XSF Discussion - 2021-10-21

how about something client enforced where clients can choose to display late corrections more explicitly?

fwiw, I think that neither a hard number of messages nor a hard time limit for corrections is ok and this will be something which needs to be figured out in a modernxmpp-like venue, or even in individual (closed) deployments

(I'm inclined to agree)

i.e. this is a product-level consideration, not a protocol-level one :)

Can we remove all occurences of the word "Last" from the XEP then?

Modyfing arbitrary messages shouldn't be a problem as long as the client makes any modified previous message clear and allows to access and the modifciation history

I can imagine things becoming tricky if you receive corrections referencing messages not in your local history?

But that's just (client) implementation issues I guess 🙂

Product-level!

Isn't that one of the reasons MAM grew a way to query individual messages by archive-id?

Doesn't LMC reference one of the other IDs?

Aw 🙁

Do we have a quorum today?

The recurring question

Yep.

Given there's no response from another board member I'm guessing not

ping ralphm, MattJ and dwd?

Hi!

Here

Do board meetings have spectator seats?

Sure

You have one.

Everyone in this room may interact, it doesn't require membership

That said, we're waiting to reach quorum on directors.

MattJ and dwd, ping?

Hiya.

there we go

Ok. There's a message from Sam on an application for fiscal hosting

Anything else we should discuss today?

also the pr following up on fiscal host criteria

Thanks Sam

1. Minute taker

Is it you this week?

Could be. I'll take it

2. Fiscal host criteria

I think it was Matt last time

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/987/files

Hey

The only hangup I had was on the word sponsee. I've seen sponsoree, too, but English is not my native language and I'm out of dept here

I'm in favour of the PR, except for a couple of editorial fixes (that being one of them)

FWIW, Sponsee isn't a word in English, although it's obvious to a native speaker what it means.

Kev: cool. What's the right word?

There's no single word.

I'm not actually sure there is one.

Sponsor subject?

"Sponsored Project" would be what I'd probably write.

That too.

sponsee is definitely a word

Ok. MattJ, can you handle the editorial fixes then?

+1

Sam: I'm not convinced - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sponsee (But dropping it now)

It'd only be a word if Sponser was...

Leave it to the Brit to be a linguistic prescriptionist

😉

I could not care less by now

MattJ: can you pick this up?

also awaiting votes

+1

+1, though if someone else can then it will move quicker

I'm away for the next few days at least

+1

Motion carries.

I'll add comments to the PR and have it resolved

3. First applicant

So, first off, since this PR isn't done yet, I'm not sure that a) it is fair to assume applicant has agreed, b) given Sam's comments the application will pass. I think we have to review the application against the approved rules.

Opinions

I'm missing context, I'm afraid.

dwd: there was an e-mail to the Board list, on October 1, with a follow-up on October 8.

The only issue I recall is that they don't have any open-source code, currently

The Open Source Collective requires you to have source code available before they'll consider you, but that does seem like it would make it impossible to fundraise and then pay someone to write code, which also seems desirable and may be the case here.

I assume (but don't know for sure) that the reason for that rule is to stop tons of random people from applying and wasting resources because they just had an idea that they'll never execute

So... Yes. The problem as I see it is that this isn't an existing project wanting to raise funds.

Anyways, may be something for the board to balance/decide.

Personally I'd settle for some documentation of the planned implementation

and an agreement of course that it will be open-source

I can't quite get my head around how this works. We'd get some donations toward this, and then... What? They go out and find a contractor to write it? This feels more like a bounty type thing.

It basically is

Though they already have someone (some people?) who will work on it, given the funding

I'm not against a bounty type thing. Just not sure if this is the right vehicle, as it stands. It might be better to have the XSF simply handle bounty arrangements itself. Perhaps.

They already have a person who works on the matrix/xmpp bridge, I think

FWIW the ultimate goal of the project is to add support for MAM to xmpp.js so it can be used in the Matrix<->XMPP bridge

Right, I get that.

But I've seen little in the way of docs to give me confidence that the project is anywhere near scoped out

Well, is that our problem?

and who will be involved, etc.

Genuine question, by the way. I don't know.

For an existing open-source project, I think all these questions have clearer answers

Sorry, I realise I'm out of this, but does this mean someone is asking the XSF to handle sponsorship for xmpp.js work, and that someone isn't xmpp.js? That seems a bit weird if so. ✏

Kev, yeeees. It's weird or not weird, depending on how you look at it. Maybe the plugin will or won't be upstreamed, but these people are not affiliated with xmpp.js maintainers as far as I am aware.

If it's all open-source, I don't think that's a real problem. They could just as easily fork xmpp.js with a click of a button if that's what it takes to get approved.

They're not applying as xmpp.js

I think it is pretty clear

They essentially want to do crowdfunding for a specific short-term project, and they want us to accept and hold the funds for them

Ok. Either we resolve this now by vote, or we need more discussion.

If we decide it needs more discussion we should identify what specific blocking points are, and communicate these to the applicants if necessary

I think I think it's just weird. But not necessarily bad weird.

Note that -1 is fine too, but I want to move on

dwd, MattJ, arc?

-1, as it currently stands. Given that it's not an established project, I think I want to see more details before we accept it as one.

I see Matt is typing furiously, so I'm waiting to see what he says...

Oh. Colour me surprised.

Ah, for some reason Gajim doesn't show me

I don't know how we communicate this feedback, but MattJ, given that you object, please take care of this. I know you're going away for a few days, but after that, if needed.

4. AOB

Any?

Yes, I can communicate with them next week

I have no decision in mind, but every objection I have really seems to be answered by Matt's comments. So I guess +1?

+1 from me btw

MattJ: if you send me your Open Collective account (if you have one) I can add you so you can communicate with them on there

+1

Shall do

Cool

5. Date of Next

+1W

6. Close

Thanks all!

Thanks all; I really appreciate you taking this on

Editor-ial question: What's the deal with https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html being Version 2.5rc3 ? (release candidate?)

don't ask me

2017 was before my time

(as editor)

Anyone happen to have a tool that compares a DOAP file with the latest XEP versions, highlighting which ones have been updated?

wurstsalat:

I think it would be great to render this as comparision between clients

Hello 500 character bash "one-liner"

I don't have that one-liner ;)

https://paste.debian.net/1216303/ split across 3 lines for the absolutely tiniest increase in readability