XSF Discussion - 2021-07-13

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

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

What about our MySpace page tho?

Most important!

> 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?

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

No joke

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 I see DMUC1 (281) was retracted.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?

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.

My ₿0.0000000000000000002

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

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

FMUC (289) also deferred

Much more recent though

Ge0rG, like MIX?

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

Wonderful!

What implements it, ooi?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

We read you guus.der.kinderen

Openfire has experimental support for FMUC.

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.

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

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".

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

MIX is still based on central services

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.

Why XMPP better than Matrix? ✏

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

Ok.

Wassup boiz

hi L33tH33k3r

lol