eevvoorah it is literally NickServ. Is it case sensitive?
pep.Zash, something something semantics in body? :x
ZashIRC is not case sensitive
pep.Even though.. I think I did mention that in some PR
ZashNor is XMPP for the localpart
pep.https://github.com/dino/dino/pull/699#pullrequestreview-338018551 (github won't load the comment here..)
eevvoor> Zash, something something semantics in body? :x
pep.we all know not sending an action intent and parsing body is always better
pep.(/s if it's not obvious enough)
jonas’you should’ve sent a sarcasm intent
Zash!xep message tone
pep.I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what to do with that information as a client
pep.As a user sure
eevvoorok thank you pep. nickserv answers came very slowly to me but now it worked.
eevvoorDo I have to register on every irc server anew I guess?
pep.Yep because they don't federate
jonas’you have to register for every irc *network* anew
jonas’IRC servers *do* federate
jonas’but what you mean is probably network
ZashI'm not sure what IRC does in what I would call "federate"
pep.But from a user perspective it's about the same. On XMPP it doesn't matter if I'm running a server cluster or a server (apart from reliability)
ZashEven in the single IRC days, it was more like a single logical cluster
pep.Maybe it's the same on XMPP in the end. There's one federated network of public servers and many private networks. They're just not as exposed as IRC
pep.Someday the one federated network of public servers may even split, who knows..
jonas’I expect that to happen over spam fighting policies
ZashEach XMPP server has its own namespace tho, while IRC networks share the user / channel namespace.
pep.jonas’, I also expect that to happen over privacy and CoC policies :x
Ge0rGYou need a CoC to run an xmpp server now?
pep.Don't you need a CoC to do anything? And if you don't it's just implicit
Ge0rGWhere's that report that looked at some xmpp server privacy policies, considered them insufficient but didn't actually link to them?
!XSF_MartinSearch for 'admin in the middle'
ZashDon't we have that kinf of s2s fragmentation already? Dialback vs strict cert validation? Onion-only servers? Admins blocking each other out of spite?
ZashDon't we have that kind of s2s fragmentation already? Dialback vs strict cert validation? Onion-only servers? Admins blocking each other out of spite?
pep.On my private server I'm already blocking not based on tech nor spam
pep.(and then what do you define as "spam" anyway)
jonas’now I wonder what you’re blocking based on
pep.ideology. I don't want to federate with fascists servers
ZashI don't think we'll have the same issues as the AP fediverse, where content can be replicated via multiple paths, so you need to go all Eris and block instances that federate with any instance-non-grata
jonas’pep., what do you think does that achieve?
jonas’(maybe this belongs into the other room)
Zashpep., but will you federate with servers that federate with those?
pep.jonas’, what do you think that doesn't achieve
!XSF_Martin> ideology. I don't want to federate with fascists servers
pep., hope you have 1488.io on your list then. Better don't look at the website, it's disgusting.
pep.!XSF_Martin, didn't know about them. good to know
pep.jonas’, just like I probably wouldn't federate with any GAFA nowadays if they used XMPP again tbh. Capitalists coming for EEE, get lost.
!XSF_MartinNowadays GAFA has more to loose than to win when federating.
pep.Once you are in a position of monopoly that's true
!XSF_MartinNowadays GAFA has more to lose than to win when federating.
jjrhI don't buy that big players don't have anything to win not federating
jjrhBeing able to federate - mostly in - allows you to draw new users into your services and keep old users on your services out of convenience.
pep.We have very much to lose for sure
jjrh'we' as in the xsf?
pep.The XMPP community
pep.The XSF is leaning towards big players anyway already
pep.whatever they think "neutral" means
jjrhyeah - i'm strictly speaking about 'cool social network'
jjrhwho don't want to federate to keep their users in a walled garden
jjrher want to
!XSF_Martin> Being able to federate - mostly in - allows you to draw new users into your services and keep old users on your services out of convenience.
