XMPP Council - 2026-08-26

  1. Daniel

    Can I get a rough idea on how happy council is with this wording? > You must understand and verify every part of your contribution, and ensure that material derived from other sources is properly attributed.

  2. Daniel

    If we have a signal that this wording is fine I can tell Guus to change it and then we can formally vote on it next week and avoid to many round trips

  3. Guus

    cc ralphm, as it was his suggestion that I submitted.

  4. dan.caseley

    I've got a concern that it might not completely address the problem originally intended. I read attributed bit as something like "cite copyrighted works". The intent (as I understood it) isn't that someone says "Claude did this", but that you'd be just as happy to say "I did this" and stand by it as your work.

  5. dan.caseley

    Maybe that's covered by the first part though.

  6. dan.caseley

    "You are responsible for your own submissions - you must read, understand and verify the work."

  7. Guus

    The one thing that I do not like about that second part of the newly proposed definition is that it can be read as if attribution is suddenly a new requirement / something special. I think you're always supposed to do that, regardless. We're not naming any other expectations, so it may be a bit weird to add attribution all of a sudden. Again, I'm open to better words.

  8. Guus

    what dan.caseley just suggested is better, in that respect.

  9. dan.caseley

    > "You are responsible for your own submissions - you must read, understand and verify the work." Does inverting the word ordering on the original solve the concern that goffi raised about the scope of the responsibility?

  10. goffi

    dan.caseley, It's better ("reponsible" is now scoped to "read, understand and verify"). "verify" still looks a bit vague, but it's less a problem than a vague "responsible" IMO. I take it as "verify the coherence, spelling, and that it makes sense globally". We have no notion of "original" work anymore though.

  11. Guus

    Maybe suggest this in the mailinglist, so that others have time to pitch in before next meeting's vote?

  12. singpolyma

    I don't care either way about the attribution thing but the rest of it seems solid