XSF Discussion - 2023-02-07

  1. emus has left

  2. Chad has left

  3. Chad has joined

  4. Kev has left

  5. pablo has joined

  6. stp has left

  7. lskdjf has left

  8. pablo has left

  9. djorz has left

  10. Kev has joined

  11. intosi has left

  12. intosi has joined

  13. singpolyma

    Look like that's mostly about presence specifically

  14. singpolyma

    I was gonna say e2ee might kill multicast anyway, but presence isn't going e2ee anytime soon

  15. gooya has left

  16. Skull Fucker has left

  17. marc0s has left

  18. marc0s has joined

  19. snow has left

  20. snow has joined

  21. Kev has left

  22. dell has left

  23. Maranda[x] has joined

  24. adiaholic has left

  25. adiaholic has joined

  26. karoshi has left

  27. Skull Fucker has joined

  28. tbm16 has joined

  29. zonsopkomst has left

  30. zonsopkomst has joined

  31. Axel has left

  32. snow has left

  33. brunrobe has left

  34. KitKat::new() has left

  35. Mjolnir Archon has left

  36. Maranda has left

  37. Maranda[x] has left

  38. Tobias has joined

  39. Link Mauve has joined

  40. snow has joined

  41. catchy has joined

  42. Tobias has left

  43. andrew has joined

  44. stp has joined

  45. *IM* has left

  46. raucao has left

  47. raucao has joined

  48. raucao has left

  49. raucao has joined

  50. stpeter has joined

  51. stp has left

  52. kurisu has joined

  53. antranigv has left

  54. moparisthebest

    Squeaky Latex Folf: so XMPP uses literally kilobytes more than it could with some changes? Hmm I wonder why no one cared lol

  55. antranigv has joined

  56. moparisthebest

    Oh, and it would only save any bandwidth at all with absolutely massive servers which are an antifeature we should be moving away from

  57. moparisthebest

    In my ideal utopia everyone in the world would have an XMPP address and no single server would have more than 10 users

  58. restive_monk has left

  59. restive_monk has joined

  60. antranigv has left

  61. stpeter has left

  62. Steve Kille has left

  63. Steve Kille has joined

  64. adiaholic has left

  65. adiaholic has joined

  66. Yagiza has joined

  67. Wojtek has left

  68. *IM* has joined

  69. Tobi has joined

  70. Tobias has joined

  71. L29Ah has left

  72. L29Ah has joined

  73. L29Ah has left

  74. L29Ah has joined

  75. Tobi has left

  76. Tobias has left

  77. *IM* has left

  78. bhavy has joined

  79. kurisu has left

  80. marc0s has left

  81. marc0s has joined

  82. adiaholic has left

  83. adiaholic has joined

  84. *IM* has joined

  85. Trung has joined

  86. adiaholic has left

  87. adiaholic has joined

  88. L29Ah has left

  89. intosi has left

  90. intosi has joined

  91. L29Ah has joined

  92. Kev has joined

  93. intosi has left

  94. intosi has joined

  95. david has joined

  96. david has left

  97. Axel has joined

  98. snow has left

  99. L29Ah has left

  100. L29Ah has joined

  101. Tobias has joined

  102. Tobi has joined

  103. Rebeld has left

  104. nicoco has joined

  105. projjalm has joined

  106. L29Ah has left

  107. L29Ah has joined

  108. Tobi has left

  109. resoli has joined

  110. L29Ah has left

  111. L29Ah has joined

  112. Tobias has left

  113. Mjolnir Archon has joined

  114. KitKat::new() has joined

  115. brunrobe has joined

  116. Mjolnir Archon has left

  117. KitKat::new() has left

  118. brunrobe has left

  119. L29Ah has left

  120. Tobi has joined

  121. Tobias has joined

  122. L29Ah has joined

  123. paul has joined

  124. adiaholic has left

  125. Axel Reimer has joined

  126. adiaholic has joined

  127. L29Ah has left

  128. kurisu has joined

  129. Tobias has left

  130. Tobias has joined

  131. Tobias has left

  132. Tobias has joined

  133. eevvoor has joined

  134. Menel has joined

  135. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has joined

  136. Mjolnir Archon has joined

  137. KitKat::new() has joined

  138. brunrobe has joined

  139. mirux has joined

  140. Maranda has joined

  141. Mjolnir Archon has left

  142. KitKat::new() has left

  143. brunrobe has left

  144. Maranda has left

  145. wurstsalat has joined

  146. Menel has left

  147. flow

    Squeaky Latex Folf, the critique is valid but misses the point that 1. the missing functionality did cause relevant issues for deployments and 2. it could be added retroactively if someone is willing to put in the effort. which will likely be the a big org which massively benefits from the improvments such a feature brings

  148. Kev has left

  149. Steve Kille has left

  150. resoli has left

  151. flow

    that said, multi-value to stanzs (potentially even with compressed domainpart) are probably a good candidate for something that would be nice if it where in core, as it seems to bring some benefit without much additional implementation complexity.

  152. Steve Kille has joined

  153. Menel has joined

  154. flow

    that said, multi-value 'to' attribute stanzs (potentially even with compressed domainpart) are probably a good candidate for something that would be nice if it where in core, as it seems to bring some benefit without much additional implementation complexity.

  155. flow

    that said, multi-value 'to'-attribute stanzs (potentially even with compressed domainpart) are probably a good candidate for something that would be nice if it where in core, as it seems to bring some benefit without much additional implementation complexity.

  156. Kev has joined

  157. Patiga has left

  158. Patiga has joined

  159. Guus

    Haven't read the article, but wanted to throw in that although XMPP core might not be optimized for lowest amount of data, there are XEPs that work towards this. FMUC comes to mind, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0289.html, as does EXI https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0322.xml

  160. atomicwatch has left

  161. flow

    most of the psyc critiques are valid. but I assume the lesson here that can be learned is that a community building on protoocl and implementations can be more successful than a small group (or just one individual) trying to achieve perfection

  162. flow

    of course, that does not mean that we shouldn't address protocol drawbacks when they cause issues

  163. ralphm

    See also minix

  164. flow

    doesn't drive minix intel's management engine?

  165. ralphm

    I mean the interaction Linus had with his professor.

  166. flow

    but yes, the situation is probably a bit comperable to the linux vs minix situation

  167. flow

    although, microkernels *are* a thing, even though they are not that visible, they are more widely used than it looks at first sight

  168. flow

    and I assume that is not the case for psyc, but maybe it is driving something I don't know about?

  169. ralphm

    I think when we get PAM (or similar) stuff going, servers could optimize subscriptions there. "I'm subscribing for this server"

  170. ralphm

    Without actually having to sync the local list of subscribers. The room would still have the list of members of course.

  171. jcbrand has joined

  172. ralphm

    Kind of like how ikDisplay (the thing I use to protect the Twitter stream at FOSDEM) works. It has the concept of feeds (e.g. "fosdem") which each specify which keywords and accounts they want to subscribe to. The aggregator then opens a single connection to the Twitter streaming API with the union of keywords and accounts, and then demultiplexing the items as they come in.

  173. Half-Shot has left

  174. Matthew has left

  175. uhoreg has left

  176. homebeach has left

  177. Half-Shot has joined

  178. Matthew has joined

  179. homebeach has joined

  180. uhoreg has joined

  181. Mikaela has left

  182. atomicwatch has joined

  183. Mikaela has joined

  184. krauq has left

  185. krauq has joined

  186. Daniel has left

  187. Daniel has joined

  188. Titi has joined

  189. emus has joined

  190. marc0s has left

  191. marc0s has joined

  192. Squeaky Latex Folf

    What do you mean with PAM? Pluggable Authentication Modules is all I can think about

  193. bhavy has left

  194. marc0s has left

  195. marc0s has joined

  196. adiaholic has left

  197. chipmnk has joined

  198. adiaholic has joined

  199. jabberjocke has joined

  200. jabberjocke has left

  201. djorz has joined

  202. LNJ has joined

  203. neox has joined

  204. adiaholic has left

  205. adiaholic has joined

  206. Alex has joined

  207. Menel has left

  208. Daniel

    Squeaky Latex Folf: xep376

  209. Menel has joined

  210. deimos has left

  211. deimos has joined

  212. atomicwatch has left

  213. projjalm has left

  214. dell has joined

  215. krauq has left

  216. krauq has joined

  217. arcxi has left

  218. arcxi has joined

  219. petrescatraian has left

  220. Chad has left

  221. petrescatraian has joined

  222. djorz has left

  223. atomicwatch has joined

  224. adiaholic has left

  225. marc0s has left

  226. marc0s has joined

  227. SteveF has joined

  228. Mario Sabatino has joined

  229. gooya has joined

  230. Martin has joined

  231. SteveF has left

  232. SteveF has joined

  233. adiaholic has joined

  234. Patiga has left

  235. ralphm

    By the way, something I thought about last night concerning collations: messages in threads will also have their own, right?