But the silos is where the users are already. By opening the silo some may pour out whereas everyone who wants to be there is already there. Who would say 'I was not on facebook so far but now they federate with never heard of xmpp, let's sign up at facebook'?
moparisthebestwalled garden's entire business model is based on keeping users locked in, they'd close before they'd federate (because federation would just be a more costly slow closure)
jjrhthe problem is when people leave the walled garden they leave in mass numbers.
moparisthebestjust to go to the next one, I don't think facebook is worried about that
jjrhproblem is once they are gone they aren't coming back in most cases
jjrhif you have the convenience they can use a service and folks outside can still interact with you you both keep old users and draw in new users since they still interact with your user base
moparisthebestthat's a problem for everyone except the big players you want to federate
moparisthebestmost users seem perfectly fine with having 5 or 10 accounts that can't communicate
jonas’14:01:38 pep.> The XSF is leaning towards big players anyway already
Zashjust wait, someone will launch a(nother) app that brings all various chat services together
jjrhI think the mistake is thinking you're always going to be a big player. Basically only google maintains the level of integration where it's a mountain to leave
Zashand people will say that it's oh so convenient and less clutterred
jjrhnice thing with xmpp is it doesn't just have to be chat :)
moparisthebestjjrh, google is so not concerned with continuing to be a big player they destroy their entire community every couple years
jjrhwell yes google is uh weird like that.
moparisthebestfacebook owns, how many different social networks? and doesn't even federate between their own
pep.jonas’, the fact that the XSF decided to be politically "neutral" is reason enough to justify this quote. There is no such thing as politically neutral. (which differs from actively engaging in political activities)
jonas’is that in reference to that open letter thing?
pep.The open letter is just one example
jonas’I think the stance is sensible fwiw
pep.I think that's bs
jonas’while also acknowledging that lobbying for that cause would be good, but it’s not the XSF’s place
jonas’you also don’t see the IETF lobbying
moparisthebestxsf is politically neutral except copy left licenses are verbotten :)
pep.My point is whether or not political activities are carried as a separate entity, there is no such thing as neutral
jonas’where are they verboten?
jjrhany group is going to project the political values of their members in what they focus time and effort on
jjrhpep., it's impossible to to netural but you can make a conscious effort to avoid bias
pep.Just like how the law is made by and for the ruling class. A judge applying every and all decisions following these laws (staying ouside of the "politics") will privilege one type of person over the other which is inherently political
jonas’comparing the XSF with a judge is inappropriate
jonas’to both the XSF and the judge
jonas’the goal of a judge is not neutrality, but fairness and justice.
pep.Which are quite subjective things
pep.I don't see the inappropriate-ness sorry
jonas’pep., in which way does or should the XSF have a role similar to a judge?
pep.It doesn't play the role of a judge, but it does encourage, or rather doesn't discourage, certain type of behaviour, by being neutral
jonas’which is ok by me
pep.Just like the judge could make the scale go one way or another by following the law more or less
jonas’the goal of the XSF is not to judge or encourage behaviour. the goal of the XSF is to document and shepherd the XMPP protocol.
pep.And to me that means the XSF doesn't discourage prominent behaviours in our society, thus not actually being neutral
Zashwhat jonas’ said
jonas’where we *should* be encouraging or governing behaviour is regarding how the protocol is extended in an official way.
jonas’how the protocol is used is out of scope
jonas’and it most certainly is a rats nest I do *not* want to get into
moparisthebest> pep., in which way does or should the XSF have a role similar to a judge?
moparisthebestwell a very recent and perfect example is "we judge this protocol to be un-implementable outside of GPL and deem it unfit for XSF standards"
jonas’moparisthebest, see my message *right* after that
jonas’well, not quite right after that
jonas’but a bit above yours
jonas’and, again, we settled that discussion
Zash(where's that reference XEP?)
jonas’please don’t bring it up again
moparisthebestthat is a judgement though
14:23:24 jonas’> where we *should* be encouraging or governing behaviour is regarding how the protocol is extended in an official way.
moparisthebestand it's not settled, I'm still waiting for the promised 0001 update from Kev
pep.> where we *should* be encouraging or governing behaviour is regarding how the protocol is extended in an official way.
