https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/522 I just pushed this. How should we update the parts for FOSDEM and Summit?
dwd
Speaking of the Summit, I've been hunting down evidence for the various claims I was making at FOSDEM of how XMPP is used. Amazingly, I wasn't actually lying.
pep.
I'd be great to put more of these somewhere on the website as well, and possibly ask these projects to add an XMPP logo or something, somewhere, so that people know
404.cityhas left
Guushas left
404.cityhas joined
labdsfhas joined
equilhas joined
Ge0rG
I'd love to have more interesting stories on https://xmpp.org/uses/
Ge0rG
I'm actually very proud of https://xmpp.org/uses/gaming
dwd
Yeah, it'd be pretty cool if we could get a phrase off each of them. The Epic stuff they say about XMPP is pretty amazingly positive, and the Eve Online stuff was good, too.
dwd
Ge0rG, And also, yes, you should be very proud - that's eally good, positive stuff.
vaulorhas left
vaulorhas joined
karoshihas joined
olihas left
Seve
Indeed!
404.cityhas joined
Seve
I was hoping for something like that dwd, to try to get more support from companies/projects using XMPP that do not really tell the world they use XMPP currently
edhelas
dwd "Since I'm using XMPP on my network, all my users are happy, I even got a promotion and I'm talking with my brother again, Thanks XMPP" Click HERE to discover how this amazing things can happen to your life
Seve
Haha
Danielhas left
Ge0rG
dwd: I'd love to pull off the same thing for IoT, because our IoT pages are really sucky. Did you gather anything for https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/490
Ge0rG
I think our commteam should also add things to that list which come up for the newsletter
dwd
Hmmm... I didn't realise either of those examples used XMPP.
dwd
So it's more of the "anything that doesn't use a stock IM client", really.
wurstsalathas joined
debaclehas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Guus
I quite like the effort to improve that page. I'd also like a more formal reach-out from XMPP to those companies. I'll add that to Boards agenda.
Ge0rG
Guus: what would be the goal? To appoint somebody to reach out?
Guus
The goal would be to come up with a communication strategy - define exactly what we 'want' from them, and what we can offer in return.
Seve
+1
Seve
Thank you Guus
Kev
FWIW I'm already in touch with the Eve devs doing XMPP stuff, so I wouldn't bother duplicating that.
Guus
Thanks Kev. I'd first like to see if we can come up with some kind of strategy that defines what exactly we want to ask/tell them, before doing actual reaching-out.
dwd
It'd be nice to have the usual list of companies and projects using XMPP along with some testemonial quotes on the front page.
Ge0rG
it would also be awesome to obtain better user numbers and maybe also articles about their use of XMPP.
pep.
"what we can offer in return." < Fame!
Ge0rG
it was really hard to dig those out (also to find out they are users of XMPP in the first place)
Kev
I didn't reach out on behalf of the XSF, I reached out on behalf of Kev, BTW. But they know who I am.
Ge0rG
dwd: you mean like the sponsors, but the other way around?
frainzhas joined
grumpyhas left
dwd
Hmmm. There's a good point there - we need to be careful we're not devaluing our sponsorship thing.
Guus
yeah, let's not devaluing the sponsorship that we're not using.
Ge0rG
and that needs cleaning up as well.
Guus
I think in reality, the sponsorship benefits are more of a donation that someone actually expecting much exposure in return, tbh.
Kev
I think there's motivation and expectation.
Kev
People may be motivated to do it because it's a donation, but I think they still expect recognition for it.
Ge0rG
It would be really great if the companies that have millions of XMPP users would become sponsors.
Ge0rG
If only we had an ED.
Guus
We don't need an ED for that - just someone willing to do the job.
Ge0rG
If only we had someone willing to do the job.
Guus
I'm not sure that we don't have anyone.
Guus
(Kev's double negatives are rubbing off)
Kev
👍
Guus
We never asked, afaik.
