XSF Discussion - 2022-11-06

singpolyma, optimizing for bash/sh is not what we're aiming for, sorry. Using /bin/sh may in the future detract someone from an improvement or simplification, thinking that not using /bin/bash was a deliberate choice (e.g. because a CI image does not have bash) and would incur significant cost to change.

I sometimes have the feeling that if half the effort that goes into debating stuff in this channel would go into actually building stuff, we'd get more things done.

Thanks for the feedback on the scripts. I've applied most of it to the PR. I've got an hour or so until I need to leave. Let's see if I can get the remaining features in.

jonas’ : do you happen to know if with xpath, one can select a declaration (eg: the stylesheet declaration)?

Guus, easy to say when you agree with the majority. That to me is telling others to shut up. No thank you

Guus, prooobably not

Guus, oh, you can actually

the keyword is the `processing-instruction` node test

pep: I wasn't telling anyone to shut up. I was implying that people get things done rather than discuss getting things done.

jonas` oh, wow, I was already resorting to grep :)

All the same

so something like `//processing-instruction("xml-stylesheet")` is the best what you can do, I think, because you cannot match "attributes" on PIs (that's not a thing)

pep., now I would actually kindly ask you to stop berating people for getting things done, thanks. that is exactly the behaviour leading to volunteer burnout.

I don't think you mean ill, you just seem to be lacking context.

`$ xmllint --xpath '//processing-instruction("xml-stylesheet")' --nowarning --dtdvalid xep.dtd xep-0001.xml` `<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='xep.xsl'?>`

muwhahaah

Are you serious? I get "kindly" insulted and you turn on me?

I do not think anyone insulted you?

if you feel so, please discuss, I didn't see any insult against you

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother do join this room again

which is why your comment seemed uncalled for to me

if you see this differently, please explain, because then *I* am clearly missing something and I'd like to do better

My intent wasn't insult, my intent was to suggest to get things done differently..

from my perspective, Guus was alluding to the long discussion on e.g. the board ML or members ML on how to fix the editor situation, and if everyone instead invested the time spent in that particular discussion into hacking together shell scripts, we might as well have been done already.

If that offended you, I'm sorry - it was not the intent. Also: what jonas’ said.

To me it seems the XSF is willing to pay someone to fix the editor work flow. On a contract basis not on employment (that would be an unreasonable ask though) however to put out a call for contract work we need to define what contract work is actually required (as someone who does do contract work: nothing is worse than a customer who doesn't know what they want). And it seems like people are currently working on defining what work needs to be done

So everything is good and WIP

Almost got the PR in a state where I feel that the 'draft' status can be dropped, but my time ran out for this morning. Would appreciate more feedback (especially since one of the validation check implementation uses a _lot_ of duplication).

If someone else feels like taking this across the finishing line, please don't wait for me :)

MSavoritias (fae,ve), singpolyma: I think most of it is described and estinated in the respecitve issues from jonas

> MattJ: > 2022-11-05 11:47 (GMT+01:00) > Or if someone wants to perform the task of tracking someone down and getting contracts sorted, that would be a way forward too I can do that I can also start drafting things if you guide a bit and then.you can simply review

> emus: > MSavoritias (fae,ve), singpolyma: I think most of it is described and estinated in the respecitve issues from jonas It is yes.

> MattJ: > 2022-11-05 11:46 (GMT+01:00) > If someone in the community were to raise their hand and say that they have the skills and are available to implement this (voluntarily or at a reasonable rate) I don't see any reason we wouldn't take up that offer I think.Board should write that attempt to their members, and see if there is interest already

> pep.: > 2022-11-05 11:56 (GMT+01:00) > What I'm saying is I think this is the wrong way around. The XSF decides to get somebody on board and puts the word out, not the other way around. People aren't going to show up magically. > If you manage to do it yourselves, then great, just don't die on us please ^ this

For the recently closed issues jonas created on the Editor tooling, Georg was so kind and did an estimation of how much hours + the 40% extra I added on the issues required workload. Now they are closed and opened in new more detailed tasks ones. Now would like to call for someone with experience to tag the estimated workload and assumptions as it has been done here for example: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/1224 no reasoning required. All listings: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/labels/Editor%20Tooling

Do XEPs that have status 'Retracted' require an 'Approver'?

I would guess 'not', since it's something the Author does. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#states-Retracted

It's also a common occurrence in the published xeps, I think.