  236. Andrzej has joined

  237. Andrzej has left

  238. LNJ has left

  239. Andrzej has joined

  240. Titi has left

  241. Andrzej has left

  242. Andrzej has joined

  243. LNJ has joined

  244. sonny has left

  245. KitKat::new() has joined

  246. lskdjf has joined

  247. sonny has joined

  248. Seve has left

  249. Seve has joined

  250. brunrobe has joined

  251. praveen has joined

  252. Andrzej has left

  253. Zash has left

  254. stp has joined

  255. Andrzej has joined

  256. eevvoor has left

  257. praveen has left

  258. praveen has joined

  259. Zash has joined

  260. dell has left

  261. dell has joined

  262. dell has left

  263. eevvoor has joined

  264. Mjolnir Archon has joined

  265. Maranda has joined

  266. Andrzej has left

  267. Dele Olajide has joined

  268. Andrzej has joined

  269. Andrzej has left

  270. intosi has left

  271. stp has left

  272. intosi has joined

  273. Steve Kille has left

  274. Steve Kille has joined

  275. karoshi has joined

  276. Trung has left

  277. Trung has joined

  278. intosi has left

  279. intosi has joined

  280. Menel has left

  281. Menel has joined

  282. adiaholic has left

  283. adiaholic has joined

  284. Menel has left

  285. flashcore has left

  286. Andrzej has joined

  287. Andrzej has left

  288. intosi has left

  289. intosi has joined

  290. Maxence has left

  291. Maxence has joined

  292. Menel has joined

  293. adiaholic has left

  294. Patiga has joined

  295. adiaholic has joined

  296. Chad has joined

  297. MattJ

    I was thinking we could just get away with a filter for threads

  298. atomicwatch has left

  299. Patiga has left

  300. Patiga has joined

  301. atomicwatch has joined

  302. atomicwatch has left

  303. resoli has joined

  304. adiaholic has left

  305. Andrzej has joined

  306. adiaholic has joined

  307. intosi has left

  308. intosi has joined

  309. Trung has left

  310. Trung has joined

  311. Kev

    Each message in the thread could have reactions though, as normal, I think?

  312. Kev

    I assumed that's what Ralph meant.

  313. antranigv has joined

  314. MattJ

    Oh, sure, they're just normal messages

  315. asterix has left

  316. asterix has joined

  317. Vaulor has left

  318. Vaulor has joined

  319. eevvoor has left

  320. papatutuwawa has joined

  321. eevvoor has joined

  322. xnamed has left

  323. kurisu has left

  324. atomicwatch has joined

  325. atomicwatch has left

  326. atomicwatch has joined

  327. atomicwatch has left

  328. atomicwatch has joined

  329. atomicwatch has left

  330. eevvoor has left

  331. eevvoor has joined

  332. atomicwatch has joined

  333. atomicwatch has left

  334. SteveF has left

  335. flashcore has joined

  336. atomicwatch has joined

  337. atomicwatch has left

  338. atomicwatch has joined

  339. atomicwatch has left

  340. Andrzej has left

  341. Andrzej has joined

  342. adiaholic has left

  343. atomicwatch has joined

  344. atomicwatch has left

  345. adiaholic has joined

  346. praveen has left

  347. praveen has joined

  348. Andrzej has left

  349. atomicwatch has joined

  350. atomicwatch has left

  351. SteveF has joined

  352. sonny has left

  353. wladmis has left

  354. wladmis has joined

  355. millesimus has left

  356. sonny has joined

  357. atomicwatch has joined

  358. atomicwatch has left

  359. Titi has joined

  360. xnamed has joined

  361. millesimus has joined

  362. goffi has joined

  363. praveen has left

  364. *IM* has left

  365. millesimus has left

  366. millesimus has joined

  367. atomicwatch has joined

  368. atomicwatch has left

  369. *IM* has joined

  370. bhavy has joined

  371. atomicwatch has joined

  372. atomicwatch has left

  373. Titi has left

  374. intosi has left

  375. intosi has joined

  376. millesimus has left

  377. Titi has joined

  378. millesimus has joined

  379. atomicwatch has joined

  380. atomicwatch has left

  381. Vaulor has left

  382. Vaulor has joined

  383. atomicwatch has joined

  384. atomicwatch has left

  385. paul has left

  386. paul has joined

  387. bhavy has left

  388. bhavy has joined

  389. Seve has left

  390. restive_monk has left

  391. restive_monk has joined

  392. Ingolf has left

  393. L29Ah has joined

  394. restive_monk has left

  395. jgart has left

  396. arc has joined

  397. restive_monk has joined

  398. Seve has joined

  399. resoli has left

  400. singpolyma

    Hello everyone. Now that's I won't be directly overlapping with discussion of another event, I would like to bring up that I really want to submit a proposal to FOSSY to do a one day XMPP track. If you haven't seen it yet, FOSSY is basically an attempt to start a FOSDEM class event in USA in the summer, organized by software freedom conservancy. I'm interested to know if XMPPeople, especially those this side of the water, would be interested in participating in, speaking at, or helping organize such a one day track event.

  401. singpolyma

    The event organizers are *very* disease consious and I expect this to be the safest event anywhere this year or next, which is why I'm considering to go myself, though I understand if others aren't up for that of course.

  402. Vaulor has left

  403. Zash

    Sounds like a great initiative. Maybe suitable for resurrecting the other-side-of-the-pond Summit even

  404. Guus

    (what he said)

  405. atomicwatch has joined

  406. atomicwatch has left

  407. ralphm

    Kev: yes, that's what I meant.

  408. kurisu has joined

  409. govanify has left

  410. praveen has joined

  411. Guus

    Took me a while to find what FOSSY is :) https://sfconservancy.org/fossy/

  412. ralphm

    I definitely would like to do a North American summit this year. There was a suggestion in Brussels for it to be in Canada, I believe.

  413. *IM* has left

  414. Ingolf has joined

  415. Ge0rG

    Where's that? 😁

  416. Daniel

    Canada is probably easier to travel to than the US

  417. Guus

    Unlikely to be true for most US citizens though.

  418. ralphm

    It had to do with some active Canadian XMPP projects.

  419. Zash

    ralphm, that would be singpolyma & co :)

  420. Ge0rG

    There is a Canada in Kentucky and another one in Kansas.

  421. Guus leaves. (not maple).

  422. ralphm

    There's an America in The Netherlands, so there's that.

  423. atomicwatch has joined

  424. atomicwatch has left

  425. Tobi_ has joined

  426. ralphm

    Anyway, I'd be happy to help organize a North American summit in general.

  427. Vaulor has joined

  428. ralphm

    However, if there are restrictions like obligatory masking or presenting proof of certain vaccinations, I will likely not participate.

  429. Menel has left

  430. Daniel

    Isn't proof of vaccination a thing anymore on a country wide level?

  431. atomicwatch has joined

  432. atomicwatch has left

  433. singpolyma

    Yeah, if people wanted to organize a summit alongside this because people were preset anyway, that might make sense. I can't promise I'd be involved in that as well, and if the goal is to include European representation more easily than eastern Canada vs Western US is probably a thing I dunno

  434. Rebeld has joined

  435. BASSGOD has left

  436. ralphm

    Daniel: I don't know, singpolyma mentioned them being “*very* disease conscious”. I've seen e.g. PyCon US having a masking mandate, even though the CDC doesn't recommend that any more. Not going there.

  437. Mikaela has left

  438. Daniel

    Just checked Canada (for example) doesn't have any restrictions anymore

  439. ralphm

    singpolyma: I don't mind the form per se. We've previously done NA Summits co-located with OSCon and later RealtimeConf.

  440. singpolyma

    Oh yeah, fossy is likely to have a strong mask presence. Otherwise I'd never be able to go :)

  441. ralphm

    Daniel: my point is that the event might still

  442. Menel has joined

  443. ralphm

    singpolyma: sure, we've seen people masking at FOSDEM, too. As long as it is a choice, people need to do what they need to do.

  444. Daniel

    Yes. I was just curious about nation wide restrictions. Simply because I hadn't checked for the last couple of months

  445. singpolyma

    ralphm: some people will always choose to do evil. Can't stop them I guess

  446. jonas’

    like not masking at mass events?

  447. ralphm

    singpolyma: for sure. It is not clear to me, though, what qualifies as evil these days.

  448. singpolyma

    Anyway, I think we're impsossibly off topic now :)

  449. atomicwatch has joined

  450. atomicwatch has left

  451. jonas’

    are we?

  452. jonas’

    I think rules for XSF events are perfectly on-topic

  453. ralphm


  454. ralphm

    Also, note that I didn't say "we can't do it then". I said "I will likely not participate".

  455. singpolyma

    Oh sure, I'm not going to be able to participate in any "xsf event" (clearly) so I guess it felt off topic vs what I was bringing up

  456. Mikaela has joined

  457. ralphm

    singpolyma: that was not clear to me. If your participation depends on other people masking or being vaccinated in some way, then maybe that's the case.

  458. ralphm

    But I didn't say there can't be an event with such restrictions.

  459. MattJ

    FWIW the IETF meeting in London was mandatory FFP2 masks, which I complied with. It was my first big event for years, and I understood why the requirement was there and took some comfort that they were trying (masks have not been a thing in the UK for some time). I have to say that it definitely gave me a negative experience at the event, and when I got home I had a positive COVID test.

