XSF Communications Team - 2019-10-19


  1. LNJ has joined

  2. debacle has left

  3. arnaudj has left

  4. afp has left

  5. afp has joined

  6. LNJ has left

  7. LNJ has joined

  8. arnaudj has joined

  9. Martin has left

  10. LNJ has left

  11. Martin has joined

  12. arnaudj has left

  13. jcbrand has joined

  14. debacle has joined

  15. LNJ has joined

  16. arnaudj has joined

  17. Martin has left

  18. Martin has joined

  19. emus has joined

  20. arnaudj has left

  21. arnaudj has joined

  22. debacle has left

  23. arnaudj has left

  24. arnaudj has joined

  25. debacle has joined

  26. Martin has left

  27. Martin has joined

  28. afp has left

  29. afp has joined

  30. afp has left

  31. debacle has left

  32. afp has joined

  33. jcbrand has left

  34. winfried has left

  35. winfried has joined

  36. ralphm has left

  37. ralphm has joined

  38. winfried has left

  39. winfried has joined

  40. winfried has left

  41. winfried has joined

  42. vanitasvitae

    The heise article got updated. The recommendation is for Cisco Jabber now.

  43. vanitasvitae

    Maybe @xmpp could issue a statement/recommendation towards open implementations?

  44. jcbrand has joined

  45. emus

    vanitasvitae: please NĂ¿co But as always, stay polite & progressive

  46. emus

    we should mention this aswell in the newsletter?

  47. vanitasvitae

    Maybe something along the lines of "While we appreciate the EU Parliament taking control over their communications by using a self-hosted solution (Cisco Jabber is self hosted right?), we ask why not go a step further and chose a truely open system based on a truely open standard like XMPP?" with a link to xmpp.org's server software page plus maybe a link that clarifies the differences between Cisco Jabber and XMPP.

  48. vanitasvitae

    And maybe replace "we ask why not" with "we encourage them to".

  49. Martin

    vanitasvitae: Is there something official describing the differences?

  50. vanitasvitae

    I'd assume

  51. vanitasvitae

    AFAIK Holger once wrote something (unofficial?) but there should be more resources.

  52. jcbrand has left

  53. jcbrand has joined

  54. jcbrand has left

  55. Martin has left

  56. afp has left

  57. afp has joined

  58. emus

    > AFAIK Holger once wrote something (unofficial?) but there should be more resources. yep, if they really continue about that topic, the XSF CommTeam (!) should provide some more resources

  59. Martin has joined

  60. debacle has joined

  61. pep.

    vanitasvitae, technically, while I'm not especially happy with Cisco Jabber, we can probably still federate right?

  62. pep.

    But yeah they wouldn't have the same disparate^Wawesome experience as most XMPP users experience nowadays :)

  63. pep.

    But yeah they wouldn't have the same disparate^Wawesome experience as most XMPP users nowadays :)

  64. vanitasvitae

    Hm, is Cisco Jabber iOS actually useful? :D

  65. jcbrand has joined

  66. emus

    I think they (and others) should know what is what

  67. LNJ has left

  68. LNJ has joined

  69. LNJ has left

  70. winfried has left

  71. winfried has joined

  72. winfried has left

  73. winfried has joined

  74. jcbrand has left

  75. afp has left

  76. emus has left

  77. emus has joined

  78. LNJ has joined

  79. afp has joined

  80. LNJ has left