> how the protocol is used is out of scope
How is any of this neutral
moparisthebestand to be clear I fully understand these last few months no one saw coming and has been utter craziness which is why I haven't been pushing for that update :D
jonas’pep., "how the protocol is used is out of scope"
pep.Because we know who are the main users of the protocol, namely big tech companies not having to redo the work
jonas’(and regarding the other quote: well, yeah, judging how the protocol is extended is exactly the one job the XSF has; that is where we’re *not* neutral, we’re trying to be sane by having committees to decide things)
jonas’that’s kind of the point of having standards
jonas’if you don’t like that, roll your own thing with a non-liberal license, e.g. AGPL based.
pep.I personally think it's not enough
pep.You're using scary words :p
jonas’sorry for that
jonas’but I’m kind of serious
jonas’(even though I generally advocate the use of AGPL and the likes)
jonas’(the non-liberal-ness of the license *does* have its use as a political mean)
jonas’it is *not* the XSF’ place to govern who is using the protocol for what purpose in which way. It really very much is not territory I want to go in to change that, because it’d make everything a huge mess.
jonas’even though I’m, personally, not fond of some military use cases and of course not of faceboogle using it for their silos.
pep.(I generally prefer "permissive", so I don't have to justify what "liberal" means or doesn'T)
jonas’ah, yeah, let’s do s/liberal/permissive/ on what I just said
jonas’(I prefer that terminology actually, but the word wasn’t coming up in my head
jonas’(I prefer that terminology actually, but the word wasn’t coming up in my head)
jonas’the XSF is not primarily there for the normal jabber IM end users
jonas’we (the normal jabber IM end users and developers) need an org which is there for us, because otherwise we don’t have a voice loud enough, that’s for sure.
jonas’that’s also a thing we all know, but nobody has the resources to spawn such an entity
pep.jonas’, whether I want the XSF to go that way I think is another topic. I just want the XSF to stop pretenting it's neutral
jonas’but that’s no reason to abuse the XSF for that.
pep.Our main users are corporate and we are aware of that
jonas’I still don’t see how the XSF is not neutral in points where it aims to be neutral.
jonas’but now my head starts to hurt which isn’t exactly great
jonas’(probably unrelated to this discussion and more related to the ramp up of heat from yesterday to today)
Daniel> Our main users are corporate and we are aware of that
Is this a bad thing?
jonas’(but it’s also not helping)
pep.Daniel, that's up to you to decide
pep.Just saying it's not neutral
jonas’pep., we can’t be made responsible for who our users are, can we?
pep.Sure we can
jonas’or are you saying that we specifically cater for one set of users and not the other?
pep.We're empowering them
jonas’in the way the protocols are written?
jonas’how do we do that?
pep.The "how" is still very much up for discussion, that doesn't make the whole thing moot
jonas’DISCLAIMER: I feel this is going in a direction where I need to say the following:
(a) I am speaking for myself in this discussion and these are only my personal views
(b) My personal views can be changed by application of reason and argument. Just because I say one thing today doesn’t mean that I do or will firmly believe this to be true forever.
jonas’pep., not sure if you got my question
jonas’how do you think are we empowering corporate users?
moparisthebestjonas’, gotta say not many people seem to have that (b) and I couldn't have more respect for that :)
jonas’( moparisthebest: I think actually that many people do, however, nobody believes that they do and instead the moment someone says something one doesn’t like, they’re blocked/ghosted/... instead of having a reasonable discussion.)