  460. MattJ

    Like most, I did not mask at FOSDEM (though I was prepared to), and so far I'm free of even the FOSDEM flu...

  461. Zash

    If there are agreed upon rules or recommendations, following them or staying home seems sensible.

  462. Zash

    MattJ, did you just jinx it? :)

  463. ralphm

    Zash: to me those are the only two options

  464. Daniel

    A dedicated Summit is likely not a 'mass event' in the sense that FOSDEM is one (or ietf even)

  465. ralphm

    No, but I'm sure the Ibis climate "control" didn't do anyone any good.

  466. Daniel

    every restaurant has more people in at then the conference room at summit

  467. pep.

    "MattJ> Like most, I did not mask at FOSDEM (though I was prepared to), and so far I'm free of even the FOSDEM flu..." < that's certainly not because you haven't worn a mask though. That's most likely luck :P

  468. pep.


  469. MattJ

    Sure, like it was bad luck that I got COVID from IETF despite full mask requirements

  470. pep.

    (worn? worn.)

  471. MattJ

    I'm not really trying to make a point about anything really... except from my personal experience, my personal choice would be to avoid large gatherings (masked or not) if I really didn't want to risk getting ill, and that if I'm faced with the option of attending an event with mandatory masks again I'd certainly take that into account before choosing to attend

  472. Andrzej has joined

  473. MattJ

    I'm glad I went to the IETF meeting, but it wasn't an enjoyable experience

  474. pep.

    I do think that people getting ill easily shouldn't be excluded though, and that we should be mindful of them

  475. Andrzej has left

  476. jonas’

    pep., you mean "people getting ill easily" in the sense of people particularly vulnerable to infections?

  477. MattJ

    Funny to be having this conversation *after* we just had a large event, but... yeah :)

  478. pep.

    MattJ, agreed

  479. raucao has left

  480. raucao has joined

  481. bhavy has left

  482. pep.

    jonas’, yeah for example, immunodepressed people, this group of people is the must obvious one I'm talking about but there's a nebulous crowd around that isn't labelled which is also vulnerable, or prefers taking steps in protecting themselves and those around them. And they won't manage if they're the only ones caring

  483. jonas’

    fair, though at least those affected I know would rule out attending an event like FOSDEM or IETF even with masks, because those are simply not effective enough.

  484. karoshi has left

  485. pep.

    Yeah, and these choices prevent them from going

  486. adiaholic has left

  487. jonas’

    I don't follow?

  488. Menel has left

  489. pep.

    Well packing officially-5k people in a small building (such as FOSDEM has always done), with no sanitary restriction, surely prevents them from going if they care a little

  490. adiaholic has joined

  491. jonas’

    my point was even *with* restrictions those I know wouldn't attend

  492. Daniel

    that has been the case pre-2020 too, no?

  493. Menel has joined

  494. jonas’

    but I might know rather extreme cases, granted

  495. singpolyma has left

  496. pep.

    Daniel, yeah FOSDEM has always been packed wayy beyond their official limit :/

  497. singpolyma has joined

  498. jonas’

    Daniel, that doesn't mean that that wasn't a problem

  499. ralphm

    pep.: I totally get the concern for people with compromised immune systems. I also have the same feeling as MattJ.

  500. ralphm

    FOSDEM was a lot less crowded this year, though.

  501. Zash

    Especially the second day

  502. Zash

    Isn't all this why there hasn't been a FOSDEM for 2-3 years?

  503. pep.

    So yeah.. "You can wear a mask if you want it's your choice", "maybe, but it's not enough if I'm the only one caring"

  504. karoshi has joined

  505. MattJ

    Someone pointed out to me privately that my anecdote may be interpreted as me saying that masks increase the chance of infection, I just want to make clear that this was not the case - a sample size of 1 is unable to lead to any such conclusion (in case there was any doubt)

  506. ralphm

    pep.: I am afraid there is no right answer.

  507. pep.

    There's the "we care" or "we care less" answer :P

  508. singpolyma

    Big, ventilated spaces, adequate filtration, use of real masks, outdoor meals, etc. It's all grade, it's not a black and white do x or not situation

  509. ralphm

    pep.: what? This isn't boolean.

  510. pep.

    ralphm, no there's also "we don't care at all"!

  511. singpolyma

    Though certainly there are do nothing situations like FOSDEM vs do anything which I guess is basically Boolean

  512. MattJ


  513. singpolyma

    MattJ: indeed

  514. Zash

    So, yeah, XMPP Event Things in America would be Good

  515. MattJ

    This event exists, it has policies, if that makes some people want to attend and others not to attend, that's fine (just as FOSDEM's policies did the same)

  516. Zash

    And we did briefly talk about resurrecting the Summit there

  517. ralphm

    I only found https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jan/31/fossy-call-for-tracks/ with some more information, but haven't found the actual policies.

  518. MattJ

    I'll probably not attend, but mainly for other reasons (I probably used up most of my travel budget for the year... the financial and energy kind), I find travel exhausting and it would take a lot to entice me to the US

  519. ralphm

    Oh, and also, this is more like a devroom than a summit.

  520. singpolyma

    Yes. Basically a devroom

  521. Zash

    > We are also mindful of having a safe environment for all. In this new time of conferences, we will be focused on COVID safety and making sure all attendees feel safe participating as much as they feel comfortable ( *we will have a detailed policy published in the coming weeks* ). on https://sfconservancy.org/fossy/ seems to be the words so far (em mine)

  522. ralphm

    We've also, separately, talked about a non-summit conference like thing, but maybe 2024 is a nice year for that.

  523. ralphm


  524. Steve Kille has left

  525. singpolyma

    MattJ: that totally makes sense. While it would be great to have you there of course, if we have to count in the same people flying to every event it's not a good strategy for sure

  526. Steve Kille has joined

  527. singpolyma

    If anyone *is* interested, especially in giving a talk, I can probably find some travel budget if that's an obstacle to someone

  528. Zash

    Having something for those who have trouble attending a FOSDEM-attached Summit sure would be great.

  529. Zash

    Suppose that's why IETF cycles between America, Europe and Asia

  530. BASSGOD has joined

  531. pep.

    It would be great if the XSF was a bit less Europe centric yeah. Funny how the legal entity itself is still US-based.

  532. karoshi has left

  533. singpolyma

    Yeah, if this event works out as is hoped and there can be an XMPP track in the first year of it, I don't see why there wouldn't be an annual presence there, which is good for all the same reasons the presence at FOSDEM is good

  534. singpolyma

    That's my hope and goal with this

  535. singpolyma

    I don't know how much space they have or how many proposals they'll get, but I have a decent hope if making a good application

  536. singpolyma

    I don't know how much space they have or how many proposals they'll get, but I have a decent hope of making a good application

  537. karoshi has joined

  538. singpolyma

    (well, I know the space is "a lot" by reputation)

  539. Andrzej has joined

  540. atomicwatch has joined

  541. atomicwatch has left

  542. atomicwatch has joined

  543. moparisthebest

    If there's going to be an XMPP thing there I'll go

  544. moparisthebest

    Re: travel restrictions to USA from outside I'm pretty sure they've all been lifted now Daniel

  545. Andrzej has left

  546. Guus

    While we have many of the usual suspects here: at the summit, there was talk of (and I'm paraphrasing): "If it wants XMPP to be perceived as remaining relevant/modern, the XSF should do X". This was around MattJ talking about his experiences at the recent IETF meeting. Is "doing X" on anyone's agenda?

  547. moparisthebest

    What were the values of X

  548. Zash

    eXtending and Modernising the Protocol Properly?

  549. dell has joined

  550. Guus

    IETF's MIMI, I think.

  551. Guus

    but that might not cover everything.

  552. Zash

    Don't you worry about _blank_, let me worry about _blank_!

  553. singpolyma has left

  554. singpolyma has joined

  555. Tobi_ has left

  556. singpolyma has left

  557. singpolyma has joined

  558. PeterW has joined

  559. Ingolf has left

  560. *IM* has joined

  561. Wojtek has joined

  562. marc0s has left

  563. marc0s has joined

  564. sonny has left

  565. intosi has left

  566. ralphm

    We've discussed a few things in that direction. One is definitely doing MLS.

  567. intosi has joined

  568. Zash

    Yeah, We Should™ do MLS, going to be rough now to compete with the Good Enough® of OldMEMO

  569. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    funny how tech people think the companies will listen for sure this time with MIMI and you are missing out XD

  570. praveen has left

  571. Kev

    > funny how tech people think the companies will listen for sure this time with MIMI and you are missing out XD That was very much not the tone at the Summmit.

  572. praveen has joined

  573. PeterW has left

  574. Zash

    None of them are actually involved in MIMI as far as I'm aware, so there's the distinct risk that they'll just ignore it and do their own APIs

  575. ralphm

    Another was a more involved effort that coincided with discussions on EU legislation on interoperability and the requirement to use open standards in government in EU countries. I have spoken to several people at FOSDEM that have way more involvement with people on the non-technical side of the discussion. I am working with MattJ to come up with a plan to attack that together with such people, so we can get at the right tables. As a community that will mean we have to get really serious about compliance suites, explaining why XMPP is the right (only?) choice, and likely act as a financial host for funding work to do all that.

