XSF Discussion - 2021-07-13

  1. emus

    Hello board, aka ralphm MattJ arc dwd I was recently raising the questiom to comm-team: - Does someone actually deal with the XSF Facebook account and do we, also in general, want to keep on running this? From our side its noone and as I understood noone has access to to anyway. We are 50% on not supporting ot any more and even some agree that we should be on "every" platform no one seems to be motivated to deal with this. Therefore I think it could make sense to close it. If we change our mind we can comeback anytime again. the other platforms + the new youtube channel seem to make more sense. What do you think? Maybe put this to the list for the next meeting jcbrand, Seve, wurstsalat

  2. ralphm

    I think that might still be under control of Neustradamus. I have no desire for it to exist per se.

  3. Daniel

    What about our MySpace page tho?

  4. Zash

    Most important!

  5. emus

    > ralphm escribió: > I think that might still be under control of Neustradamus. I have no desire for it to exist per se. 😃 Thats a joke right?

  6. emus

    jonas’: Any credentials known? Otherwise we likely need to treat it as abandoned

  7. ralphm

    No joke

  8. qy

    Is there any chance of progression on the DMUC XEPs? I see DMUC1 (281) was retracted. DMUC2 (282) is deferred, but seems reasonable except for maybe the lack of detail on netjoin. DMUC3 (xxx) is simpler, and more complete, but didnt seem to get past being recieved?

  9. MattJ

    qy: I think the only one to see implementation was FMUC. To really progress DMUC (any of them) you'll need to find people willing to implement them first. To find people willing to implement them you'll probably need to find and demonstrate that there are users who want it.

  10. MattJ

    My ₿0.0000000000000000002

  11. Zash

    There are people who ask for it, but are they users?

  12. Ge0rG

    I haven't read any of those XEPs, but if you make it c2s compatible with MUC, you might get away with silently replacing existing rooms with new protocol

  13. qy

    FMUC (289) also deferred

  14. qy

    Much more recent though

  15. Zash

    Ge0rG, like MIX?

  16. MattJ

    qy, FMUC has implementations, I'd say it's closer to progressing to the next stage of the standards process than any of the other specs

  17. qy


  18. qy

    What implements it, ooi?

  19. MattJ

    M-Link (closed-source) and maybe Openfire? I seem to remember Guus asking a lot of questions about it not too long ago

  20. qy

    Aw, i was hoping for either prosody or ejd so i could give it a try

  21. MattJ

    Again that thing about users. In practical terms it's rare for anyone to ask for this feature (speaking as a Prosody dev)

  22. MattJ

    Compared to e.g. wanting to send 2GB files via HTTP upload

  23. qy

    Yeah, understandable. I have no complaints when it comes to servers implementing things. This would be nice though, and likely an implementation _would_ lead directly to progression, right?

  24. guus.der.kinderen

    Tap tap is this thing on? My client seems to be rejoining all the time.

  25. Zash

    We read you guus.der.kinderen

  26. guus.der.kinderen

    Openfire has experimental support for FMUC.

  27. guus.der.kinderen

    The challenge there is that the implementations in the wild have progressed beyond the XEP. We have not found the time yet to bring things back in sync.

  28. yushyin

    wasn't federation also one of the intended objectives of MIX? has there been any progress so far?

  29. guus.der.kinderen

    XMPP is federated by nature. All XEPs in principle allow for federated use. Some might have proven to be more difficult than others to realize maybe, but FMUC, for example, is not "add federation to MUC".

  30. yushyin

    was this directed to me? if yes, no i was not talking about the federated nature of XMPP.

  31. Ge0rG

    MIX is still based on central services

  32. Zash

    Regarding the `<retry stamp=(xep-0082)/>` error extension in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0363.html#errors Does it fit if the quota is based on bytes uploaded per some time period? Ie the thing you tried to upload is too large so you have to wait, but a smaller thing could be uploaded.

  33. wuuko

    Why XMPP better than Matrix

  34. wuuko

    Why XMPP better than Matrix?

  35. Link Mauve

    wuuko, this is not the place for that kind of discussion, at all.

  36. wuuko


  37. L33tH33k3r

    Wassup boiz

  38. Ellenor Malik

    hi L33tH33k3r

  39. Ellenor Malik