pep.By giving them access to a ready to implement protocol (and often ready-to-use free software implementations, but we can leave that out of the XSF's hands). We know that a majority of our users (in actual numbers, for the very few cases we display on the website there are many more we don't know about) are a specific type of users, and by being "neutral" most of the XSF's work will eventually benefit them.
jonas’pep., I don’t see how the first part is specific to corporate users.
jonas’We also give that protocol to non-corporate users.
jonas’It’s the user’s (= developer’s) choice which protocol they use to implement their stack.
pep.We do indeed, but one type has effectively more resources than the other
jonas’That is true, and probably the reason why there are more users of that type.
jonas’where is the lack of neutrality?
pep.This is the lack of neutrality?
jonas’I can’t follow
jonas’are you saying we need to simplify the protocol so that users with fewer resources are more likely to be able to use it?
Syndacewhy do I feel like this is going to end up discussing licenses
pep.jonas’, As a (somewhat remote? maybe not) example: You know about GHGS (green house gases) and you'd like to reduce the amount per year. There's many options in front of you, you could just 1. let people do because you think they'll do what is best for the planet, 2. impose a tax on GHGS producing activities, but then this is mostly gonna affet poor people, because those with resources don't actually care much about a few $ increase, 3. you could for example impose quotas saying a person can't produce more than X a year, putting less pressure on those with less resources.
All this to say there's different ways to go about something and each and every decision is going to affect a different group of person/entity (the earth in this case). Also called trade-offs
jonas’pep., and I think the XSF is doing a pretty good job to not at all influence the chance of success or failure of entities using the XMPP suite.
jonas’if you can point me to a point where we’re not doing that, I’d be curious.
pep.« The mission of the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) is to build an open, secure, feature-rich, decentralized infrastructure for real-time communication and collaboration over the Internet. »
pep.I think the XSF is far from achieving its mission
pep.Where is the promotion of decentralized infrastructure
jonas’indeed, I wonder what the word infrastructure is doing there
pep.Where is "open"
jonas’because the XMPP is most certainly not building any infrastructure and never has
jonas’because the XSF is most certainly not building any infrastructure and never has
pep.well I would read this as "help build"
pep.https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/mission.html for reference
pep.Promoting decentralisation in itself is certainly not neutral anyway. And most of our users are certainly not using this feature
Syndacebut it's politically neutral I'd say
> and it's not settled, I'm still waiting for the promised 0001 update from Kev
It's still on my list, but I'm afraid the last few months have not been good for me. In ways not obvious from the global state. I have a load of stuff when life is better, and I will get to them.
Syndacepromiting or aiming for decentralization
Syndacepromoting or aiming for decentralization
pep.Syndace, it's definitely not politically neutral to promote decentralisation
pep.Not sure where you got the idea
pep.Syndace, why not promote centralisation instead?
jonas’pep., the mission statement is leaving me empty handed argument wise right now
jonas’however, I can’t really see how this works together with a neutral organisation we want to be
pep.That's why I want the XSF to be clear about what it wants to achieve
jonas’(by "we want to be" I mean what people have been advocating in the past)
jonas’pep., I agree with that
pep.And I don't think it can achieve what the mission statement says by being "neutral"
jonas’maybe the mission statement should be reviewed by board, together with the open letter and the arguments on the members@ list
jonas’pep., I also agree with that
jonas’the mission statement is IMO pretty much contradictory to being fully neutral.
pep.I'm sorry you refuse to take part in this discussion
jonas’pep., not so harsh please
pep.jonas’, we've already had it in commteam@
pep.a few weeks ago
MattJFrom a quick skim, this seems to be yet another sub-discussion of a "discussion" that has been going on for a very long time now
MattJI'm quite sure I know where everybody stands
SyndaceI don't know how preferring one technology over another technology is political. But if it is, then I guess no single entitiy on this world can ever produce a product without also being politically biased.
