XSF Discussion - 2024-02-04

  1. edhelas

    I was planning to remove the Message Fastening in Movim but I see that some XEP are still relying on it

  2. edhelas


  3. pep.

    Wasn't this supposed to change?

  4. mathieui

    MattJ, I do not remember what is the current status of hats, is there any other pending update or is version 0.2 the current?

  5. mathieui

    Because right now it does not define a way to create or delete a specific hat, only to don/doff them

  6. mathieui

    which might be an issue if we want them in spaces

  7. mathieui

    (I know it makes sense in closed deployments where the server admin is the one creating them, but in the wider internet it is an issue in my opinion)

  8. cal0pteryx

    edhelas: it's waiting to be merged I guess https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1271#issuecomment-1865229546

  9. edhelas

    Ah ! Didn't saw it. Thanks đź‘Ť

  10. mathieui

    So, as it was discussed a bit discussed in the summit room, what would be the process for making both accessility and privacy considerations mandatory in newly submitted XEPs? I believe there is value in forcing us to consider those elements for every new specification

  11. mathieui

    (there’s also value in going back to existing XEPs, but that is more painful and thankless work)

  12. jonas’

    1. change the template 2. shout at council whenever they ignore it

  13. jonas’

    3. maybe add a linter which rejects PRs adding XEP files which don't have these sections (match the title)

  14. mathieui

    thanks :D

  15. mathieui

    I need to do small updates to 0455 as well anyway

  16. metro

    Hello, I'm looking for a partner to work on some online deal, better yet if you have a background in cs, IT, opsec etc. do tell if you have preferences to talk in a more private chat room. Install the Sessions messaging app if you don't have preferences

  17. moparisthebest

    I'm +1 on everything jonas’ said and would go further to reject everything where those sections (and security) are "to-do"

  18. MSavoritias fae.ve

    agreed on the rejecting. and for security too

  19. moparisthebest

    Actually I think I'd move it to not put them up for council vote until those were filled out

  20. mathieui

    Right, so we already have an accessibility section in the template, but optional

  21. singpolyma

    Well it probably doesn't apply in most xeps

  22. moparisthebest

    That's fine, it's not too much work to write "this doesn't apply"

  23. singpolyma


  24. MSavoritias fae.ve


  25. mathieui

    PR done