XSF Discussion - 2021-02-18

arc: But the reason is to provide extra payment that Google does not?

I do not believe that Google supports that. I was suggesting that we use our own funding for Outreachy

Google has a specific relationship with students and I do not believe their legal structure allows us to commingle with that.

But we, the XSF, can find Outreachy students working on xmpp projects. And that's where other FOSS organizations are shifting their energy as well

Ah ok

Over the last decade we haven't put very much energy into sponsorships. We could very easily secure recurring sponsorships to fund numerous Outreachy students every year.

At the same time I'm not saying that we should stop doing GSoC. I think it will still have a great deal of benefit even at reduced funding.

GSoC is specifically open to straight men, which Outreachy isn't. Outreachy targets women, LGBT, and in the US racial minorities. Where GSoC targets college students (or anyone smart enough to enroll for a single community college class) of any race, gender, or sexual identification.

Given how incredibly male the XSF is, I think participating in Outreachy can do us a world of good.

arc: do you need anything to get started?

We can use Conversation tasks on https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Summer_of_Code_2021

Since GSoC has been tied to the sprint this year and sprint has the requirement of teams I can't participate this year

The Sprint does not require teams. The project's list on the wiki is just for people looking to recruit new developers, vs people working on solo projects

I am working on solo projects myself.

And they're not really "tied", I just timed them so that the sprints can help in community engagement during the application period

> Participating projects should be team-based with seasoned developers It's not?

That defines the list on the wiki only, so that new developers are not left to figure out which are solo projects

Would you like to reword that to be less confusing?

The Sprint is for everyone who wants to participate to work on any xmpp project. The list is for people looking to recruit new developers

Where is the list?

Does anyone remember why the avatar metadata node in XEP-0084 uses the hash of the image as item id, as opposed to "current" like most PEP things?

Not me.

Ho, it's "current" in https://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/jep-0084-0.5.html

Zash, isn’t that so you can fetch the avatar data by itemid by using its hash? (and also prevent multiple publications of the same image with different ids)

(but I haven’t seen that discussion so I am only speculating)

mathieui: for the data itself, sure. but the metadata carries that info in an attribute.

ah yes

maybe because it was somehow easier if they are the same? idk

so you end up duplicating that hash

Zash, "(the match between the ItemID of the data node and metadata node is used by the subscriber to determine if a locally cached copy can be displayed)." from 3.2

I may have looked at this before.

> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3 (HTTP/3)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-quic-http-34.txt) hmmm

mathieui: if you see the item id, you also see the item itself with the hash(es)

Could have made sense if it used notifications without payloads, but then it wouldn't have needed to split metadata and payload

*Maybe* some implementations back then lacked notification without payload, or some such argument. But I really don’t remember.

Multiple resolutions (which nobody does afaik) wouldn't work that way tho

I hope I have not overstepped my boundaries by editing the applications wiki page to put 2021 instead of 2020, Alex :)

Is that actual date right? I mean, obviously it was meant to be 2021, but is it March 9th?

Looking at previous years, I am not sure the dates for end of applications and the meeting follow a particular pattern

but since the days are different from 2020, I think the dates are right, only the year is wrong

oh, good point

thanks mathieui‎ 👍

some things in 0084 are just weird

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0084.html#example-4

yeah so you want to publish a gif

but you need the sha of a png to publish it

waaaaait what

yeah that is suspicious

yeah but it breaks nothing, and noone can actually verify the sha

and it does not matter anyway

because you are supposed to pull the gif from http

so you can just use any id you want

and just pretend its the sha of a non existing png

i wonder what was the reason behind this

If it's adding another format, shouldn't that publish look more like https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0084.html#example-10 ?

no Zash, you are not forced to publish a png, you can just only use a http method

according to the xep

and in light of the multiple format thingy its even more useless that one chosen image sha is set as id

Anyone up for sitting down and rewriting this to do what we all think it's meant to say? :)

i just dont know why its a MUST to set the sha to the item id

the only thing it could be that people back then thought we send pubsub notifications without payload?

The metadata item id can just be "current", and contain 1 or more <info> refering to either blobs in the data node or something else.

i know at least one impl that depends on the id beeing the sha 😋️

rightfully so when you read the xep :)

so i dont get my hopes up that this xep will be changed

everybody uses this with one avatar anyway

Not me!

marc: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Spring_Relay_2021