pep.Syndace, indeed :)
jonas’MattJ, sometimes it’s good to refresh that impression, because of the (b) I said above ;)
jonas’MattJ, in addition, I was indeed not aware of the official XSF mission statement which seems conflicting with some things said on members@ recently.
jonas’but I’m not going to ping you anymore, off to a meeting next door
emus> And to me that means the XSF doesn't discourage prominent behaviours in our society, thus not actually being neutral
And technology is never neutral, as its made by society (choices).
emusat least is a result of it
jjrhIt sounds like pep.'s argument is based on the premise that a organization or individual can not truly ever be impartial. Thus a organization shouldn't try conveying they strive to do their best to be impartial because that cannot possible be true.
pep.yeah that's a good summary
jjrhWhile I agree a organization cannot be impartial - especially one run mostly on a volunteer basis - I think it's worth making it clear you at least /try/ to be impartial to contrast from organizations or projects that take the complete opposite stance and base decision making solely on political arguments (like the GNU project)
pep.Well there are two stances it appears the XSF is going to have to decide between. Either promoting "open" and "decentralized" infrastructures, or trying to be "neutral"
pep.(Again putting neutral in quotes. Because to me that's similar to "equal chances for every potential user" when we all know the starting line is not the same for everybody)
jjrhI think it's more if interoperability is the number one criteria. Like would the XSF accept a XEP (or work to standardize one) that has some technical issues but has massive deployment.
jjrhAnd does the XSF actively try and reach out to companies deploying non standardized extensions to try and get them standardized?
pep.("lol no?" scnr)
pep.It seems not interviening is what the XSF means by neutral
pep.the freer the market..
moparisthebestI think this describes most of the XEPs :P
> Like would the XSF accept a XEP (or work to standardize one) that has some technical issues but has massive deployment.
jjrhIs there a example of a XEP that Riot,Eve online,epic, etc uses that the XSF standardized?
jjrhIe they use XMPP, but do something non standard for a feature
moparisthebestthey don't tell people about those things do they?
pep.Seems to me that one could connect to Riot Games' chat with a free software client, so it's possible to see what they send you, but then they might also very well filter based on other parameters
jjrhNo, but one could either try and get them involved to standardize it.
Ge0rGriot games was stuffing xml into message bodies
Ge0rGencoded xml that is
moparisthebestif I had to guess most aren't standard-izeable (is this a word?)
moparisthebestit's much easier to not worry about interop if you control all ends
emusI wonder what are the feared outcomes of make more clear statements on e.g. the mentioned XSF mission? _(or "being more political" what was also discussed)_
jjrhI think it would be benefitial to reach out to companies deploying XMPP solutions to try and get them to document and publish their work and in cases where they have duplicated features of existing XEP's work with them to make changes so they can adopt a existing standard.
pep.emus, I guess conflict of interest mostly. Some members working for entities that don't actually federate or are anywhere near "open"
jjrhpep., those groups will still benefit working with a standards body.
pep.jjrh, yeah but not with the current XSF mission
pep.(which the XSF just doesn't apply)
pep.Also why I'm not entirely happy with "open standards", but that's another topic
pep.Note that I'm not saying this kind of deployment shouldn't exist (as much as I wish it didn't), I understand sometimes people make compromises. But there is such a thing as acknowledging your own stance.
jjrh"We do not write code; instead, we make it possible for others to write code. We listen to developers, service providers, and end users regarding the kinds of problems they want to solve, and we work with them to create protocols that solve those problems. "
jjrhHow doesn't that apply to a company looking to extend XMPP to fit their use case?
pep.I think it does
jjrhAre there any technical people from Riot,Epic,Cisco,etc involved in the XSF/standards process?
pep.Nowadays I don't think so. Maybe some years back there would have been Cisco people
pep.Just like there's been Google people before
jjrhNo clue how you reach out to those companies but to me having those companies involved would be beneficial.
jjrhCisco is actively deploying XMPP for their Unified Communications platform for instance.