  576. MattJ

    Guus: there are various values of X, and each is being tackled by one or more people

  577. ralphm

    MSavoritias (fae,ve): these efforts don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is good that MIMI exists as an effort. Nobody can say how effective it will be.

  578. praveen has left

  579. praveen has joined

  580. jgart has joined

  581. Ingolf has joined

  582. ralphm

    We've also discussed, at length, the related topics of MIX and IM-NG. I'm not sure how to succinctly capture the outcome of that, but in any case several people have indicated that they'll restart their MIX efforts.

  583. Guus

    Thank you.

  584. ralphm

    Zash: I'm not sure why MLS would be a hard sell if it actually works. Because not my experience with OMEMO. I understand that the people who wanted to get together to discuss OMEMO last week had issues reading OMEMO encrypted messages.

  585. PeterW has joined

  586. Menel has left

  587. Zash

    ralphm, why I said "good enough", it's not perfect but it does work and is deployed already, so there's going to be some friction to replace it.

  588. Zash

    we're going to have so much experience replacing e2ee layers! :D

  589. Daniel

    Spec wise omemo 2 is a worthy upgrade to omemo 1 that I'm sure will happen eventually. If MLS comes around fast enough one possible future would be to not do omemo2 and instead do omemo over MLS

  590. Daniel

    I think we've learned a lot from spec-ing omemo 2 and deploying omemo 1 that can be applied to MLS

  591. jgart has left

  592. Zash

    I idle on the MLS mailing list, I'd recommend you and others here do too

  593. Menel has joined

  594. ralphm

    Zash: generally agree but so far OMEMO is not good enough. Whether that's because of implementations or the specifications doesn't matter. I explicitly disable it everywhere to make sure I can read all messages people try to send me. And I'm tech savvy.

  595. Daniel

    There are certainly complications around OMEMO and MLS is not going to be a magic bullet for a lot of them

  596. ralphm


  597. intosi has left

  598. intosi has joined

  599. Daniel

    We have omemo deployed to a few million users who are the opposite of tech savvy

  600. MattJ

    I feel like MLS might allow us to clean up a lot of edge cases though. For example, the specific details of how to do OMEMO in MUC aren't really documented cleanly anywhere IIRC?

  601. Daniel

    Obviously without any manual trust management whatsoever

  602. jgart has joined

  603. Daniel

    MattJ: yes and no. Omemo 2 explains a lot more on that topic then omemo 1 did

  604. Daniel

    But proper group ratcheting (in MLS) is obviously better

  605. restive_monk has left

  606. ralphm

    I think the biggest issue is with users with multiple devices.

  607. moparisthebest

    And why are people trying to resurrect MIX now that MUC is pretty much fixed?

  608. restive_monk has joined

  609. Zash

    Yeah, and techy users are more likely to have multiple devices.

  610. ralphm

    Because it isn't.

  611. moparisthebest

    I have multiple devices, always have, and OMEMO is fine

  612. PeterW has left

  613. moparisthebest

    MUC is fine, MIX will never go anywhere until it's backwards compatible with MUC and doesn't require a network wide flag day

  614. Zash

    And _we here_ are more likely to have clients from the pre-OMEMO world, which gets messy and annoying.

  615. PeterW has joined

  616. moparisthebest

    imho MIX doesn't bring enough advantages over MUC to even expend any effort on, but that's simply my opinion and is trumped by never being deployable on the public federated network without a flag day, it's utterly useless for that while it's still the case

  617. PeterW has left

  618. Daniel

    Not all xmpp deployments are on the open network (or care about the open network) and I think _if xmpp wants to be successful_ we need to be attrictive for closed systems too

  619. MattJ

    moparisthebest, generally I agree with you, but the discussion at the summit covered various nuances

  620. moparisthebest

    Right, mix may be useful for closed systems, people do implement them can and will do it themselves, I only care about the public federated network

  621. moparisthebest

    Right, mix may be useful for closed systems, people who implement them can and will do it themselves, I only care about the public federated network

  622. MattJ

    In particular, multiple people saying they have implemented MIX and preferred it was enough to make me give it another chance

  623. Daniel

    More attractive even. Because on closed systems we compete with matrix and/or home brewed solutions

  624. MattJ

    Also Kev's promise that the spec is open to changes if that becomes a barrier

  625. MattJ

    Also, that the only way I will ever do this in Prosody is in a backwards-compatible way with MUC

  626. moparisthebest

    Honestly I don't care if closed systems use matrix or mqtt or something homebrewed, that's their bed and they can lie in it

  627. Zash

    MIX protocol implementation on top of our existing MUC code seems plausible thing we could do

  628. moparisthebest

    MattJ: excellent I'm fully on board with that

  629. Zash

    I'm not ready yet to rewrite MUC, since we had a partial rewrite not too many versions ago.

  630. Daniel

    moparisthebest: closed systems can still bring value (money, human resources, knowledge) into the federated system

  631. MattJ

    Basically "MattJ killed MIX" was the summary of what went into the summit notepad, and I'm not prepared to be one person stubbornly driving the direction of the ecosystem if other people are telling me that MIX is absolutely better

  632. Kev

    Closed doesn't mean 'not federated', FWIW.

  633. Zash

    moparisthebest, even with closed systems you sometimes realize you want some limited federation, which XMPP is good at

  634. Daniel

    Basically all my commercial customers are closed systems. And if it weren't for them I might not be able to participate in the XSF like I do now

  635. Kev

    There are non-Internet federated networks of XMPP.

  636. MattJ

    Kev, then substitute "closed" with "not federated"

  637. MattJ

    in this discussion, because you know what's what we mean :)

  638. Daniel

    > Closed doesn't mean 'not federated', FWIW. Yes. It's just lacking a proper word for that

  639. MattJ

    or the other way around, since I guess that was your point

  640. moparisthebest

    Here's what I'm 100% opposed to: the already small MUC ecosystem being split into some MUC some MIX where clients (or worse in the MIX case, servers) supporting one or the other can't communicate

  641. Titi has left

  642. moparisthebest

    > Closed doesn't mean 'not federated', FWIW. Right and that's why I said I only care about the *public* federated network

  643. MattJ

    moparisthebest, yes, I absolutely agree with that. Which is why I will *only* implement MIX in Prosody if we maintain MUC compatibility. I've never tried to implement MIX standalone, and I don't intend to do that.

  644. MattJ

    I am pretty sure that a standalone MIX implementation would be pretty straightforward

  645. Ingolf has left

  646. moparisthebest

    Right, I have no problem with that

  647. Daniel

    I agree with that. Still a I think we should consider offering an attractive standard to those who don't care about backwards compatibility

  648. Ingolf has joined

  649. Maranda[x] has joined

  650. moparisthebest

    Sure, just not at the cost of splitting the public federated muc ecosystem

  651. Daniel

    We are a standards body. Not a publicly federated IM club

  652. MattJ

    Daniel, if someone wanted to sponsor that in Prosody (and I/Zash/whoever had nothing better to do) then yeah, sure

  653. MattJ

    But my personal priority is working on stuff that is also going to benefit the network, while having multiple competing incompatible protocols may harm it

  654. MattJ

    (there are already MIX-only clients, for example)

  655. moparisthebest

    Right, and some people here are employed mainly by creating private systems, and some are volunteers that only interact with the public federated network, it's normal and fine that they have different priorities, I'm just stating mine

  656. Daniel

    Yes my personal interested and priorities are obviously with the open network. I was just wearing my council hat for a second

  657. moparisthebest

    Yes, and council hat on I'm impartial too, but with it off I'm super opposed to anything that will cause: > Here's what I'm 100% opposed to: the already small MUC ecosystem being split into some MUC some MIX where clients (or worse in the MIX case, servers) supporting one or the other can't communicate

  658. moparisthebest

    If that can be fixed, and MIX still brings worthwhile improvements, count me in

  659. PeterW has joined

  660. MattJ

    So where things stand from my perspective: I'm going to try again (or convince Someone Else™ to), and provide feedback if anything in the specs becomes an obstacle

  661. MattJ

    Because I guess in the past I felt the specs were less flexible than the summit discussions have encouraged me to believe

  662. Daniel

    The question to me is not "can muc be fixed" (it can) the question is do I want to explain to need for occupant id and schrodingers muc in a 60 minute intro talk to xmpp

  663. moparisthebest

    As is here's my main argument against MIX: It requires the client's server to support MIX too right? If it needs that, why not just have the client's server be a MUC bouncer and you are done? (Clients could even talk to their muc bouncer with a mix like protocol) But then rooms are still MUCs, and individual servers can enable this new plugin/protocol as they see fit

  664. Daniel

    The question to me is not "can muc be fixed" (it can) the question is do I want to explain the need for occupant id and schrodingers muc in a 60 minute intro talk to xmpp

  665. MattJ

    moparisthebest, apparently there are provisions now in the spec for the user's server not supporting it

  666. MattJ

    It's more ugly for the client, but apparently can still work

  667. Zash

    Daniel, do you think MIX solves all that and if we use it for the next 20 years, we won't end up with as many edge case tweaks and fixes?