Kev
Willing and competent.
Ge0rG
and empathical.
Ge0rG
Which probably falls under #2
lskdjfhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
lumihas joined
Guus
Kev iirc, you had feedback on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744 - would you care to share it (there, preferably)?
Kev
There was a long discussion about it in Council yesterday. Summary: automatically making people an author because they propose advancement of a deferred XEP seems bad. I'm fine with it other than that.
Guus
Thanks, reading back logs
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
ralphm
Yeah, I'm thinking of what the wording should change into.
ralphm
Probably something like the requestor to be considered author for the purposes of moving it to draft, and explicitly mentioning that Council or the Editor could assign 'real' authorship to said person at their request.
architekthas joined
architekthas left
Guus
what is "real" authorship?
Guus
also, does the individual requesting the LC _replace_ the original author, or is that person added to the list?
ralphm
I don't think we've ever removed authors, except maybe on request.
ralphm
Real authorship means having your name on the document.
Seve
Is the author contacted first? To allow/encourage future progress directly from the original
ralphm
Seve: have you read the changes?
Seve
I guess that answers my question, unfortunately I haven't yet :)
Guus
As I read it, the 'you get to be author automatically' is explicitly scoped to XEPs abandoned by their original author(s).
Guus
I don't have an issue with that.
ralphm
Yes, but Council discussion revealed that they think this is not desirable. Unfortunately, the rest of the described process requires an XEP Author, e.g. to process LC feedback, so they suggest appointing the requestor to take on that role *for the purpose of moving the document*.
jmpmanhas joined
ralphm
(and not actually be an author otherwise, unless Council or Editor decides otherwise)
Alexhas left
Guus
I don't think I agree. If a XEP moves towards Final, it is desirable to have a permanent author. The person issuing the last call is a logical default choice. That can be changed in those cases where it's undesirable.
Guus
opt-out, rather than opt-in, kind-of.
ralphm
Peter suggested a care-taker role. I think that's nice.
ralphm
But if you haven't authored a spec, you shouldn't be named as author.
ralphm
I think that's a fair point as made by Council.
Guus
it's not an unfair point. I'd personally not require such a change, nor oppose it.
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
Guus
nyco Seve MattJ - It'd be good to have your recorded reviews on https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744 before we start todays board meeting.
Guushas left
Guus
maybe make up your minds on the listed 'topics for decision' while you're at it 🙂
Guushas left
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Ge0rG
Guus, ralphm: I also responded to the Trademark suggestions by Peter, but as always I'm not allowed to contact the other Board members, so I only approached the two of you
Ge0rG
I have a video conference scheduled short before Board Meeting, of which I hope it will terminate on time. If you have questions in advance, I'd love to provide answers now
Guus
Ge0rG I've just forwarded your response to all of board.
Ge0rG
Guus: awesome, thanks
Guus
as far as I see, there are no points left under discussion. Did I miss anything?
Ge0rG
There was also talk about whitelisting all members to send to board?
Guus
unsure about that. Let's not drag that into the issue of your trademark request though.
Ge0rG
Guus: yes, that's completely separate. I think Kev said something about this being an easy change, with his iteam hat on
Ge0rG
It would also make delivery of board meeting minutes easier, assumed that those are written by a member. Or maybe we could whitelist standards@ subscribers as well.
Guus
I'm guessing that more bookkeeping is required? or, are we keeping a record of active XSF members in config somewhere already?
Ge0rG
(you can't send out minutes if you aren't subscribed to either)
Ge0rG
Guus: IIRC it was a mailman config change, no bookkeeping involved
Guus
minutes never go to board@ - that's originally intended to be used for internal discussion amongst board members.
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Ge0rG
Ah well, as long as you document the correct way to contact board, I'm okay with whatever works for you. If it is "send to Guus Gmail and kindly ping him on xsf@ to bounce", so be it
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Guus
Ge0rG I noticed that the blacklist is pretty empty (has one domain). Is that list already actively maintained?
