XSF Communications Team - 2020-06-07

  1. winfried has joined
  2. winfried has left
  3. winfried has joined
  4. emus has left
  5. kikuchiyo has left
  6. leirda has left
  7. leirda has joined
  8. wurstsalat has left
  9. SouL has left
  10. Vaulor has left
  11. SouL has joined
  12. Vaulor has joined
  13. stassewicz has left
  14. wurstsalat has joined
  15. arnaudj has left
  16. arnaudj has joined
  17. jcbrand has joined
  18. emus has joined
  19. Licaon_Kter has joined
  20. emus has left
  21. emus has joined
  22. emus has left
  23. emus has joined
  24. jcbrand I'll play devils advocate and remind you all that many implementations and uses of XMPP are not federated and not free software and that they are also legitimate in the eyes of the XSF, because the XSF is a neutral organisation when it comes to how people use and implement XMPP.
  25. jcbrand For example all the games that use XMPP, and Grindr, and Zoom etc.
  26. jcbrand The XSF is not a daughter org or affiliate of the FSF or EFF.
  27. jcbrand I'm of the opinion that the XSF could sponsor sprints for free software, because a rising tide lifts all boats, but I know that the neutrality argument has been used against that idea.
  28. jcbrand Still, it is IMO desired and correct that a standards organisation concerns itself with the standards and not with politics.
  29. jcbrand Still, it is IMO desired and correct that a standards organisation concerns itself with the standards and not with politics, and that it takes a neutral stance.
  30. SouL Even if they were federated, federation is still a technical feature, nothing to do with anything political. You don't have to federate because of politics, it is just convenience.
  31. SouL If someone tells me email is political I would be WTF dude
  32. SouL same here
  33. jcbrand Yes, you can also federate internally within a permissioned system.
  34. Martin has left
  35. Martin has joined
  36. kikuchiyo has joined
  37. emus Anyway XSF might can make clear what it is convinced if in a technical manner? Not that only a tech perspn understands
  38. kikuchiyo has left
  39. kikuchiyo has joined
  40. jcbrand I don't understand your sentence
  41. Martin has left
  42. Martin has joined
  43. winfried has left
  44. winfried has joined
  45. winfried has left
  46. winfried has joined
  47. Martin has left
  48. Martin has joined
  49. winfried has left
  50. winfried has joined
  51. winfried has left
  52. winfried has joined
  53. emus The XSF can try makeing technical statements and things the foundation is convinced of in general more clear to an outer community. Not that only a tech person only understands details or why privacy is better with xmpp than with WhatsApp etc.. So that many non-technical can understand aswell. I just suggesting instead of political expression to make technical expressions. A bit more clear?
  54. Martin has left
  55. Martin has joined
  56. debacle has joined
  57. Martin has left
  58. Martin has joined
  59. jcbrand XMPP is not necessarily more private than other services, it depends on how you use it. Server admins can see lots of information about users. If users don't encrypt then admins can read all messages.
  60. jcbrand Privacy, like federation is a technical feature.
  61. jcbrand It's up to you to use the technology in such a way that you preserve your privacy
  62. jcbrand I should add, not only a technical feature, but also made possible due to the open and standardized nature. But this openness also enables people to use XMPP in other ways (i.e without federation or privacy) and neutrality means not taking a stance on wether that's good out bad.
  63. Martin jcbrand: But a single admin can not easily surveil the whole network. Also xmpp empowers you to be your own admin. That are strong pros for me.
  64. jcbrand For example, it might be preferable that communication between police over an XMPP enabled network is not private.
  65. jcbrand Yes, they are to you Martin, to me, and to others. But they are not the only use-cases for XMPP
  66. jcbrand It's fine to say that these are strengths of the protocol, that IMO is not getting involved in politics.
  67. Martin I agree on that.
  68. emus Martin, jcbrand: Yes, of course that was just one example why xmpp is good. And sure, it always a perspective. Still, you can use it privately - you are not forced to not, like with... dunno FB Messenger?