  668. moparisthebest

    Ok well that's one absolutely major blocker out of the way

  669. PeterW has left

  670. Daniel

    > Daniel, do you think MIX solves all that and if we use it for the next 20 years, we won't end up with as many edge case tweaks and fixes? I'm at least ready to continue exploring the possibility

  671. marc0s has left

  672. marc0s has joined

  673. PeterW has joined

  674. petrescatraian has left

  675. flow

    Zash, we certainly will discover edge cases in mix and thinks that where not considered. but the approach that MIX takes on group chats is clearly superious to the MUC approach from an architectural point of view. my hopes would also be that this also results in less edge cases and fixing.

  676. projjalm has joined

  677. petrescatraian has joined

  678. gooya has left

  679. jonas’

    ("edge cases" such as s2s interruptions)

  680. Dele Olajide has left

  681. flow

    note that I am talking about the MIX aproach and not MIX as it is right now. I feel like MIX is probalby still a bit bloated (at least from the spec side of things). Ideally we would define a minimal set of features that are absolutely neccessary for a groupchat and build from there

  682. paul has left

  683. paul has joined

  684. moparisthebest

    "clearly superior" isn't the only benchmark though, is it advantageous enough to justify the effort once you account for everything including backwards compatibility etc etc

  685. PeterW has left

  686. moparisthebest

    100% to flow's last message

  687. govanify has joined

  688. PeterW has joined

  689. flow

    moparisthebest, yes, that is what I tried to express. mix has the better techonolgical architecture compared to muc, but that alone is no enough to get market adaption (think "vhs vs. betamax")

  690. Daniel

    I guess we will see. It will either be a sasl2 situation where nothing happens for years and then suddenly over night everyone implements it - or it won't

  691. restive_monk has left

  692. flow

    moparisthebest, yes, that is what I tried to express. mix has the better techonolgical architecture compared to muc, but that alone is not enough to get market adaption (think "vhs vs. betamax")

  693. PeterW has left

  694. flow

    usually if people ask if they should invest in fixing muc or working on mix, I say "why not both?" :)

  695. adiaholic has left

  696. adiaholic has joined

  697. restive_monk has joined

  698. Seve has left

  699. snow has joined

  700. atomicwatch has left

  701. Wojtek has left

  702. atomicwatch has joined

  703. intosi has left

  704. intosi has joined

  705. Wojtek has joined

  706. bhavy has joined

  707. bung has joined

  708. resoli has joined

  709. atomicwatch has left

  710. Seve has joined

  711. resoli has left

  712. dell has left

  713. marc0s has left

  714. marc0s has joined

  715. bung has left

  716. moparisthebest

    Because that's more work ;)

  717. Guus

    > Because that's more work ;) The contractor in me is delighted.

  718. *IM* has left

  719. *IM* has joined

  720. SteveF has left

  721. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    we shouldnt be scared of trying new things. I am glad at least I see a lot of voices willing to try new things here without being overly stuck in their ways :)

  722. Tobias has left

  723. Tobias has joined

  724. moparisthebest

    We should be afraid of trying new things if it's going to fragment the public federated network though, that's my only point

  725. bhavy has left

  726. moparisthebest

    Matrix is a good example of "trying a new thing" that did this

  727. Maranda[x] has left

  728. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    I agree. Just that as with everything there is a balance :) Be afraid too much and you end up being stuck and then nobody wants to get involved

  729. Maranda[x] has joined

  730. moparisthebest


  731. Tobias has left

  732. Tobias has joined

  733. Tobias has left

  734. resoli has joined

  735. Tobias has joined

  736. Tobias has left

  737. Tobias has joined

  738. Tobias has left

  739. sonny has joined

  740. Tobi has left

  741. Tobi has joined

  742. Tobias has joined

  743. flow

    you can't really prevent such kind of fragmentation as you can't forbid people from working on what they want

  744. djorz has joined

  745. Tobias has left

  746. Tobias has joined

  747. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    also true

  748. flow

    so since it is a given, it may be better to think of ways with dealing with such fragmentation

  749. gooya has joined

  750. Tobias has left

  751. Tobias has joined

  752. adiaholic has left

  753. Tobias has left

  754. Tobias has joined

  755. adiaholic has joined

  756. Tobias has left

  757. Tobias has joined

  758. tbm16 has left

  759. Tobias has left

  760. Tobias has joined

  761. Wojtek has left

  762. Wojtek has joined

  763. jgart has left

  764. ralphm

    I was speaking to Saul (of Jitsi fame) and he mentioned that one of the biggest issues in their use of XMPP for multi-user conferencing is all the presences being exchanged. Of course they can choose to not broadcast it, but from the protocol perspective that's a workaround. This is just one of the things that MIX aims to address, and of course MUC could be retrofitted to do that. In my and other's experience, though, MIX solves this in a lot cleaner way. Yes we need MUC compat at least for a while, and yes closed environments make it a lot easier to choose to do MIX only. What we discussed was do both: see how well we can implement MIX, likely with backwards compat support on servers, *and* see what improvements we can do to MUC itself. One concrete example is explicit, persistent room joins that do not depend on presence.

  765. papatutuwawa has left

  766. ralphm

    As with other protocols before this (pubsub, disco, signaling) we'll see what will win out in the end. We may be able to secure funding for certain developments in the community (as I wrote above), too.

  767. flow

    to be frank, I always wondered why jitsi uses xmpp and not some other pubsub service (like kafka). but this can probably asked for everyting that is build on MUC where the participants are more machines and not really humans (or at least humans not aware that they are also in a MUC)

  768. Zash

    flow, remember how Jitsi (Desktop) was a regular XMPP (and SIP) client with calls and stuff?

  769. flow

    that said, jitsi contributes back to smack, so I really would miss them

  770. Zash

    I'd assume it's a case of already having familiarity with the stack and it doing the job

  771. massivebox has left

  772. flow

    Zash, sure

  773. ralphm

    flow: I don't understand what internal messaging has to do with Jitsi's external signaling and chat implementation.

  774. flow

    Of course I was hoping of an answer like "XMPP provides this unique feature that no one else has"

  775. MattJ

    ralphm, I don't get why disabling presences in MUC is "a workaround" but MIX is not

  776. ralphm

    Jitsi is much more than your run of the mill webpage that you can go to do have a conference.

  777. Tobias has left

  778. Tobias has joined

  779. Zash

    opt-in vs opt-out?

  780. MattJ

    Yes, I guess it comes down to that

  781. ralphm

    MattJ: because in MIX it is very explicit whether you subscribe to presence or not, both in the client and on the server subscription.

  782. Fishbowler has left

  783. Fishbowler has joined

  784. MattJ

    Right, and it would be **trivial** to add the same thing to MUC

  785. MattJ

    Literally a matter of defining the syntax

  786. Kev

    > Literally a matter of defining the syntax As opposed to most protocol issues :)

  787. Zash

    MUC does a ton of things implicitly by default, which you can opt out to (history comes to mind in favor of MAM, and now presence)

  788. flow

    yeah, I probably don't know enough of jitsi's internals. I always assumed that here is a muc backing every videoconference, which is used to fan out control messages to the participants of the conference

  789. MattJ

    It's not trivial to switch to an entirely new protocol *and* bridge it to the old one

  790. ralphm

    MattJ: as I said above, many things in MIX could be retrofitted into the MUC protocol. That doesn't mean that it is by nature a good idea.

  791. MattJ

    It doesn't mean that by nature it's a bad idea

  792. ralphm


  793. Tobias has left

  794. Tobias has joined

  795. massivebox has joined

  796. moparisthebest

    > you can't really prevent such kind of fragmentation as you can't forbid people from working on what they want Sure but I can bring up my reasons as to why I think it's a terrible idea and the public federated network shouldn't do it

  797. ralphm

    flow: I don't see how "Kafka" makes that better. It doesn't really matter what the server side internal messaging does. (Saying that having built an XMPP service with internal Kafka messaging)

  798. moparisthebest

    Re: jitsi they aren't interested in interop anyway so I don't care about their desires, simple

  799. flow

    ralphm, I maybe mislead you with dropping kafka, that was just the name of the first java'ish pub/sub thing that come to my mind

  800. ralphm

    moparisthebest: what makes you say that?

  801. flow

    but fact is, there are distributed pub/sub implementations that are not xmpp

  802. bung has joined

  803. chipmnk has left

  804. chipmnk has joined

  805. Dele Olajide has joined

  806. Yagiza has left

  807. moparisthebest

    ralphm: they said it, I didn't, hold and I'll try to find the link

  808. ralphm

    I think XMPP brings a bunch of things to the table that you have to reinvent if you use another such system. At VEON, the prototype implementation that was done before we started our own development, was based on a custom websocket protocol. We explored MQTT, for example, but it would still be mostly all custom stuff. XMPP gave us a bunch of features out of the box that made basing calls, groups, etc. on, much, much easier.

  809. praveen has left

  810. bhavy has joined

  811. ralphm

    And yes, because we were a closed system (we did federate, just not openly), we could get started with MIX much easier than I think we'd have done with MUC.

  812. ralphm

    In fact the federation part saved our butts a few times.

