XSF Discussion - 2021-07-17

no southerntofu, only the server has closed

Why?

Afaik the client is still maintained.

> mdosch wrote: > Afaik the client is still maintained. yes

arc: did your JID change? I'm getting DNS lookup errors on concordance.io

I was just going to see if you're free sometime this week to collaborate on https://pad.disroot.org/p/XSF_Fiscal_Host_Rules

Not just DNS, ~$ whois concordance.io NOT FOUND

(also anyone else who wants to leave comments, please do)

I expected 300+ pages of legalese. Pleasantly surprised.

I'm sure the Open Collective stuff covers all that :) ours is just a policy about who can take donations and how they're used, so I don't think it needs much other than "board and treasurer decide"

Status codes 170/171 of MUC (a privacy-related signal to indicate that 'public logging' has been enabled/disabled), does that apply to, say, MAM?

if MAM is enabled in public room, I'm guessing that its archive is ... public?

The XEP references to an HTTP-based exposure of the logging in a for-example - that makes me question the intent.

That would be my interpretation. Whereas if fetching MAM is members-only or something I'd say it's not publicly logged

Agree.

Sorry, I mean "MAM counts if it's a public room" is also my interpretation

If you can read the history without joining then very yes.

so status 170 is basically "muc#roomconfig_enablelogging == true", unless "muc#roomconfig_membersonly == true" ?

Do you include MAM in enablelogging?

yes?

Check.

I'm only now noticing that muc#roomconfig_enablelogging has a label that describes _public_ logging.

I had always interpreted it as any logging.

I believe there's a `muc#roomconfig_enablearchiving` too somewere

Possibly non-standard

Ah, yeah, prosody uses that

well... given that `muc#roomconfig_enablelogging` is defined as "public logging" ... it's pretty much equal to 170 vs 171?

Definitely

Hm

so no point in even pulling memberonly status into play.

which kind of makes it a duplicate? but one that needs not be queried, but is pushed to you when joining?

Can you read the history without being a member/participant? Yes → 170. No → 171.

As an aside: I dont' think 171 is pushed upon join (only when a config change happens)

Whether that is done via MAM or HTTP, eh.

Guus, according to the spec or in practice?

I think i'm going to make it equal to the state of muc#roomconfig_enablelogging - as that's also defined as "public logging"

But how is _that_ determined then?

having that enabled, would always cause logs to be generated. Even if they're not public yet, they could be in the future.

I'm ignoring the 'public' part of that definition.

If logging, then 170.

Is logging and archiving the same thing?

(not saying that I'm thinking that this 100.0% fits the definition, but I think it's as close as any other definition, and definately easier to implement :P )

In my book, yes. What do you consider to be different between the two?

MAM vs the standard 'keep x messages' in pre-MAM things?

Not entirely sure

Ok, thanks. I'll tentatively take the easiest route, until someone convinces me otherwise :)

logging could just mean that the conversations are logged and potentially made public somehow. archiving is similar, but I somehow would expect that you can query the archive via XMPP, which I wouldn't say is a requirement for logging

Js

Kskssmmsmsms

Guus, Zash, flow: There's clearly a difference for members-only rooms, no? (You said so initially but I'm not sure that distinction got lost with "I'm ignoring the 'public' thing"?) ✏

Difference being that MAM access is guaranteed to be limited to group members, which isn't true for 'logging'.

Holger, probably, but can't construct a difference from the top of my head at the moment. Care to elaborate?

These days I answer questions before they were asked!

Not that this does not sound sensible, but where is this guaranteed?

0313 IIRC

If I'm wrong it should be added 😉

hmm, but the archive could also be restricted to e.g. owners only, no?

but eventually I think we are on the same page

> A MUC archive MUST check that the user requesting the archive has the right to enter it at the time of the query and only allow access if so.

at least when I hear "MUC logging" I think of web logs, and when I hear "MUC archiving" I think of MAM

flow, same

I still think the end result should matter, not the method. Can the general public access the logs/archive or not?

But the MAM method gives a guaranteed answer to that question

The 'logging' method doesn't.

(For members-only rooms.)