XSF Discussion - 2020-07-01

  1. eevvoor

    an IRC Channel wich I entered via bridge asked me to register my nick. Somebody knows how to do that?

  2. pep.

    Talk to the NickServ user or equivalent?

  3. pep.

    /message NickServ%irc.foo.bar@gateway HELP

  4. pep.

    Maybe someday authentication in IRC will be mainstream and you'll be able to sasl everywhere o/

  5. Ge0rG

    On the more modern services, you can use your NickServ password as the server password and be authenticated automatically. Sometimes that even kills your ghost

  6. eevvoor

    There exists a nick serv user? ok. For the other channel I used it seemed to have worked automagically.

  7. eevvoor

    äh where? pep.

  8. eevvoor

    > msg: Command does not exist > Try using the //msg or /say /msg construct if you intended to send it as a text.

  9. eevvoor

    when I type it in my jabber client in the irc channel :D

  10. pep.

    eevvoor: /message of course depends on your client

  11. pep.

    here I use poezio

  12. Zash


  13. pep.

    just initiate a chat with that user

  14. Zash

    Here it looks like you did /me ssage

  15. eevvoor


  16. eevvoor does not like IRC very much

  17. pep.


  18. eevvoor

    here = jabber world

  19. Zash

    In Dino

  20. eevvoor

    ah no Zashs client

  21. Zash


  22. eevvoor

    ah it is literally NickServ. Is it case sensitive?

  23. eevvoor

    Zash :D

  24. pep.

    Zash, something something semantics in body? :x

  25. Zash

    IRC is not case sensitive

  26. pep.

    Even though.. I think I did mention that in some PR

  27. Zash

    Nor is XMPP for the localpart

  28. jonas’

    lol dino

  29. pep.

    https://github.com/dino/dino/pull/699#pullrequestreview-338018551 (github won't load the comment here..)

  30. eevvoor

    > Zash, something something semantics in body? :x ;-P

  31. pep.

    we all know not sending an action intent and parsing body is always better

  32. pep.

    (/s if it's not obvious enough)

  33. jonas’

    you should’ve sent a sarcasm intent

  34. Zash

    !xep message tone

  35. pep.

    jonas’: oops

  36. Zash

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0014.html :D

  37. pep.

    I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what to do with that information as a client

  38. pep.

    As a user sure

  39. eevvoor

    ok thank you pep. nickserv answers came very slowly to me but now it worked.

  40. pep.


  41. eevvoor

    Do I have to register on every irc server anew I guess?

  42. pep.

    Yep because they don't federate

  43. eevvoor


  44. jonas’


  45. jonas’

    you have to register for every irc *network* anew

  46. jonas’

    IRC servers *do* federate

  47. pep.


  48. jonas’

    but what you mean is probably network

  49. Zash

    I'm not sure what IRC does in what I would call "federate"

  50. 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)

  51. Zash

    Even in the single IRC days, it was more like a single logical cluster

  52. 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

  53. pep.

    Someday the one federated network of public servers may even split, who knows..

  54. jonas’

    I expect that to happen over spam fighting policies

  55. Zash

    Each XMPP server has its own namespace tho, while IRC networks share the user / channel namespace.

  56. pep.

    jonas’, I also expect that to happen over privacy and CoC policies :x

  57. Ge0rG

    You need a CoC to run an xmpp server now?

  58. pep.

    Don't you need a CoC to do anything? And if you don't it's just implicit

  59. Ge0rG

    Where's that report that looked at some xmpp server privacy policies, considered them insufficient but didn't actually link to them?

  60. !XSF_Martin

    Search for 'admin in the middle'

  61. Zash

    Don't we have that kinf of s2s fragmentation already? Dialback vs strict cert validation? Onion-only servers? Admins blocking each other out of spite?

  62. Zash

    Don't we have that kind of s2s fragmentation already? Dialback vs strict cert validation? Onion-only servers? Admins blocking each other out of spite?

  63. pep.

    On my private server I'm already blocking not based on tech nor spam

  64. pep.

    (and then what do you define as "spam" anyway)

  65. jonas’

    now I wonder what you’re blocking based on

  66. pep.

    ideology. I don't want to federate with fascists servers

  67. Zash

    I 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

  68. jonas’

    pep., what do you think does that achieve?

  69. jonas’

    (maybe this belongs into the other room)

  70. Zash

    pep., but will you federate with servers that federate with those?

  71. pep.