  813. catchy has left

  814. catchy has joined

  815. moparisthebest

    ralphm: I can't find the issue but iirc it was a discussion with Daniel on the jitsi issue tracker where they said they weren't interested in doing any interop over XMPP and if other projects wanted to interop the only way they'd support it is via embedding a webview of jitsi web

  816. Daniel


  817. neshtaxmpp has left

  818. neshtaxmpp has joined

  819. Daniel

    Not necessarily sharing moparisthebest interpretation of the situation but that's the issue

  820. moparisthebest


  821. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    if its due to xsf lagging behind in some xeps I have heard that before

  822. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    just mentioning

  823. moparisthebest

    Anyway, glad to have closed systems (that may federate with each other) collaborate on ways to do things here, but they shouldn't be pushed on the public federated network if they will harm it, and as it sits currently, this is MIX

  824. moparisthebest

    MSavoritias (fae,ve): the XSF never holds anyone back from doing anything

  825. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    of course I was talking about the xeps part. Jitsi is evident of going your own way after all

  826. Titi has joined

  827. moparisthebest

    But "holding up a XEP" or whatever still doesn't hold anyone up

  828. ralphm

    If we would be able to prevent active harm from a protocol perspective, XHTML-IM would not be implemented any more. I think we should not be afraid to try out alternative approaches to any of our building blocks, and how well that is supported is up to implementations. If it turns out that MIX works out better than MUC, then it is likely it will win out. I still think that, for now, MUC support, even if limited, is likely to help adoption of MIX. You can have a MIX implementation that supports MUC, or a MUC implementation that supports MIX. For clients, obviously, the situation is harder. But I don't think we should hold on to older protocol just because they currently have wide adoption.

  829. snow has left

  830. moparisthebest

    I think we have tried it out, mix has been a thing for 2644 days and everyone still uses muc, but we'll see what the future will hold

  831. asterix has left

  832. asterix has joined

  833. ralphm

    Daniel: yeah, that summary makes sense and comes down to: incompatible stuff sucks. With all the interop discussions happening in the EU, I honestly think that Jitsi will also need to play, and if XMPP is to be the common thing, they actually have a much easier starting position. I also think that three years later, and discussing this not through the issue tracker but through e.g. Saul will get us further. So I did and then this happened: https://github.com/jitsi/lib-jitsi-meet/pull/2212#issuecomment-1420691239

  834. Wojtek has left

  835. paul has left

  836. rubi has left

  837. sonny has left

  838. rubi has joined

  839. rubi has left

  840. praveen has joined

  841. Wojtek has joined

  842. twisted firestarter has left

  843. sonny has joined

  844. neshtaxmpp has left

  845. rubi has joined

  846. neshtaxmpp has joined

  847. neshtaxmpp has left

  848. bean has joined

  849. Ingolf has left

  850. pablo has joined

  851. Ingolf has joined

  852. neshtaxmpp has joined

  853. stpeter has joined

  854. bean has left

  855. neshtaxmpp has left

  856. Tobias has left

  857. Tobi has left

  858. neshtaxmpp has joined

  859. pablo has left

  860. Tobi has joined

  861. Tobias has joined

  862. Tobias has left

  863. Tobias has joined

  864. Seve has left

  865. djorz has left

  866. paul has joined

  867. praveen has left

  868. airjump has joined

  869. rubi has left

  870. rubi has joined

  871. airjump has left

  872. bhavy has left

  873. Tobias has left

  874. djorz has joined

  875. Tobias has joined

  876. antranigv has left

  877. neshtaxmpp has left

  878. moparisthebest

    Now I'm gonna sound like a pessimist... But does anyone think EU is gonna pick anything on technical grounds instead of marketing/donation budget? Not sure it's worth expending any effort on that front without a ~bribe~marketing budget in the millions

  879. Tobias has left

  880. Tobias has joined

  881. Dele Olajide has left

  882. Seve has joined

  883. moparisthebest

    XMPP is already by far the best choice from a technical POV

  884. Zash

    moparisthebest, itym reconstitute us as a lobby organization

  885. massivebox has left

  886. neshtaxmpp has joined

  887. MattJ

    OK then. Protocol development ends here!

  888. MattJ

    Solves the editor issue 😜

  889. Zash

    And we still have reason to go to Brussels!

  890. moparisthebest

    Not at all, just saying protocol development only for the sake of chasing something that'll never happen isn't very helpful

  891. resoli has left

  892. Zash

    What comes first, the protocol or the use case? Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other. We shall see how it turns out.

  893. moparisthebest

    If it improves XMPP, then great

  894. paul has left

  895. Zash

    Or I probably mean s/use case/implementation/

  896. Zash

    moparisthebest, but really, you think the entity that brought you GDPR won't regulate messaging apps into opening up?

  897. moparisthebest

    Implementation should always come first before protocol, but sometimes new use cases come later

  898. Kev

    > Now I'm gonna sound like a pessimist... But does anyone think EU is gonna pick anything on technical grounds instead of marketing/donation budget? Not sure it's worth expending any effort on that front without a ~bribe~marketing budget in the millions There was suggestion at the summit that if all that came out of it was interop between the not-so-big players like XMPP and Matrix, that'd still be a win.

  899. Daniel

    The entity that brought you cookie banners?

  900. atomicwatch has joined

  901. atomicwatch has left

  902. singpolyma

    Yum, cookies

  903. Maxence has left

  904. Maxence has joined

  905. marc0s has left

  906. marc0s has joined

  907. moparisthebest

    Zash: sure, but Twitter and Facebook will negotiate private federation been themselves and EU officials will declare victory and call it done

  908. moparisthebest

    Zash: sure, but Twitter and Facebook will negotiate private federation between themselves and EU officials will declare victory and call it done

  909. atomicwatch has joined

  910. atomicwatch has left

  911. moparisthebest

    XMPP and Matrix already have interop, and it didn't require govt involvement

  912. Tobias has left

  913. Tobias has joined

  914. antranigv has joined

  915. antranigv has left

  916. marc0s has left

  917. marc0s has joined

  918. massivebox has joined

  919. ralphm

    There's much more in this space than just the public IM services. There's also what governments use for communication, and current legislation makes it pretty much impossible to doing anything but XMPP. There are multiple similar situations, like NATO and healthcare.

  920. marc0s has left

  921. marc0s has joined

  922. atomicwatch has joined

  923. atomicwatch has left

  924. atomicwatch has joined

  925. atomicwatch has left

  926. Tobias has left

  927. marc0s has left

  928. marc0s has joined

  929. Andrzej has joined

  930. Tobias has joined

  931. PeterW has joined

  932. Tobias has left

  933. Tobias has joined

  934. Menel has left

  935. antranigv has joined

  936. atomicwatch has joined

  937. atomicwatch has left

  938. ralphm

    If anything, the conversations I had at FOSDEM have convinced me that we're not just a viable standard for this, we might be the most likely one. I'm going to see how far we can take this, but this indeed goes beyond just working on standards. And we will need external expertise. And possibly funding. And we need to be at the tables that discuss this stuff. This is not impossible.

  939. atomicwatch has joined

  940. atomicwatch has left

  941. Andrzej has left

  942. atomicwatch has joined

  943. marc0s has left

  944. marc0s has joined

  945. Wojtek has left

  946. paul has joined

  947. antranigv has left

  948. Wojtek has joined

  949. Guus

    For many organizations, the choice for XMPP was already made, long ago. In many industries, we're not so much having the problem of "not being picked" as we are running the risk of being replaced. I feel that there is much to be gained by capitalizing on where XMPP is already established.

  950. PeterW has left

  951. Menel has joined

  952. ralphm


  953. moparisthebest

    Organizations replace protocols?

  954. Guus

    Being used everywhere is something that we should showcase better. Also, where we are already in place, there's often some kind of budget (either financial, or otherwise) to improve on the standard or on implementations.

  955. Guus

    moparisthebest: the larger ones do, yes.

  956. moparisthebest

    I think my experience with 100% of healthcare being dominated by HL7 from the 80s has taught me otherwise 🤣

  957. Guus

    or at least, they're choosing protocols and their implementations.

  958. moparisthebest

    HL7 in particular came out with a newer standard around 2000 based on XML and no one uses it, they stay with the 1980s version

  959. larma

    As far as I understood, MIMI WG is basically thinking of 3 layers of protocol: s2s transport, encryption and payload. For encryption, MLS is basically set. For transport, XMPP is an option considered, but not very much liked by some parties (not necessarily with any actual reason other than the typical "old, nobody uses it anymore"). Alternative could be a rather simple HTTP-based pushing of MLS encrypted messages. For payload, consensus seems to be that consensus is even harder to reach than for transport. Matrix people obviously are proposing to use Matrix here, obviously liked by Matrix fanboys.

  960. marc0s has left

  961. marc0s has joined

  962. Guus

    The fact that there is an "old, nobody uses it anymore" sentiment is something that we should stamp out, somehow.

  963. moparisthebest

    Can't fix stupid

  964. Daniel

    A good portion of my customer's don't want me to talk about them 🙈

  965. stp has joined

  966. larma

    I'd assume that if XMPP was found to be a good fit for MLS as a transport, also using it for payload might be something that people would consider.

  967. singpolyma

    Daniel: are they embarassed to be using XMPP, or just really secrative?