pep.Is that in their interest at all
pep.Which is one of the reasons I think we should push for it instead of relying on the (in)famous market
jonas’I’m still in the backlog and may not even read all of it, but this stood out:
jonas’16:02:59 pep.> (Again putting neutral in quotes. Because to me that's similar to "equal chances for every potential user" when we all know the starting line is not the same for everybody)
jonas’yes, the starting line is different
jonas’no, I do not want the XSF to be the org rectifying that
pep.Then you agree we're just following the status quo?
pep. s/following/encouraging/ maybe is a better word
jonas’pep., regarding the XSF? yes
jonas’what do you mean by status quo?
pep.The quote above basically. Meaning we acknowledge some groups will be more advantaged than others wrt using our protocol. We're fine with not interviening.
jonas’I wouldn’t call that encouraging
pep.I do, but I can see that one would prefer using a less .. word (I'm missing the word..)
jonas’I don’t see us particularly endorsing that state, because that would also not be neutral.
jjrhCisco being involved in the standards process benefits them in the sense they: get their say in standards, they decrease effort required to build new features, they can use existing XMPP servers, client libraries, etc
pep.jonas’, endorsing is what I was looking for indeed.
pep.And how is us acknowledging this not "endorsing"
pep.(while I'd say not endorsing it is just putting our head in the sand)
pep.(looking the other way*, not sure which one is french which isn't)
jonas’pep., I looked it up in a dictionary, and 'to endorse' has multiple translations to german, one of which I can support, the others I don’t as a meaning in this context.
jonas’the one I support would be "billigen", but many others translate to something more active than that.
jonas’so if your interpretation of "endorse" is more close to the german "billigen" than the german "befürworten", we might just have a slight language issue here
pep.If that's "just" changing our level of implication I think that's not really interesting to clear up.
jonas’pep., it’s just that
jonas’in my head, endorsement would entail preferring this particular effect of us not being partial in who our users are over any other potential effect
jonas’i.e. that we prefer having helped whatsapp as closed silo to rise instead of a free and federated IM network
jonas’which would neither be neutral nor a message I could stand behind
pep.Well one could argue that by knowing who are potential user base is mostly going to be and not doing anything about it we are indeed "preferring" it to some other distribution
jonas’one could argue that, but I don’t think that argument makes a lot of sense
pep.This is us passively doing this
jonas’you can’t passively do something
pep.We could also actively influence
pep.But we prefer not to
jonas’yes, but that would be taking a side, which would not be neutral.
jonas’I don’t want the XSF to take either side
pep.Well you're taking the side of the current distribution by not taking one
jonas’this is not our hill to die on.
jonas’I don’t think that’s true
pep.I'm just saying what I said above with different words tbh
pep.who our* potential :x
emus> emus, I guess conflict of interest mostly. Some members working for entities that don't actually federate or are anywhere near "open"
Ok, but it doesnt automatically mean we are excluding them, right?
pep.Whether the protocol is still made available to them is up for debate, I can see many options (1. Yes no strings attached, 2. Yes for a fee, 3. Yes with a specific license, 4. No, etc.).
pep.But even if "Yes", there are things the XSF can do to try to counter-balance
jonas’I feel if we went down that route .. we’d spend even less resources on actual standards and too many resources on that meta stuff
pep.If we went down that route we might even be able to pay people to work on standards :)
jonas’I don’t think that would necessarily be a good thing
pep.Planned economy vs unplanned economy? :)
jonas’I think it’s not the XSF’s place
jjrhIf you make XMPP and the value the XSF adds attractive to the private sector you will end up with folks being paid by their employers to work with the XSF to develop standards. Same way a good chunk of people working with the IETF are paid by their employers to do that work.