    Zash, sure

  72. pep.

    jonas’, what do you think that doesn't achieve

  73. !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.

  74. pep.

    !XSF_Martin, didn't know about them. good to know

  75. 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.

  76. !XSF_Martin

    Nowadays GAFA has more to loose than to win when federating.

  77. pep.

    Once you are in a position of monopoly that's true

  78. !XSF_Martin

    Nowadays GAFA has more to lose than to win when federating.

  79. jjrh

    I don't buy that big players don't have anything to win not federating

  80. jjrh

    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.

  81. pep.

    We have very much to lose for sure

  82. jjrh

    'we' as in the xsf?

  83. pep.

    The XMPP community

  84. pep.

    The XSF is leaning towards big players anyway already

  85. pep.

    whatever they think "neutral" means

  86. jjrh

    yeah - i'm strictly speaking about 'cool social network'

  87. jjrh

    who don't want to federate to keep their users in a walled garden

  88. jjrh

    er want to

  89. !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'?

  90. moparisthebest

    walled 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)

  91. jjrh

    the problem is when people leave the walled garden they leave in mass numbers.

  92. moparisthebest

    just to go to the next one, I don't think facebook is worried about that

  93. jjrh

    problem is once they are gone they aren't coming back in most cases

  94. jjrh

    if 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

  95. moparisthebest

    that's a problem for everyone except the big players you want to federate

  96. moparisthebest

    most users seem perfectly fine with having 5 or 10 accounts that can't communicate

  97. jonas’

    14:01:38 pep.> The XSF is leaning towards big players anyway already citation needed

  98. Zash

    just wait, someone will launch a(nother) app that brings all various chat services together

  99. jjrh

    I 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

  100. Zash

    and people will say that it's oh so convenient and less clutterred

  101. jjrh

    nice thing with xmpp is it doesn't just have to be chat :)

  102. moparisthebest

    jjrh, google is so not concerned with continuing to be a big player they destroy their entire community every couple years

  103. jjrh

    well yes google is uh weird like that.

  104. moparisthebest

    facebook owns, how many different social networks? and doesn't even federate between their own

  105. 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)

  106. jonas’

    is that in reference to that open letter thing?

  107. pep.

    The open letter is just one example

  108. jonas’

    I think the stance is sensible fwiw

  109. pep.

    I think that's bs

  110. jonas’

    while also acknowledging that lobbying for that cause would be good, but it’s not the XSF’s place

  111. jonas’

    you also don’t see the IETF lobbying

  112. moparisthebest

    xsf is politically neutral except copy left licenses are verbotten :)

  113. pep.

    My point is whether or not political activities are carried as a separate entity, there is no such thing as neutral

  114. jonas’

    where are they verboten?

  115. jonas’

    pep., why?

  116. jjrh

    any group is going to project the political values of their members in what they focus time and effort on

  117. jjrh

    pep., it's impossible to to netural but you can make a conscious effort to avoid bias

  118. 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

  119. jonas’

    comparing the XSF with a judge is inappropriate

  120. jonas’

    to both the XSF and the judge

  121. jonas’

    the goal of a judge is not neutrality, but fairness and justice.

  122. pep.

    Which are quite subjective things

  123. pep.

    I don't see the inappropriate-ness sorry

  124. jonas’

    pep., in which way does or should the XSF have a role similar to a judge?

  125. 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

  126. jonas’

    which is ok by me

  127. pep.

    Just like the judge could make the scale go one way or another by following the law more or less

  128. 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.

  129. pep.

    And to me that means the XSF doesn't discourage prominent behaviours in our society, thus not actually being neutral

  130. Zash

    what jonas’ said

  131. jonas’

    where we *should* be encouraging or governing behaviour is regarding how the protocol is extended in an official way.

  132. jonas’

    how the protocol is used is out of scope

  133. jonas’

    and it most certainly is a rats nest I do *not* want to get into

  134. moparisthebest

    > pep., in which way does or should the XSF have a role similar to a judge?

  135. moparisthebest

    well 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"

  136. jonas’

    moparisthebest, see my message *right* after that

  137. jonas’

    well, not quite right after that

  138. jonas’

    but a bit above yours

  139. jonas’

    and, again, we settled that discussion

  140. Zash

    (where's that reference XEP?)

  141. jonas’

    please don’t bring it up again

  142. moparisthebest

    that is a judgement though

  143. pep.


  144. jonas’

    moparisthebest, 14:23:24 jonas’> where we *should* be encouraging or governing behaviour is regarding how the protocol is extended in an official way.

