

  107. SamWhited

    That issue doesn't look like 0389 either

  108. lovetox

    mimi89999, ibr is defined in XEP-0077

  109. mimi89999

    lovetox: What do you have then?

  110. lovetox

    0389 trys to make 0077 better, or have a different more flexibel approach

  111. lovetox

    but its not supported by anyone yet to my knowledge

  112. lovetox

    and it does not change forms in any way

  113. mimi89999

    OK. 0077. Sorry for the confusion. I looked at 0004 for the form spec anyway.

  114. mimi89999


  115. mimi89999

    > The XMPP ecosystem has no way to allow clients to display or refer the user to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy of any given server. Well, IBR forms are a way...

  116. SamWhited

    Most things don't support that though and they're not wrong that this is a major issue for any service that wants to use XMPP and allow third party clients.

  117. SamWhited

    Whoever "they" are.

  118. Zash

    And that's part of the reason for 389, to have a better framework to solve that kind of issue.

  119. mimi89999

    They it's probably jonas’

  120. SamWhited

    Yah, it doesn't actually solve this problem yet, but if we can get to a place where most things support it hopefully it will be easier to add a standard "simple" registration method with a few common fields that everything can implement easier and it will spread quicker than forms (I hope)

  121. SamWhited

    Of course, it relies on implementing a new framework for sending forms first, which is even harder to get implemented than data forms in 0077, so it probably just doesn't solve this issue.

  122. mimi89999

    Some clients already support IBR forms.

  123. SamWhited

    "some" is not "most" unfortunately. And it's very few I suspect.

  124. mimi89999

    Gajim has full support. Dino has partial support, that I tried to improve and Siskin also has partial support.

  125. SamWhited

    That's still not "most", though thanks for trying to improve registration support :)

  126. mimi89999


  127. SamWhited

    Point is that it's hard to do, so a lot of clients don't, which makes a company wanting to implement things on XMPP less likely to allow third party clients (I suspect)

  128. mimi89999

    Why would a company do IBR?

  129. SamWhited

    Because they want you to be able to download their app and sign up for an account on their server.

  130. SamWhited

    But that's why I'm saying I agree with the person who said "XMPP ecosystem has no way to allow clients to display the TOS" or whatever, like you said, there's technically IBR, but it's not widely supported and has the bugs you mentioned, so it's not really a good way to do it and people won't use it.

  131. mimi89999

    That would be quite easy to do. The form would be known and static. They could also just display the form on their website with webview.

  132. SamWhited

    Sure, that's what they'd do instead, but that's not part of the XMPP ecosystem and won't work on third party clients

  133. SamWhited

    That's why I'm suggesting your original quote was right: there's no good way to do it in the XMPP ecosystem, so companies will put their website in webview instead and won't allow third party clients.

  134. mimi89999

    The forms allow for too much customization, that's why they are hard to implement

  135. SamWhited

    I agree.

  136. Zash

    It is a blessing and a curse.

  137. mimi89999

    what's the status of the tos xep?

  138. SamWhited

    I spent ages trying to do a data forms implementation recently (well, trying to fix an existing broken one, this is like the third or fourth time I've tried to implement it) and even after figuring out an okay way to do it in the end I still ended up not being able to support the multi-item form stuff. No idea how I'm going to make that work.

  139. SamWhited

    tos xep?

  140. mimi89999


  141. Zash

    The one in inbox? Wasn't accepted.

  142. Zash

    That's .. just a form field

  143. mimi89999

    Metronome just went and implemented ToS with exactly one client I know being able to display it: Gajim.

  144. mimi89999

    > The one in inbox? Wasn't accepted. Why?

  145. SamWhited

    I missed that one somehow and don't see it on standards@ or in my inbox; link?

  146. SamWhited

    Or rough date range if it was a little older?

  147. Zash


  148. SamWhited

    ah yes, that is older, thanks

  149. Zash


  150. mimi89999

    Also, ToS isn't the only thing admins want. Some are asking for mail, others use custom catchas...

  151. SamWhited

    oh yah, I remember this now. Yah, it seem(ed|s) like it's just duplicating forms except with fewer options. I would eventually like to have something like this as part of whatever eIBR/SASL2 combination we eventually come up with.

  152. SamWhited

    Also pre-auth IQs. Maybe it's time to revive this one and fix some of the issues.

  153. Zash

    forms in IBR isn't all that widely supported, which I suppose is what mimi89999 is talking about

  154. mimi89999


  155. Zash

    Anything other than username and password usually limits you to certain advanced clients.

  156. SamWhited

    Yah, probably good to have a simplified version. Just not one that also mixes in form elemetns and has most of the same extra stuff as forms.

  157. mimi89999

    Even Conv doesn't do it.

  158. Zash

    XEP-0077 has existed for ~18 years. We can't force clients developers to implement things.