KevIt has always been the case that people have been paid by the private sector to work with the XSF, to differing degrees.
pep.jjrh, that's definitely not a goal of mine, but I can see how it's attractive for some. I think that's actually what makes the XSF not neutral in any way. Why would it be easier for these entities to spend resources on this and orient the protocol some way rather than some other, just because they do have resources
pep.(And that rejoins my "not everybody starts on the same starting line")
jjrhBecause at the end of the day they still need consensus from the community. They still need to provide good answers for or against technical issues.
pep.The community? you mean paid people working say as a council member? (as an example)
pep.(or not directly paid, but working with that entity's interests in mind)
jjrhYou of course need to choose the right people to be council members.
pep."You" being other people from the same distribution? :)
jonas’pep., are you saying the XSF should exclude corporate members?
jonas’or do you have the impression that the current or previous council was imbalanced between corporate and non-corporate uses?
pep.jonas’, I'm not (I don't have a very clear opinion on this, I leave that up for debate)
KevI think what 'corporate' means here is probably far too vague to be interesting.
pep.(Even though I know it's already pretty much debated..)
jonas’(from my knowledge, the current council consists of four independent and one paid member, if we count daniel as independent)
pep.Kev, that's true
KevDaniel is a paid XMPP developer, no?
pep.What I'm saying is that if we endorse, or let things be, we'll "obviously" end up with that same distribution within our ranks
jjrhIt could quickly become "anyone who makes money selling or deploying XMPP solutions" which I suspect most people here do to some extent.
pep.I'm not asking for the moon I'm just asking for people to acknowledge it
KevI'm in favour of diversity, FWIW. Not of exclusion.
pep.hah, which falacy is that
KevI think that a Council that's a mix of client and server devs (and other) across a range of backgrounds is a good thing.
pep.Saying I'm not inclusive?
Kevjonas’ raised the point of whether people with a commercial interest in their work on XMPP should be excluded from Council.
pep.Yeah and that's not what I'm talking about anyway.
pep.> What I'm saying is that if we endorse, or let things be, we'll "obviously" end up with that same distribution within our ranks. [..] I'm just asking for people to acknowledge it
pep.So we might as well say we're inclusive, if we don't do anything about it we'll always have the same distribution of people
pep.Just like saying "It's not our fault there's no woman in tech it's their fault if they don't come"
jonas’Kev, hey, no
jonas’sorry, I did *not* want to make that impression that I’d support that
Kevjonas’: I didn't say you endorsed the position.
KevBut I think it was you who raised it?
jonas’I thought that was where pep was going
jonas’which I then understood
KevI am not attempting to put words in people's mouths.
jonas’Kev, I didn’t want to say you did, either
jonas’I just wanted to make sure that noone feels offended by this debate
pep.Oh I'm sure some do :x
jonas’and I wanted to make sure that nobody would assume that I hold that position or something
pep.And that's fine to me, it's not my problem if they don't assume their position
jonas’Kev, so, my "hey, no" was more like "hey, you, no I didn’t want to say that, please don’t think that" not "hey, I didn’t mean that! Don’t claim I did!!"
jonas’so, no offense taken or intended
moparisthebestsomeone else pasted in Conversations MUC but it seems pretty relevant to paste here:
moparisthebest> But to everyone’s surprise, it (XMPP) failed to deliver. The XMPP protocol tool didn’t provide basic features such as group chats. It only allowed one-on-one conversations, making it difficult for larger teams to collaborate.
moparisthebestsquints at date, April 19, 2020
eevvoordeswegen gibt es auch keine WA Gruppen moparisthebest :D
eevvooris ja WA under the hood
DanielThe xmpp protocol tool™
pep."However, as an ever-growing tech company", maybe they should have looked here first..
pep.Also I'm curious what they mean by "didn't provide basic features such as group chats"
DanielWe went through great lengths to find the one xmpp protocol tool that doesn't implemt muc
emus> pep., are you saying the XSF should exclude corporate members?
I think that is a misleading questions and obviously out of his point
emus> pep., are you saying the XSF should exclude corporate members?
I think that is a misleading question and obviously out of his point