  145. moparisthebest

    and it's not settled, I'm still waiting for the promised 0001 update from Kev

  146. 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

  147. moparisthebest

    and 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

  148. jonas’

    pep., "how the protocol is used is out of scope"

  149. pep.

    jonas’, yes

  150. jonas’

    that’s neutral

  151. pep.

    is it?

  152. jonas’

    why ont?

  153. jonas’

    why not?

  154. pep.

    Because we know who are the main users of the protocol, namely big tech companies not having to redo the work

  155. jonas’


  156. 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)

  157. jonas’

    that’s kind of the point of having standards

  158. jonas’

    if you don’t like that, roll your own thing with a non-liberal license, e.g. AGPL based.

  159. pep.

    I personally think it's not enough

  160. pep.


  161. pep.

    You're using scary words :p

  162. jonas’

    sorry for that

  163. jonas’

    but I’m kind of serious

  164. jonas’

    (even though I generally advocate the use of AGPL and the likes)

  165. jonas’

    (the non-liberal-ness of the license *does* have its use as a political mean)

  166. 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.

  167. jonas’

    even though I’m, personally, not fond of some military use cases and of course not of faceboogle using it for their silos.

  168. pep.

    (I generally prefer "permissive", so I don't have to justify what "liberal" means or doesn'T)

  169. jonas’

    ah, yeah, let’s do s/liberal/permissive/ on what I just said

  170. jonas’

    (I prefer that terminology actually, but the word wasn’t coming up in my head

  171. jonas’

    (I prefer that terminology actually, but the word wasn’t coming up in my head)

  172. jonas’

    the XSF is not primarily there for the normal jabber IM end users

  173. 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.

  174. jonas’

    that’s also a thing we all know, but nobody has the resources to spawn such an entity

  175. 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

  176. jonas’

    but that’s no reason to abuse the XSF for that.

  177. pep.

    Our main users are corporate and we are aware of that

  178. jonas’

    I still don’t see how the XSF is not neutral in points where it aims to be neutral.

  179. jonas’

    but now my head starts to hurt which isn’t exactly great

  180. jonas’

    (probably unrelated to this discussion and more related to the ramp up of heat from yesterday to today)

  181. Daniel

    > Our main users are corporate and we are aware of that Is this a bad thing?

  182. jonas’

    (but it’s also not helping)

  183. pep.

    Daniel, that's up to you to decide

  184. pep.

    Just saying it's not neutral

  185. jonas’

    pep., we can’t be made responsible for who our users are, can we?

  186. pep.

    Sure we can

  187. jonas’

    or are you saying that we specifically cater for one set of users and not the other?

  188. pep.

    We're empowering them

  189. jonas’

    in the way the protocols are written?

  190. jonas’

    how do we do that?

  191. pep.

    The "how" is still very much up for discussion, that doesn't make the whole thing moot

  192. 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.

  193. jonas’

    pep., not sure if you got my question

  194. jonas’

    how do you think are we empowering corporate users?

  195. moparisthebest

    jonas’, gotta say not many people seem to have that (b) and I couldn't have more respect for that :)

  196. 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.)

  197. 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.

  198. jonas’

    pep., I don’t see how the first part is specific to corporate users.

  199. jonas’

    We also give that protocol to non-corporate users.

  200. jonas’

    It’s the user’s (= developer’s) choice which protocol they use to implement their stack.

  201. pep.

    We do indeed, but one type has effectively more resources than the other

  202. jonas’

    That is true, and probably the reason why there are more users of that type.

  203. jonas’

    where is the lack of neutrality?

  204. pep.

    This is the lack of neutrality?

  205. jonas’

    I can’t follow

  206. 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?

  207. Syndace

    why do I feel like this is going to end up discussing licenses

  208. 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

  209. 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.

  210. jonas’

    if you can point me to a point where we’re not doing that, I’d be curious.

  211. 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. »

  212. pep.

    I think the XSF is far from achieving its mission

  213. pep.

    Where is the promotion of decentralized infrastructure

  214. jonas’

    indeed, I wonder what the word infrastructure is doing there

  215. pep.

    Where is "open"

  216. jonas’

    because the XMPP is most certainly not building any infrastructure and never has

  217. jonas’

    because the XSF is most certainly not building any infrastructure and never has

  218. pep.

    well I would read this as "help build"

  219. pep.

    https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/mission.html for reference

  220. pep.