Ge0rG
Guus: yes it is. But it takes significant effort to maintain due process. You are welcome to participate.
Guus
(I'm contemplating mirroring it through igniterealtime.org, and hook it into a new plugin that applies the blacklist).
moparisthebesthas joined
Guus
what kind of 'proof' do you require that due process has been followed?
Ge0rG
Guus: in the process, I've got half a dozen of servers shut down, and a bunch of requests are pending timeout.
moparisthebesthas joined
jonas’
Guus, there is a private issue tracker where the process is documented
Ge0rG
Guus: we have an internal issue tracker where all communications with ISPs and server Admins is logged verbatim.
Guus
ah, that makes sense
Ge0rG
Guus: you are welcome to join the effort, otherwise I'd like to get CCs of the abuse report messages with respective timestamps and responses
Guus
Ge0rG I don't have a specific issue in mind. As I'm already facing to many possibilities to procrastinate, I'll not add yours as yet another to that list for now )
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Ge0rG
It's probably sufficient to document the date, contact address and type of request, like in the commit message of the first addition, but then I need to trust you not to game the system
Ge0rG
So far, I've read many reports of "I've contacted the admins of xyz", but these never were followed up with evidence
Guus
It's important to retain a good trail of evidence, to avoid abuse of the anti-abuse service. 🙂
bowlofeggshas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Ge0rG
Yes. This is why I'm demanding evidence before adding any domain there.
jjrhhas left
jjrhhas joined
marc_has joined
jjrhhas left
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Kev
Guus: We're already in a situation where we can add new Authors to a document as-needed. So I think simply removing that bit of text from the PR leaves what we already have in place and Council can do sensible things.
Kev
While fulfilling the core aim of the PR, which is to make sure that Deferred stuff can get advanced.
Kev
I think the automatic stuff is actively harmful, because we do have people from time to time in the community with a high noise to signal ratio, and having them automatically responsible for XEPs because they make noise would be heavily undesirable.
dwd
FWIW, I don't particularly mind whoever requests the Last Call being then held responsible for progressing to draft by default. I don't think enforcing this as a XEP Author change is quite right though.
Kev
Same.
Kev
Well, no not quite same.
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Kev
I don't think it's right in the case that the original author is active that someone else gets to shepherd it through.
Kev
Although maybe that's not an issue.
Guus
the suggested change scopes the addition of the author to XEPs that are abandoned by the original author(s).
dwd
Well, I imagine that can be taken care of either with the "by default", or indeed by COuncil rejecting the Last Call if an active author thinks it's not yet ready.
ralphm
dwd: I didn't touch that part, though. Are you suggesting we remove the current text about the Author needing to process LC comments?
Guus
also, it doesn't explicitly say 'replace' author - I'm assuming that it's an 'add'.
Guushas left
ralphm
Ge0rG: for what it is worth, from what I understand from Kev and Peter, board@xmpp.org is not dropping messages from non-subscribers. They get to a moderation queue, which wasn't processed properly. Peter is now actively monitoring that again.
dwd
Personally, I'd be happy with "must be prepared to act as Author for the purposes and duration of the advancement to Draft" or some such wording.
ralphm
dwd: that was what I was going for indeed.
Ge0rG
dwd: I like that text
Guus
I don't have an issue with the person trying to revive a XEP to be added to the XEP as an additional author, not even for high signal-to-noise persons.
Ge0rG
ralphm: Ah, that might work as well. It makes me wonder, however, what is the current formal agreement underlying that - last time there was a discussion about Peter not being the ED any more.
Guus
dwd's wording is fine with me too.
Ge0rG
Guus: I think there is some small potential for abuse, and it doesn't feel right to me to auto-make anybody an author
ralphm
Peter is still an Officer of the XSF and I'm happy with him doing this.
Ge0rG
ralphm: great!