  69. winfried has left
  70. winfried has joined
  71. winfried has left
  72. winfried has joined
  73. winfried has left
  74. winfried has joined
  75. winfried has left
  76. winfried has joined
  77. jcbrand XMPP is a protocol and isn't a competitor to FB messenger. In fact, FB messenger could be implemented in XMPP. IMO the XSF shouldn't be putting itself in opposition to particular chat apps or companies. It comes back to neutrality.
  78. arnaudj has left
  79. arnaudj has joined
  80. winfried has left
  81. winfried has joined
  82. jcbrand Nobody says you should use HTTP to avoid Google or Facebook
  83. pep. jcbrand: the fact that XMPP can be used by Facebook Messenger doesn't remove the political aspect
  84. jcbrand Although you could if you wanted to
  85. arnaudj has left
  86. arnaudj has joined
  87. jcbrand pep.: My point is that the XSF is not a vehicle for fighting political fights and IMO when people are trying to do so, it's a power grab because they're trying to capitalise on the brand, recognition and authority of the XSF to further narrow politician motives.
  88. emus I'm not saying you should compete with this, just make clear how this technology can enable privacy, open standard etc... I posted a video in the German chat, because the woman gives XMPP as an example for a decentral communication solution. She just names it, but if you explain why and how, that might change the understanding and attention regarding a political topic: https://youtu.be/XvRnyv9fPns?t=657 - anyway the difference to advertising things is not that big, I see that.
  89. jcbrand emus: I'm all for advertising the strengths, I just don't think we should be advertising XMPP in opposition to something else.
  90. emus Ok, I understand. Need to think about it
  91. pep. jcbrand: it actually is. By taking this neutral stance the XSF is making the political statement that it's fine with the status quo.
  92. jcbrand No, it's simply neutral
  93. pep. exactly
  94. jcbrand Neutral and "being fine" are too different things
  95. peetah From my humble new comer point of view, XMPP is a tool, and XSF is another tool to promote the first one. You can choose to do whatever you want with a tool, whether it has a political ground or not, and you can choose to consider what others are doing with this tool as political or not. But at the end of the day, it is not a matter of the tool, but a matter of the ones using it. What seems to be required according to what is argued since yesterday is a clear statement about where the people in charge of the XSF set their line: do they, and consequently the XSF, consider XMPP as a generic tool, or as a mean to defend a whatever goal they may have, being political or not.
  96. jcbrand And it's outside the mandate of the XSF
  97. winfried has left
  98. winfried has joined
  99. pep. jcbrand: as an example: you see violence in the street, as a bypasser do you: 1. Help the person doing the act, watch and do nothing, help the victim
  100. pep. jcbrand: as an example: you see violence in the street, as a bypasser do you: 1. Help the person doing the act, 2. watch and do nothing, 3. help the victim
  101. jcbrand pep.: It would be good to help the person, I don't see how that's an argument that the XSF should be used as the mechanism.
  102. pep. should be?
  103. jcbrand Nobody in the XSF is stopping you from doing what you think needs to be done, but you don't have the right to use the XSF as your mouthpiece
  104. winfried has left
  105. winfried has joined
  106. winfried has left
  107. winfried has joined
  108. winfried has left
  109. winfried has joined
  110. pep. That is not what I'm saying
  111. jcbrand You want to use the XSF as a tool to further a political goal
  112. pep. no you don't understand
  113. pep. I'm saying the XSF already has a political goal
  114. jcbrand Yes, and multiple people disagree with you
  115. pep. whether it's realising it or not
  116. pep. well I'm sorry if you don't see it
  117. jcbrand You simple repeating that ad nauseum doesn't make it true
  118. jcbrand You simply repeating that ad nauseum doesn't make it true
  119. pep. well you're also reusing the same points tbh..
  120. arnaudj has left
  121. arnaudj has joined
  122. jcbrand The position of neutrality of the XSF has been stated many times in the past by other people. It's not something I just made up.
  123. pep. Ok then you just don't understand what I'm saying
  124. jcbrand That's quite condescending
  125. pep. It's not meant to be
  126. jcbrand I do understand, I simply don't agree and refer to precedence.