  968. MattJ

    The first rule of XMPP

  969. Daniel

    > Daniel: are they embarassed to be using XMPP, or just really secrative? The latter mostly

  970. antranigv has joined

  971. Vaulor has left

  972. Vaulor has joined

  973. larma

    So it boils down to: if we want XMPP to be reasonably considered within MIMI we probably need a XEP and POC for MLS in XMPP, which I happen to be interested in working on (but probably not before April due to time constraints)

  974. Guus

    There's plenty of examples, I think. I mean, as I want to populate xmpp.work, I have a filter on LinkedIn that reports on jobs that have 'xmpp' in their description. In the last 24 hours, there were 12 new results. Granted, not all of them are very specific XMPP jobs, but it's used _all over the place_.

  975. larma

    Anyone considering to attend IETF 116, btw?

  976. Zash

    When and is it in Prague?

  977. bean has joined

  978. Guus

    The XSF may want to decide to reserve budget for this, to avoid efforts like these becoming to much time-constrained on the calendar of people that need to span their attention between this, and a daytime job.

  979. xecks has left

  980. xecks has joined

  981. larma

    Zash, March

  982. larma

    Zash, March 25

  983. larma

    IETF 118 is in Prague

  984. larma

    IETF 118 is in Prague, but that's November

  985. Trung has left

  986. Zash

    So 116 is in Yokohama, Japan.

  987. larma


  988. marc0s has left

  989. marc0s has joined

  990. andrey.g has joined

  991. atomicwatch has left

  992. atomicwatch has joined

  993. atomicwatch has left

  994. paul has left

  995. eevvoor has left

  996. ralphm

    Guus: for sure, that's my plan

  997. asterix has left

  998. MattJ

    It was on my radar. I think it would be good to have someone there, but I don't know if it can be me this time.

  999. asterix has joined

  1000. eevvoor has joined

  1001. atomicwatch has joined

  1002. atomicwatch has left

  1003. raucao has left

  1004. raucao has joined

  1005. Guus

    If (I'm not saying it is) we deem it important for XMPP to be well represented, maybe the XSF can consider funding people (eg: council and board members) to attend meetings like these.

  1006. stp has left

  1007. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    agreed. I think the MIM thing is a good opportunity.

  1008. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    and as it has been said I think we are in a good position to do this, tech wise

  1009. atomicwatch has joined

  1010. atomicwatch has left

  1011. ralphm

    Guus: we've already and we will

  1012. atomicwatch has joined

  1013. atomicwatch has left

  1014. Guus

    I think there are more sides to it - it's not just the technical perspective - but by participating, we're also taking away from the old/obsolete characteristic that we apparantly bear.

  1015. papatutuwawa has joined

  1016. atomicwatch has joined

  1017. atomicwatch has left

  1018. MSavoritias (fae,ve)


  1019. Guus

    ralphm: we've already? Unless I missed something, I think we're talking about different orders of magnitude. I'm suggesting to do more than reimburse travel expense.

  1020. david has joined

  1021. david has left

  1022. floretta has left

  1023. atomicwatch has joined

  1024. atomicwatch has left

  1025. Zash

    ... reimburse the $1000 IETF ticket?

  1026. Daniel

    Guus: you mean actually pay them for time spent? I don't think that's necessary

  1027. Guus

    time spent at the meeting - time spent preparing for the meeting - time spent following up

  1028. Zash

    pay everyone for all time, always!

  1029. Guus

    well, yes, ideally. If this was a conference that you'd attend on behalf of an employer, you'd also be paid.

  1030. paul has joined

  1031. Guus

    I know that we're not in the habit of doing things - but that doesn't mean it's unheard of.

  1032. Daniel

    Thus far I think we've paid for one or two people's ticket and travel I think? If that's something we could continue to do I'd be happy

  1033. resoli has joined

  1034. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    also submit some xmpp proposals in MIM would be nice

  1035. Guus

    What we've done so far has apparently not been enough - I'm not saying that we'll fix all these issues with money - but if we spend it wisely, it will definitely help.

  1036. Guus

    MSavoritias (fae,ve): if that's something that we as an organization find important enough, we could pay an individual or an organization to make that happen.

  1037. Daniel

    We've done it for one event. I don't think we are ready to jump to the conclusion that it's not working

  1038. stp has joined

  1039. Wojtek has left

  1040. Daniel

    Or to put it into more concrete terms. If the XSF would pay for my travels and the ticket to IETF I wouldn't take extra money on top of it.

  1041. MattJ

    Yeah, I think "not working" is a stretch. This isn't something that happens overnight. For example, the MIMI working group was officially formed by the IETF... just today

  1042. MattJ

    Their goals are to deliver specs by March 2024

  1043. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    I think not working in the sense that people think that the protocol is dead

  1044. Daniel

    I would have gone to London too. But I think in that case it made more sense to send MattJ

  1045. MattJ

    (some sooner than that, to be clear... but you get the point)

  1046. marc0s has left

  1047. marc0s has joined

  1048. floretta has joined

  1049. PeterW has joined

  1050. atomicwatch has joined

  1051. atomicwatch has left

  1052. projjalm has left

  1053. Guus

    I wasn't specifically meaning _this_ meeting, but more of the larger perspective. I feel that the XSF is quite conservative in spending money. That has not helped us avoid being perceived as becoming outdated. I am suggesting that this could possibly be addressed by the XSF spending more money for things to happen. Sending people to a meeting could be one of those things, but we can probably think of quite a few more examples.

  1054. MattJ

    Like having stands at large developer conferences and giving talks

  1055. djorz has left

  1056. Guus

    or, to take Daniels example: not have one guy, but a delegation be present at IETF meetings.

  1057. MattJ

    I'm not saying there isn't more we can do (there always will be), but it's not like we're doing nothing

  1058. Andrzej has joined

  1059. Guus

    Oh, I'm not saying that at all - I think a lot of people are doing extraordinary effort

  1060. Guus

    you being one of them

  1061. Guus

    I'm trying to see how we can facilitate that. "money" generally is helpful there.

  1062. arc has left

  1063. Daniel

    Yes I fully agree with 'money can be helpful' I'm just wondering if it is enough to limit this to travel expenses. Thus far we haven't even really tried that a lot

  1064. MattJ

    Sure, but it's not the only factor. We have money, and if there are proposals people have about what to spend it on, we should discuss those.

  1065. restive_monk has left

  1066. Daniel

    Yes I fully agree with 'money can be helpful' I'm just wondering if it is enough to limit this to travel expenses (for now) . Thus far we haven't even really tried that a lot

  1067. Guus

    Hire a consultant to do the MIM proposal. Hire a marketing firm to help the image. Pay for designers that float around software implementation projects.

  1068. MattJ

    If someone wants to go to IETF in Japan and the only thing stopping them is money, I'm certain we can sort that out

  1069. djorz has joined

  1070. BASSGOD has left

  1071. Guus

    there's three, from the top of my head. Not all of them might be appealing to everyone - but maybe we should get more into the mindset of: we have money, how can we put that to good use.

  1072. Daniel

    Just practically speaking we do have money but not endless amounts of it. And travel to Japan for one or two people is expensive enough without an hourly wage on top

  1073. marc0s has left

  1074. marc0s has joined

  1075. MattJ

    Do not have a protocol drafted by an outside consultant... 🙂

  1076. djorz has left

  1077. PeterW has left

  1078. antranigv has left

  1079. Guus

    why not (and they need not be external)? We have an excellent mechanism for reviewing protocol proposals. We accept external protocols all the time, it's our core business.

  1080. resoli has left

  1081. Guus

    but, I'm not hung up on any one of these examples.

  1082. Daniel

    Wait I'm supposed to review the xeps?

  1083. restive_monk has joined

  1084. Guus

    there's just a lot more that we can do with money than reimburse travel expenses.

  1085. Andrzej has left

  1086. Guus looks at a certain spreadsheet of Doom. I think you are, yes. :)

  1087. moparisthebest

    For someone external it would take us more time to explain what was needed and how to do it than to just write the XEP

  1088. MattJ


  1089. bean has left

  1090. bean has joined

  1091. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    I think there was talk to have somebody compile a MIM proposal and the xsf to pay for it

  1092. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    not sure where that went

  1093. Zash

    I wouldn't mind having a Technical Writer assist with wrangling words per the will of the Council :)

  1094. projjalm has joined

  1095. resoli has joined

  1096. MattJ

    Yes, someone we have an ongoing relationship with would be okay

  1097. atomicwatch has joined

  1098. atomicwatch has left

  1099. Maranda[x] has left

  1100. mirux has left

  1101. mirux has joined

  1102. rubi has left

  1103. rubi has joined

  1104. Ingolf has left

  1105. Ingolf has joined

  1106. rubi has left

  1107. resoli has left

  1108. Andrzej has joined

  1109. arc has joined

  1110. Andrzej has left

  1111. chipmnk has left

  1112. david has joined

  1113. david has left

  1114. atomicwatch has joined

  1115. atomicwatch has left

  1116. stpeter

    As someone who has a strong interest in the rate at which we might spend XSF funds (since I’m the Treasurer and a current Board member) but who doesn’t pay close attention to this channel, I’d find it helpful for folks to write up one or more proposals.