Guus
it's not auto-make, as the Council gets to decide on the move to Last Call (and thus author)
ralphm
(he is Treasurer)
Ge0rG
Guus: do you imply that there should be two separate votes - first on the LC and then on the extension of authorship?
Guus
no. As everyone, including me, is happy with a change in wording to the extend to what Dave just suggested, this is quickly starting to turn into bikeshedding htough
ralphm
Ge0rG: the idea is that we change the wording such that only the first is needed. Extension of authorship should be a separate thing, and my original wording was supposed to reflect this, but didn't.
Ge0rG
Let's move forward with Dave's wording then
ralphm
Guus: the bikeshed will be orange
Guushas left
Guus
purple@!
Ge0rG
lib-purple?
Guus
ok, orange.
ralphm
:-D
Ge0rG
Guus: I was not surprised to see that proposal being made by *you*, though!
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Guus
'that proposal' ?
Ge0rG
> purple@!
Guus
I have off-days too.
rtq3has joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Guus
(I obviously should've gone with "pretty red")
Seve
ralphm, Guus, where can I find what defines a XEP as abandoned or better, how a XEP gets into the state of abandoned?
Guus
I don't think that there's a definition for that.
ralphm
Seve: it is not defined. In general abandonment is an indeterminable thing.
ralphm
So I'd say this is up to the Editor or Council to concider.
Seve
Hmm, I see.
Kev
Guus: Your assertion that, under the current text, the approving body can reject the LC, thereby preventing the authorship isn't consistent with the PR, which says that it's the requesting that makes them author, not the LC.
ralphm
I.e. say you think a XEP is abandoned, you make an effort to contact the author. If he doesn't respond, you propose advancement and then Editor or Council can make a judgement call.
ralphm
Kev: to be fair, the changed text doesn't say it makes them author, but I will clarify as discussed.
Guus
Kev that'd be wrong in so many ways that I think it's implicit that authorship is granted only after Approving Body approval. But: pretty red pretty pretty bikeshed!
Ge0rG
I actually like the ambiguity of requiring the Proposer to be prepared, but no explicit requirement on making them the author.
kokonoehas joined
dwd
Ambiguity - it's what we like in standards, right?
grumpyhas joined
Ge0rG
dwd: to not make me look like having cognitive dissonance, I'm going to claim different levels of ambiguity demand for standards-for-people vs standards-for-machines.
ralphm
good luck with that
waqashas joined
Ge0rGpulls the Common Sense card, then
dwd
I think you're not looking for ambiguity, per se, but flexibility, which applies to both.
frainzhas left
Ge0rG
isn't the ambiguity of the wording giving us flexibility in what to do?
ralphm
dwd: Section 8 also mentions the author can retract. I'm thinking of explicitly excluding that for their temporary replacement.
dwd
ralphm, Good catch. Not considered that myself.
lhas joined
Kev
Or, and it's just a crazy thought, leave Authorship out of it and just note that the approving body will need to ensure there's an active author if they approve the proposal.
Kev
;)
Kev
That way we're pretty confident we're not breaking anything, nor preventing sensible things being done.
ralphm
Kev: that doesn't help
dwd
I get what you mean, but I like the notion that anyone proposing needs to be aware they might be seen as volunteering.
ralphm
as you need someone during last call, and while Council is concidering the move, to collect and process feedback
Ge0rG
I don't like it when anybody can propose, and then Council needs to run searching for volunteers.
Kev
Yes, that's what I said.
ralphm
no
Kev
If Council (or whoever) approve the proposal to LC it, they need to ensure there's an active Author to see it through.
Ge0rG
Kev: the Council doesn't have any means to do so.
Kev
Sure they do.
ralphm
It does, though. It could say it isn't ready for last call without an author
Ge0rG
So we reject the LC and make another round until the Proposer either volunteers or disappears?
