[Operators] Out of curiousity... "What about the List?"
ben at einfachjabber.de
Sun Nov 20 09:50:39 UTC 2011
I'l try to sum up the status as of now:
I built an little application, that should make it a lot easier to
process new list-applications in the future, as it automates some of
the steps necessary to verify a new server.
At the moment it has the following features:
* form for server-admins to register their servers
* automatic sending of verification-email with verification-link to
proove email-address is real
* basic check if server is reachable
* check for SRV-records
* check for StartTLS/SSL (this is a bit unreliable at the moment and
would have to be improved)
* export of list ready to import into the current
wordpress-table-format on xmpp.org
I asked if this application could be deployed to the server that hosts
xmpp.org so that it could be integrated in to the page
No answer on that so far.
Regarding the list itself and new applications to it:
We processed all new applications (until today) into this application
and also marked old, non-responding server as not-verified there. I
exported the updated list and imported it to the xmpp-wordpress.
After this I asked if somebody could approve this and make it public,
but as of now, nobody did (see
No reaction to this so far.
The update doesn't include new applications, because email and
xmpp-address verification is still to be done here. For this purpose
there was a blogpost planned to inform people about a (mass) email to
be sent out and from which email this would come to prevent
misunderstandings (we cannot use a xmpp.org email-address).
I prepared this blogpost and sent out a request for it to be
again without any reaction.
That's about it.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 22:15, Marco Cirillo <maranda at lightwitch.org> wrote:
> I think I last mailed asking about it, about 1 month ago...
> But time is still ticking and there's no visible progress.
> And at the cost of wearing a "Troll Mask".
> I'd like to know exactly what's the real _showstopper_ here.
> I think I discussed the same argument with Ludovic one month ago, he hoped
> as I did that within October this would get sorted.
> But I reluctantly observe that it's always just a few responses then back to
> the initial Void.
> I'd firmly appreciate that the answer isn't: << time >>; because, aside
> unacceptable, it would be astonishing.
> If there's really an objective issue in achieving this *task*, I guess it's
> really time to _discuss_ about it.
More information about the Operators