XSF Discussion - 2021-10-21

  1. jonas’

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

  2. jonas’

    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

  3. MattJ

    (I'm inclined to agree)

  4. MattJ

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

  5. Ge0rG

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

  6. flow

    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

  7. Holger

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

  8. Holger

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

  9. Holger


  10. Zash

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

  11. Holger

    Doesn't LMC reference one of the other IDs?

  12. Zash

    Aw 🙁

  13. arc

    Do we have a quorum today?

  14. Zash

    The recurring question

  15. arc


  16. arc

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

  17. Zash

    ping ralphm, MattJ and dwd?

  18. ralphm bangs gavel 0. Welcome Who do we have?

  19. ralphm


  20. arc


  21. Ellenor Malik

    Do board meetings have spectator seats?

  22. ralphm


  23. Kev

    You have one.

  24. ralphm

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

  25. ralphm

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

  26. ralphm

    MattJ and dwd, ping?

  27. dwd


  28. ralphm

    there we go

  29. ralphm

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

  30. ralphm

    Anything else we should discuss today?

  31. Sam

    also the pr following up on fiscal host criteria

  32. ralphm

    Thanks Sam

  33. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  34. arc

    Is it you this week?

  35. ralphm

    Could be. I'll take it

  36. ralphm

    2. Fiscal host criteria

  37. arc

    I think it was Matt last time

  38. ralphm


  39. MattJ


  40. ralphm

    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

  41. MattJ

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

  42. Kev

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

  43. ralphm

    Kev: cool. What's the right word?

  44. dwd

    There's no single word.

  45. Kev

    I'm not actually sure there is one.

  46. dwd

    Sponsor subject?

  47. Kev

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

  48. dwd

    That too.

  49. Sam

    sponsee is definitely a word

  50. ralphm

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

  51. ralphm moves to approve

  52. ralphm


  53. Kev

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

  54. dwd

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

  55. arc

    Leave it to the Brit to be a linguistic prescriptionist

  56. arc


  57. ralphm

    I could not care less by now

  58. ralphm

    MattJ: can you pick this up?

  59. ralphm

    also awaiting votes

  60. arc


  61. MattJ

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

  62. MattJ

    I'm away for the next few days at least

  63. dwd


  64. ralphm

    Motion carries.

  65. ralphm

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

  66. ralphm

    3. First applicant

  67. ralphm

    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.

  68. ralphm


  69. dwd

    I'm missing context, I'm afraid.

  70. ralphm

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

  71. MattJ

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

  72. Sam

    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.

  73. Sam

    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

  74. dwd

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

  75. Sam

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

  76. MattJ

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

  77. MattJ

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

  78. dwd

    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.

  79. MattJ

    It basically is

  80. MattJ

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

  81. dwd

    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.

  82. Sam

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

  83. MattJ

    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

  84. dwd

    Right, I get that.

  85. MattJ

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

  86. dwd

    Well, is that our problem?

  87. MattJ

    and who will be involved, etc.

  88. dwd

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

  89. Kev

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

  90. MattJ

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

  91. Kev

    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.

  92. MattJ

    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.

  93. MattJ

    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.

  94. MattJ

    They're not applying as xmpp.js

  95. arc

    I think it is pretty clear

  96. MattJ

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

  97. ralphm

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

  98. MattJ

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

  99. ralphm motions we approve the project Message Archive Management ( MAM ) plugin

  100. dwd

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

  101. ralphm

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

  102. ralphm

    dwd, MattJ, arc?

  103. MattJ

    -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.

  104. dwd

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

  105. dwd

    Oh. Colour me surprised.

  106. ralphm

    Ah, for some reason Gajim doesn't show me

  107. ralphm

    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.

  108. ralphm

    4. AOB

  109. ralphm


  110. MattJ

    Yes, I can communicate with them next week

  111. dwd

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

  112. arc

    +1 from me btw

  113. Sam

    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

  114. ralphm


  115. MattJ

    Shall do

  116. ralphm


  117. ralphm

    5. Date of Next

  118. ralphm


  119. ralphm

    6. Close

  120. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  121. ralphm bangs gavel

  122. Sam

    Thanks all; I really appreciate you taking this on

  123. Zash

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

  124. jonas’

    don't ask me

  125. jonas’

    2017 was before my time

  126. jonas’

    (as editor)

  127. Zash

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

  128. emus


  129. emus

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

  130. Zash

    Hello 500 character bash "one-liner"

  131. wurstsalat

    I don't have that one-liner ;)

  132. Zash

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