Kev
Or find an active person who's willing to Author.
ralphm
The problem I have with that, though, is that a document might not actually require significant changes to progress, and ensuring an active author would mean that whoever is that new author, would have to be named on the document.
ralphm
(even though they didn't, well, author the document)
ralphm
The only other thing (besides somebody acting as author) is having this role fall to the Editor.
Kev
Maybe it makes sense to define a Document Shepherd, then?
ralphm
They can already modify documents with final say with Council.
Kev
And say that AB needs to ensure that there is an active Author or DS if it issues the LC.
ralphm
So basically: Romeo proposes XEP-xxxx, Council asks: sure, will you shepherd?, Romeo: eh, well, ok!
Ge0rG
Can't we just go on with dwd's
> "must be prepared to act as Author for the purposes and duration of the advancement to Draft"
Kev
Ge0rG: The issue there was then needing to start excluding things that an Author can currently do.
ralphm
I'm now instead whitelisting.
olihas joined
Kev
The idea of defining DS is to have the same sentiment, without the confusion of a pseudo-partial-Author.
ralphm
Current text in my editor: “Such an individual must be prepared to act as XEP author for the purposes of collecting and processing feedback, during the proposal and approval processes, as described below.”
ralphm
If you want to name “such an individual” "Document Shephard”, that's ok, I guess.
Danielhas left
Seve
It is the first time I hear about "Document Shephard" though :)
Kev
Kinda the point. If we're inventing a new role, it might be less confusing to use a new name, rather than overloading an existing term :)
ralphm
Seve: because you didn't read the Council discussion on this, and also not my mention of it earlier here.
Seve
:D
Kev
Maybe we could call such an individual a 'node' :)
Kev
But DS is a term from the IETF.
Seve
No no, I read it, I mean I never heard the term before
Seve
I see Kev, thank you
jmpmanhas joined
ralphm
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858
jmpmanhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
Zashhas left
ralphm
I've updated the PR
Kev
Thanks Ralph.
ralphm
dwd, Kev, Ge0rG, (and others), let me know if this addresses your concerns
rtq3has left
rtq3has joined
karoshihas left
Steve Killehas left
karoshihas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
vaulorhas joined
vaulorhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rG
ralphm: I'm not particularly lucky with the new wording as it doesn't imply any relationship between the Proposing Individual and the Document Shepherd, but it is sufficiently flexible and formally correct to be used, IMO
Nÿcohas joined
ralphm
I think Council can in practice coerce^Wsuggest those two individuals to be the same.
Ge0rG
ralphm: yes, but that requires a Council RTT
jmpmanhas joined
Kev
I think that's a feature that it doesn't conflate the two people.
Steve Killehas left
ralphm
I'm not too worried about the roundtrip.
Kev
And it's not really a "Council" roundtrip. It just means when someone requests an LC, whoever they request it of says "Will you shepherd if Council ask you to?".
ralphm
Especially since suggesting to propose a XEP to move informally already happens during discussions here.
Ge0rG
I'd prefer a wording that implies that Proposing Individual needs to propose a Document Shepherd for the LC
ralphm
(or the standards list or wherever)
ralphm
Kev: that "whoever" by definition is the Editor, by the way.
Ge0rG
But as I said, it is sufficiently flexible and formally correct, so we don't need to Shed More Bikes now.
Ge0rG
So you ask Editor to ask Council to do an LC?
Kev
ralphm: Ah, right.
ralphm
Ge0rG: you're not taking my bike
Ge0rG
ralphm: this is not your bike.
Nÿcohas left
Nÿcohas joined
ralphm
Ge0rG: well, you kinda ask the Approving Body, but the Editor processes such requests.
lhas joined
ralphm
Since the venue is the standards mailing list, it doesn't matter that much.
ralphm
And you don't request a LC, you propose a XEP for progressing to Draft.
ralphm
Depending on the XEP type, it might not require and LC.
Who do we have and any items beyond what's in Trello?
Sevewaves
ralphm
nyco, Guus, MattJ?