    Promoting decentralisation in itself is certainly not neutral anyway. And most of our users are certainly not using this feature

  221. pep.


  222. Syndace

    but it's politically neutral I'd say

  223. pep.

    what is

  224. Kev

    > moparisthebest > 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.

  225. Syndace

    promiting or aiming for decentralization

  226. Syndace

    promoting or aiming for decentralization

  227. pep.

    Syndace, it's definitely not politically neutral to promote decentralisation

  228. pep.

    Not sure where you got the idea

  229. pep.

    Syndace, why not promote centralisation instead?

  230. jonas’

    pep., the mission statement is leaving me empty handed argument wise right now

  231. jonas’

    however, I can’t really see how this works together with a neutral organisation we want to be

  232. jonas’


  233. pep.

    That's why I want the XSF to be clear about what it wants to achieve

  234. jonas’

    (by "we want to be" I mean what people have been advocating in the past)

  235. jonas’

    pep., I agree with that

  236. pep.

    And I don't think it can achieve what the mission statement says by being "neutral"

  237. jonas’

    maybe the mission statement should be reviewed by board, together with the open letter and the arguments on the members@ list

  238. jonas’

    pep., I also agree with that

  239. jonas’

    the mission statement is IMO pretty much contradictory to being fully neutral.

  240. MattJ

    /mute 24h

  241. pep.

    I'm sorry you refuse to take part in this discussion

  242. jonas’

    pep., not so harsh please

  243. pep.

    jonas’, we've already had it in commteam@

  244. pep.

    a few weeks ago

  245. MattJ

    From 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

  246. MattJ

    I'm quite sure I know where everybody stands

  247. Syndace

    I 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.

  248. pep.

    Syndace, indeed :)

  249. jonas’

    MattJ, sometimes it’s good to refresh that impression, because of the (b) I said above ;)

  250. 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.

  251. jonas’

    but I’m not going to ping you anymore, off to a meeting next door

  252. 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).

  253. emus

    at least is a result of it

  254. jjrh

    It 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.

  255. pep.

    yeah that's a good summary

  256. jjrh

    While 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)

  257. 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"

  258. 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)

  259. jjrh

    I 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.

  260. jjrh

    And does the XSF actively try and reach out to companies deploying non standardized extensions to try and get them standardized?

  261. pep.

    ("lol no?" scnr)

  262. pep.

    It seems not interviening is what the XSF means by neutral

  263. pep.

    the freer the market..

  264. moparisthebest

    I 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.

  265. jjrh

    Is there a example of a XEP that Riot,Eve online,epic, etc uses that the XSF standardized?

  266. jjrh

    Ie they use XMPP, but do something non standard for a feature

  267. moparisthebest

    they don't tell people about those things do they?

  268. 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

  269. jjrh

    No, but one could either try and get them involved to standardize it.

  270. Ge0rG

    riot games was stuffing xml into message bodies

  271. Ge0rG

    encoded xml that is

  272. moparisthebest

    if I had to guess most aren't standard-izeable (is this a word?)

  273. moparisthebest

    it's much easier to not worry about interop if you control all ends

  274. emus

    I 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)_

  275. jjrh

    I 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.

  276. pep.

    emus, I guess conflict of interest mostly. Some members working for entities that don't actually federate or are anywhere near "open"

  277. jjrh

    pep., those groups will still benefit working with a standards body.

  278. pep.

    jjrh, yeah but not with the current XSF mission

  279. pep.

    (which the XSF just doesn't apply)

  280. pep.

    Also why I'm not entirely happy with "open standards", but that's another topic

  281. 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.

  282. 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. "

  283. jjrh

    How doesn't that apply to a company looking to extend XMPP to fit their use case?

  284. pep.

    I think it does

  285. jjrh

    Are there any technical people from Riot,Epic,Cisco,etc involved in the XSF/standards process?

  286. pep.

    Nowadays I don't think so. Maybe some years back there would have been Cisco people

  287. pep.

    Just like there's been Google people before

  288. jjrh

    No clue how you reach out to those companies but to me having those companies involved would be beneficial.

  289. jjrh

    Cisco is actively deploying XMPP for their Unified Communications platform for instance.

  290. pep.

    Is that in their interest at all

  291. pep.

    Which is one of the reasons I think we should push for it instead of relying on the (in)famous market

  292. jonas’

    I’m still in the backlog and may not even read all of it, but this stood out:

  293. 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)

  294. jonas’

    yes, the starting line is different

  295. jonas’

    no, I do not want the XSF to be the org rectifying that

  296. pep.