  127. pep. I'm not saying the XSF is not "neutral"
  128. jcbrand You're implying neutral is not neutral
  129. jcbrand And I already said that neutral is neutral
  130. pep. What does neutral mean then
  131. jcbrand It means that the XSF concerns itself with developing and standardizing a protocol, and doesn't concern itself with other matters that fall outside its mandate.
  132. pep. Developing and standardizing a protocol for whom, and for what purpose
  133. jcbrand For humanity and for any purpose they see fit
  134. pep. There are things XMPP cannot do and will never be able to do because of technical choices. Why is it this way?
  135. jcbrand life is composed of tradeoffs
  136. pep. Exactly
  137. jcbrand There are very few things it cannot do
  138. jcbrand Sorry, but that's not a gotcha
  139. pep. And these tradeoffs are inherently political
  140. jcbrand No they're not
  141. jcbrand What is something that could never be done with XMPP that is due to a political consideration?
  142. pep. Why is it possible to federate with XMPP, Why not only limit to centralized services? Why are we using unicode? Is ascii not enough? etc. there are tons of examples
  143. pep. Unicode allowing various scripts to be transmitted over XMPP, making it possible for various cultures to use it
  144. jcbrand Allowing for federation gives XMPP maximum utility.
  145. pep. Surely it's still possible to keep sending ascii over XMPP, but the point is that it enables it
  146. jcbrand Email is also federated, is SMTP a political project?
  147. pep. I'd say so yes
  148. jcbrand Yeah, you'd say so 😃
  149. pep. We build our tools with a purpose in mind
  150. pep. Otherwise we wouldn't need the tool. Or we'd need a different one
  151. jcbrand XMPP gives you the option, but doesn't obligate or compel you to federate
  152. jcbrand It's good to have the option
  153. jcbrand In both directions
  154. pep. Why is it good?
  155. jcbrand Option means that you can also not federate
  156. jcbrand Is that good?
  157. pep. Sure, not denying that
  158. jcbrand Otherwise, why didn't they make federation mandatory?
  159. pep. It's still a possibility though. Why are we giving this possibility to people
  160. jcbrand That would be more fitting a political agenda
  161. pep. it's still political not to force that on people
  162. jcbrand Ah, so it's neutral about it
  163. pep. Not sure what you're trying to point out. That doesn't remove the political aspect
  164. pep. Means you recognize there are various use-cases and they might benefit different group of people in different ways (not that I'm not saying who or what)
  165. jcbrand Define political within this context
  166. jcbrand I'm pointing out that the XSF is neutral
  167. pep. That doesn't actually negate what I'm saying
  168. jcbrand You said being neutral means being fine with the status quo
  169. jcbrand That's not what neutrality is
  170. pep. Well here there are two things to distinguish, XMPP and the XSF. The protocol is allowing for many things, and in itself that is political (federation, unicode, etc., or the absence of X, Y). On top of that the XSF gives a venue to any interest to influence it.
  171. winfried has left
  172. winfried has joined
  173. pep. which is what's defined as neutral, I guess
  174. pep. Some entities will inevitably have more resources to express their interest than others because that's the world we live in
  175. pep. (Trying not to make a judgement here, hope you can appreciate :p Even if it's probably quite obvious what I think)
  176. winfried has left
  177. winfried has joined
  178. arnaudj has left
  179. arnaudj has joined
  180. winfried has left
  181. winfried has joined
  182. winfried has left
  183. winfried has joined
  184. winfried has left
  185. winfried has joined
  186. winfried has left
  187. winfried has joined
  188. arnaudj has left
  189. arnaudj has joined
  190. kikuchiyo has left
  191. arnaudj has left
  192. arnaudj has joined
  193. Alex has left
  194. winfried has left
  195. winfried has joined
  196. debacle has left
  197. kikuchiyo has joined
  198. emus Are their things which "everyone" in XSF agrees on?