  1117. moparisthebest

    Well singpolyma proposed an XMPP track/get together at https://sfconservancy.org/fossy/ this year, and someone else mentioned we could maybe do a NA Summit

  1118. resoli has joined

  1119. atomicwatch has joined

  1120. atomicwatch has left

  1121. pep.

    "MattJ> Basically "MattJ killed MIX" was the summary of what went into the summit notepad" wow, that's harsh.

  1122. Wojtek has joined

  1123. pep.

    Not like there isn't enough XMPP servers out there (I count 6?) Especially when people talk about private/closed stuff..

  1124. djorz has joined

  1125. rubi has joined

  1126. rubi has left

  1127. antranigv has joined

  1128. jcbrand has left

  1129. resoli has left

  1130. rubi has joined

  1131. atomicwatch has joined

  1132. atomicwatch has left

  1133. paul has left

  1134. pep.

    > ralphm> because in MIX it is very explicit whether you subscribe to presence or not https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/MUC_Extensions, There's two specs for this even. 311 and 436

  1135. stpeter has left

  1136. Ingolf has left

  1137. Trung has joined

  1138. atomicwatch has joined

  1139. atomicwatch has left

  1140. PeterW has joined

  1141. projjalm has left

  1142. twisted firestarter has joined

  1143. PeterW has left

  1144. Trung has left

  1145. Ingolf has joined

  1146. MattJ

    pep. [19:46]: > "MattJ> Basically "MattJ killed MIX" was the summary of what went into the summit notepad" wow, that's harsh. Out of context, perhaps 🙂

  1147. wladmis has left

  1148. wladmis has joined

  1149. Zash

    So. Many. Layers. Of quoting.

  1150. pep.

    Zash, wait until you see replies in Dino and Movim

  1151. bung has left

  1152. Zash

    the date of my upgrade to Debian 12 just crept forward

  1153. pep.

    (It's a lot worse for those who have to endure fallbacks)

  1154. jonas’

    I like the quoting there

  1155. Zash

    The subtle prod for users to upgrade, or to indirectly prod their client devs :)

  1156. jonas’

    and I assume people use it here and so far I haven't been annoyed by the fallback yet

  1157. jonas’

    but the new dino broke scaling, so it is unusable on my laptop

  1158. pep.

    jonas’, I feel it's easy to have many layers of quoting very quickly with replies to replies, and I've seen it happen in the wild already

  1159. jonas’

    rocketchat solves that by only showing a limited number of quote layers

  1160. jonas’

    could do the same for the fallbacks

  1161. jonas’

    sounds like an easy, sensible, and acceptable refinement of that

  1162. moparisthebest

    pep.: Is it different to threading in Cheogram?

  1163. pep.

    threading doesn't have fallback

  1164. pep.

    / need

  1165. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    Also threading and replies are different. Slightly

  1166. neox has left

  1167. atomicwatch has joined

  1168. atomicwatch has left

  1169. twisted firestarter has left

  1170. mirux has left

  1171. mirux has joined

  1172. Maxence has left

  1173. Maxence has joined

  1174. twisted firestarter has joined

  1175. moparisthebest

    Hmm, maybe... Confusing (:

  1176. pep.

    Re IETF meeting in Japan. While I'm not saying anyone from europe shouldn't go or shouldn't be funded, is there nobody from the community that lives somewhere close?

  1177. atomicwatch has joined

  1178. atomicwatch has left

  1179. pep.

    I also agree with Guus re funding people. Within XSF limits of XSF resources of course. (Even though getting money is something we haven't really tried to do so I suspect we can get some more somewhat easily)

  1180. bean has left

  1181. jgart has joined

  1182. Seve has left

  1183. paul has joined

  1184. chipmnk has joined

  1185. Vaulor has left

  1186. Vaulor has joined

  1187. Seve has joined

  1188. Trung has joined

  1189. marmarper has joined

  1190. ralphm

    > As someone who has a strong interest in the rate at which we might spend XSF funds (since I’m the Treasurer and a current Board member) but who doesn’t pay close attention to this channel, I’d find it helpful for folks to write up one or more proposals. stpeter: yes, my plan was to use tomorrow's board meeting to bring you up to speed with what MattJ, Winfried and I have discussed with some (external) people, come up with a set of goals, and then see how we work that out into a plan. Finance is just one part of it.

  1191. MSavoritias (fae,ve) has left

  1192. Daniel

    What's 'the usual time' for that again?

  1193. marmarper has left

  1194. jcbrand has joined

  1195. atomicwatch has joined

  1196. atomicwatch has left

  1197. papatutuwawa has left

  1198. Wojtek has left

  1199. Maxence has left

  1200. Maxence has joined

  1201. stp has left

  1202. snow has joined

  1203. chipmnk has left

  1204. ralphm

    5 Jan was 17:00 UTC

  1205. chipmnk has joined

  1206. Mario Sabatino has left

  1207. Menel has left

  1208. Daniel

    OK cool. Just making sure it doesn't conflict with council

  1209. Wojtek has joined

  1210. Seve has left

  1211. david has joined

  1212. david has left

  1213. Seve has joined

  1214. paul has left

  1215. stpeter has joined

  1216. atomicwatch has joined

  1217. atomicwatch has left

  1218. Menel has joined

  1219. marmarper has joined

  1220. resoli has joined

  1221. Maranda[x] has joined

  1222. paul has joined

  1223. Vaulor has left

  1224. Titi has left

  1225. Vaulor has joined

  1226. paul has left

  1227. singpolyma

    While it violates a MUST in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0221.html as currently written, what would people think about this element going into an <option> (and not just a <field>) for eg list-single

  1228. Axel has left

  1229. rubi has left

  1230. jgart has left

  1231. moparisthebest has left

  1232. moparisthebest has joined

  1233. marmarper has left

  1234. bean has joined

  1235. Tobias has left

  1236. Tobi has left

  1237. Tobias has joined

  1238. Tobias has left

  1239. Tobi has joined

  1240. Tobias has joined

  1241. snow has left

  1242. paul has joined

  1243. paul has left

  1244. Trung has left

  1245. resoli has left

  1246. jgart has joined

  1247. tmolitor has left

  1248. bean has left

  1249. tmolitor has joined

  1250. marmarper has joined

  1251. adiaholic has left

  1252. rubi has joined

  1253. rubi has left

  1254. resoli has joined

  1255. adiaholic has joined

  1256. atomicwatch has joined

  1257. atomicwatch has left

  1258. catchy has left

  1259. Axel has joined

  1260. edhelas has left

  1261. jcbrand has left

  1262. edhelas has joined

  1263. jcbrand has joined

  1264. goffi has left

  1265. tbm16 has joined

  1266. Axel Reimer has left

  1267. LNJ has left

  1268. rubi has joined

  1269. tbm16 has left

  1270. tbm16 has joined

  1271. Seve has left

  1272. mirux has left

  1273. david has joined

  1274. david has left

  1275. pep. has left

  1276. Kev has left

  1277. pep. has joined

  1278. Kev has joined

  1279. atomicwatch has joined

  1280. atomicwatch has left

  1281. Kev has left

  1282. massivebox has left

  1283. Tobi has left

  1284. mdosch has left

  1285. asterix has left

  1286. Tobias has left

  1287. tbm16 has left

  1288. Seve has joined

  1289. Andrzej has joined

  1290. mdosch has joined

  1291. asterix has joined

  1292. marc0s has left

  1293. marc0s has joined

  1294. Andrzej has left

  1295. floretta has left

  1296. Half-Shot has left

  1297. Matthew has left

  1298. homebeach has left

  1299. uhoreg has left

  1300. Half-Shot has joined

  1301. Matthew has joined

  1302. homebeach has joined

  1303. uhoreg has joined

  1304. atomicwatch has joined

  1305. marmarper has left

  1306. Menel has left

  1307. Vaulor has left

  1308. floretta has joined

  1309. Vaulor has joined

  1310. flashcore has left

  1311. flashcore has joined

  1312. Kev has joined

  1313. massivebox has joined

  1314. *IM* has left

  1315. stpeter has left

  1316. flashcore has left

  1317. flashcore has joined

  1318. stp has joined

  1319. stpeter has joined

  1320. Maxence has left

  1321. emus has left

  1322. stp has left

  1323. snow has joined

  1324. snow has left

  1325. snow has joined

  1326. paul has joined

  1327. stpeter has left

  1328. zonsopkomst has left

  1329. zonsopkomst has joined

  1330. nicoco has left

  1331. stp has joined

  1332. stpeter has joined

  1333. Vaulor has left

  1334. Seve has left

  1335. jgart has left

  1336. stp has left

  1337. jgart has joined

  1338. djorz has left

  1339. david has joined

  1340. david has left

  1341. djorz has joined

  1342. paul has left

  1343. Kev has left

  1344. david has joined

  1345. david has left

  1346. zonsopkomst has left

  1347. zonsopkomst has joined

  1348. Vaulor has joined

  1349. Wojtek has left

  1350. karoshi has left

  1351. Wojtek has joined

  1352. david has joined

  1353. david has left