Guus
o/
nyco
hey
ralphm
1. Minute taker
ralphm
Who?
Seve
I can do it, although after the meeting, most probably
ralphm
Seve: thanks
ralphm
2. Adding Maxime Buquet to SCAM
nyco
+1
Guus
does pep. _want_ to be in SCAM? 🙂
Guus
I feel that he's being volunteered 🙂
ralphm
During the Summit, the work team for Summits, Conferences and Meetups was discussed. With pep. organizing events, it was concidered proper to add him to scam.
pep.
Sure
Seve
I was not aware of it, I guess this happened druing Summit
Guus
+1
ralphm
He was totally aware
ralphm
I confirmed it.
ralphm
+1
Seve
And I'm +1 if he wants to! He is working hard on this area
ralphm
Yay. Thanks pep.!
pep.
Thanks!
ralphm
3. Sponsoring offer by Petko Yanev
pep.checks SCAM off the list, one less thing to take over the world
ralphm
As seen on the Board list, there was a request for sponsorship by this individual and/or his company.
ralphm
I feel that the nature of his request doesn't align with our goals.
ralphm
Opinions?
Nÿco
( https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/scam-team to be updated! 😉 )
Nÿcois reading about Petko
ralphm
(Nyco PRs welcome)
Guus
The offer to sponsoring feels dodgy, from the text of the email. "I am managing the marketing of few sports betting and casino review websites."
ralphm
Indeed.
ralphm
As Peter had already suggested to him, I suggest we decline this offer.
MattJ
Hey
Guus
it's be cool if the sports betting / casino thingies were to utilize XMPP, but my feeling is that this is simple link-generation stuff.
ralphm
Right
MattJ
+1 on adding Max to SCAM
Guus
Unsure if we should dismiss it immediately. What is the chance that there's a language barrier here?
Seve
I expected to know maybe... a bit more? Like why is he interested in sponsorship and so on. Would be my first case on this topic though.
ralphm
If someone would like to interact with him to find this out, please do.
Seve
I don't know what is our process as well, do we have any requirement for sponsors? Like use XMPP or something along the lines?
dwd
Seve, Want me to do minutes instead?
MattJ
I read the email as 100% about SEO for them (hence asking about whether we use nofollow on links)
Seve
dwd, would be pleased!
Nÿco
does Petko want to contribute SEO to the XSF and XMPP? that would be cool
ralphm
Seve: https://xmpp.org/community/sponsorship.html
Nÿco
agree with Seve what are his motivations?
Guus
I'm fine with rejecting the offer, as long as we write to him that we're not interested as we understand the proposal for sponsoring to be solely to boost his SEO.
Guus
that gives him the chance to prove him wrong.
ralphm
Who's taking this up?
Nÿco
prove **us** wrong 😉
ThibGhas joined
Guus
right 🙂
Guus
I'll do it
Nÿco
thx!
ralphm
Thanks Guus.
ralphm
3. XEP-0001 PR 744
ralphm
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/744
Nÿco
so why "shepherd"? 😉
ralphm
This has been discussed in Council yesterday, and earlier today in xsf@muc.xmpp.org.
ralphm
Nÿco: as this was suggested by Peter
krauqhas joined
ralphm
The IETF has a similar, but more involved, role.
Guus
nyco to distinguish from 'author' - someone who takes up the task of maintaining it, is not necessarily its author.
ralphm
Shepherd seems an appropriate name for someone guiding a document through a process.
Guus
I'm +1 with the change to XEP-0001 as proposed in that PR.
MattJ
+1 also
Seve
Very happy with the last one I might say, ralphm. I'm +1
Nÿco
ok, clear, then +1
kokonoehas joined
ralphm
Yay. Please adjust the review status on GitHub to match.
ralphm
And then I'll be able to have it merged.
ralphm
4. Trademark Request by Georg Lukas
pep.
https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/524 fwiw
pep.