  199. emus lets say >90%
  200. kikuchiyo has left
  201. winfried has left
  202. winfried has joined
  203. winfried has left
  204. winfried has joined
  205. la|r|ma emus, not sure, maybe "let's continue using XML" but I am not even sure about that 😉
  206. Guus has left
  207. Guus has joined
  208. kikuchiyo has joined
  209. winfried has left
  210. winfried has joined
  211. Alex has joined
  212. winfried has left
  213. winfried has joined
  214. winfried has left
  215. winfried has joined
  216. winfried has left
  217. winfried has joined
  218. emus 😅 Im sure there are some more things
  219. emus Maybe worth another open question evaluation
  220. kikuchiyo has left
  221. kikuchiyo has joined
  222. arnaudj has left
  223. arnaudj has joined
  224. winfried has left
  225. winfried has joined
  226. Licaon_Kter has left
  227. Licaon_Kter has joined
  228. kikuchiyo has left
  229. Licaon_Kter pep.: interesting that all your examples fall only in the tech side of things, yet you keep arguing that XSF should do something else instead of continuing/limiting to this tech side
  230. pep. hmm no? that's not what I said. Or if I did it's probably not what I meant. I'm pretty set on tech is politics
  231. Licaon_Kter Regarding the status quo, I feel that XSF represents "the system" already, given that, for better or worse, XMPP is used by billions daily (knowingly or not).
  232. pep. there's a difference between what it's used for and what it enables
  233. pep. well, when it comes to XMPP itself. The XSF obviously is playing a role in encouraging this or that usage (even if "this or that" covers every possible use case ever)
  234. pep. Licaon_Kter: note that it doesn't mean I don't care about what's not tech
  235. emus > hmm no? that's not what I said. Or if I did it's probably not what I meant. I'm pretty set on tech is politics I think so too
  236. leirda has left
  237. leirda has joined
  238. jcbrand To say "tech" is politics, is like saying water mills and internal combustion engines are politics. It makes no sense to me. The unequal distribution of water mills might be a political matter, but water mills in and of themselves aren't political.
  239. emus may digital tech is politics? If that would be of any politics we would be in such a digital turnaround in the recent decade? I think you cannot just separate one from the other. Of course its not hard-linked on the other side
  240. emus may digital tech is politics? If that would be not of any politics we would not be in such a digital turnaround in the recent decade? I think you cannot just separate one from the other. Of course its not hard-linked on the other side
  241. emus I mean - lets also ask a hypothecial but practical question. One day a journalists asks question and asks for a statement. If we do give an answer or not does not matter because there seem to be a public/political interest already in that moment? And would we give an answer/statement?
  242. arnaudj has left
  243. arnaudj has joined
  244. arnaudj has left
  245. arnaudj has joined
  246. DebXWoody journalists asks question about XMPP?
  247. debacle has joined
  248. emus thats bot the piint
  249. emus thats not the point
  250. arnaudj has left
  251. arnaudj has joined
  252. DebXWoody I'm not sure if I got all the points. I think the XSF is and should be "neutral" and should not be responsible to answer questions. It would be very difficult to answer question in a neutral way. But, we needs somebody which should answer question. There was a Thread today "Why was XMPP not able to build a infrastructure for IM". AFAIK, it's not the responsibility of XSF. There should be something like "User Groups" which will take care of XMPP for users etc. and at this places it maybe also become politics.
  253. pep. "it's not the responsibility of XSF" again, this is not what I'm saying
  254. arnaudj has left
  255. arnaudj has joined
  256. arnaudj has left
  257. arnaudj has joined
  258. Nÿco so I've done my review of the newsletter and suggested... things: - structure with titles - reviews the CTA (Call To Action) - added some pics
  259. Nÿco - all Pelican metadata
  260. Nÿco so not nothing big and revolutionary, just the bare minimum
  261. Nÿco meanwhile, I have finally done what we agreed one ages ago on LinkedIn and Fosstodon (Mastodon), I have added the background/cover: the corridor picture that is on the xmpp.org website I can't do it on Twitter since I only have a Tweetdeck access nor on Facebook, since the two pages are dormant
  262. arnaudj has left
  263. arnaudj has joined
  264. leirda has left
  265. leirda has joined
  266. arnaudj has left
  267. arnaudj has joined
  268. jcbrand has left
  269. jcbrand has joined
  270. emus has left
  271. emus has joined
  272. wurstsalat has left
  273. emus has left
  274. emus has joined
  275. Alex has left
  276. Alex has joined
  277. leirda has left
  278. debacle has left