(SCAM)
Guus
I've forwarded the last round of discussion between Ge0rG and Peter to the board list
Guus
(earlier today)
ralphm
With the changes suggested by Peter, and accepted by Ge0rG, I propose we approve the application for the use of Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management.
Guus
I'm inclined to grant a license based on his updated request.
MattJ
+1
Nÿco
( and https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/index.php?title=Summits_Conferences_And_Meetups_team&type=revision&diff=10905&oldid=9658 )
ralphm
Guus is that a +1?
Guus
+1
Seve
+1 to Jabber Spam Prevention and Abuse Management
Nÿco
sorry, I haven't been able to process it
Nÿco
I can vote later if necessary
ralphm
Nÿco: you can vote on list, but we have a majority in favor.
ralphm
So the motion carries.
Nÿco
that's cool then
ralphm
Cheers, Ge0rG.
Guus
thanks for bearing with us.
Nÿco
now, JabberBACON
ralphm
dwd says I should explicitly write +1
ralphm
so: +1
Guus
would someone be so kind as to issue a PR to the relevant page on our website?
dwd
:-)
Guus
we have one that lists accepted trademark licence requests.
Good job, thank you guys. Thanks to dwd for volunteering as minute taker, really appreciated.
ralphm
+1
Nÿcohas left
Guus
Proposal for response to sponsor offer: "Thank you for your kind offer to sponsor the XMPP Standards Foundation. If we read your email correctly, then your primary reason for sponsoring is SEO optimization. If that is indeed the case, then we feel that the nature of your offer does not align with the sponsorship program goals, and we respectfully decline your offer."
Guus
feedback please?
Marandahas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
Ge0rG
I'm bored and not board, but LGTM
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
waqashas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
ralphmhas left
jonas’
ralphm, yes, that was me, I wasn’t able to work on it, and I probably won’t be in the next week as I don’t have a weekend this time
vaulorhas left
vaulorhas joined
rtq3has left
mightyBroccolihas left
rionhas left
rionhas joined
kokonoehas joined
rtq3has joined
Seve
Guus: I personally would ask to elaborate a bit more on the topic if he is actually interested. If I got this reply back I would think I do not have any more chances to "defense" myself. If you already sent this out, not bit of a problem anyway.
jonas’has left
jonas’has joined
mightyBroccolihas joined
Kevhas joined
Steve Killehas joined
ralphm
Maybe ask about how their activities relate to XMPP.
Steve Killehas joined
Kevhas joined
matihas left
Steve Killehas joined
Kevhas joined
Guus
Seve ralphm what about: "Thank you for your kind offer to sponsor the XMPP Standards Foundation. Can you please elaborate on how your activities relate to XMPP? If you're not applying XMPP, and your primary reason for sponsoring is SEO optimization, then the nature of your offer does not align with the sponsorship program goals, and we respectfully decline your offer. However, if we misread your offer, then please elaborate."
olihas left
Seve
Guus: looks awesome, thank you!
Zash
👍
matihas joined
jonas’
this reads very accusatory to me, but I don’t have any context
vaulorhas left
vaulorhas joined
Guus
accusatory was not what I was after.
Kevhas joined
Steve Killehas joined
jonas’
then I’d delete everything after the first questionmark
Guus
"Thank you for your kind offer to sponsor the XMPP Standards Foundation. Can you please elaborate on how your activities relate to XMPP? From your text, it appears that you're not applying XMPP, and your primary reason for sponsoring is SEO optimization. If that is indeed the case, then the nature of your offer does not align with the sponsorship program goals, and we respectfully decline your offer. However, if we misread your offer, then please elaborate."
jonas’
> from your text […]
and that’s why I said I have no context :)
ralphm
Guus: I'm happy with that
Guus
jonas` the context is that this guy mentions that he is a marketing person for sports and casino review guys, offers to sponsor, and ask if sponsoring comes with do-follow links.
Guus
We're inclined to reject, unless we're misreading things.