    Then you agree we're just following the status quo?

  297. pep.

    s/following/encouraging/ maybe is a better word

  298. jonas’

    pep., regarding the XSF? yes

  299. jonas’

    what do you mean by status quo?

  300. 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.

  301. jonas’


  302. jonas’

    I wouldn’t call that encouraging

  303. pep.

    I do, but I can see that one would prefer using a less .. word (I'm missing the word..)

  304. jonas’


  305. pep.

    yeah ok

  306. jonas’

    I don’t see us particularly endorsing that state, because that would also not be neutral.

  307. jjrh

    Cisco 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

  308. pep.

    jonas’, endorsing is what I was looking for indeed.

  309. pep.

    And how is us acknowledging this not "endorsing"

  310. pep.

    (while I'd say not endorsing it is just putting our head in the sand)

  311. pep.

    (looking the other way*, not sure which one is french which isn't)

  312. 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.

  313. jonas’

    the one I support would be "billigen", but many others translate to something more active than that.

  314. 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

  315. pep.

    If that's "just" changing our level of implication I think that's not really interesting to clear up.

  316. jonas’

    pep., it’s just that

  317. 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

  318. jonas’

    i.e. that we prefer having helped whatsapp as closed silo to rise instead of a free and federated IM network

  319. jonas’

    which would neither be neutral nor a message I could stand behind

  320. 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

  321. jonas’

    one could argue that, but I don’t think that argument makes a lot of sense

  322. pep.

    This is us passively doing this

  323. jonas’


  324. jonas’

    you can’t passively do something

  325. pep.

    We could also actively influence

  326. pep.

    But we prefer not to

  327. jonas’

    yes, but that would be taking a side, which would not be neutral.

  328. jonas’

    I don’t want the XSF to take either side

  329. pep.

    Well you're taking the side of the current distribution by not taking one

  330. jonas’

    this is not our hill to die on.

  331. jonas’

    I don’t think that’s true

  332. pep.

    I'm just saying what I said above with different words tbh

  333. jonas’


  334. pep.

    who our* potential :x

  335. jonas’


  336. 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?

  337. pep.


  338. 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.).

  339. pep.

    But even if "Yes", there are things the XSF can do to try to counter-balance

  340. 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

  341. pep.

    If we went down that route we might even be able to pay people to work on standards :)

  342. jonas’

    I don’t think that would necessarily be a good thing

  343. pep.

    Planned economy vs unplanned economy? :)

  344. jonas’

    I think it’s not the XSF’s place

  345. jjrh

    If 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.

  346. Kev

    It has always been the case that people have been paid by the private sector to work with the XSF, to differing degrees.

  347. jjrh

    Yep :)

  348. 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

  349. pep.

    (And that rejoins my "not everybody starts on the same starting line")

  350. jjrh

    Because 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.

  351. pep.

    The community? you mean paid people working say as a council member? (as an example)

  352. pep.

    (or not directly paid, but working with that entity's interests in mind)

  353. jjrh

    You of course need to choose the right people to be council members.

  354. pep.

    "You" being other people from the same distribution? :)

  355. jonas’

    pep., are you saying the XSF should exclude corporate members?

  356. jonas’

    or do you have the impression that the current or previous council was imbalanced between corporate and non-corporate uses?

  357. pep.

    jonas’, I'm not (I don't have a very clear opinion on this, I leave that up for debate)

  358. Kev

    I think what 'corporate' means here is probably far too vague to be interesting.

  359. pep.

    (Even though I know it's already pretty much debated..)

  360. jonas’

    (from my knowledge, the current council consists of four independent and one paid member, if we count daniel as independent)

  361. pep.

    Kev, that's true

  362. Kev

    Daniel is a paid XMPP developer, no?

  363. 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

  364. jjrh

    It could quickly become "anyone who makes money selling or deploying XMPP solutions" which I suspect most people here do to some extent.

  365. pep.

    I'm not asking for the moon I'm just asking for people to acknowledge it

  366. Kev

    I'm in favour of diversity, FWIW. Not of exclusion.

  367. pep.

    hah, which falacy is that

  368. Kev

    I think that a Council that's a mix of client and server devs (and other) across a range of backgrounds is a good thing.

  369. pep.

    Saying I'm not inclusive?

  370. Kev

    jonas’ raised the point of whether people with a commercial interest in their work on XMPP should be excluded from Council.

  371. 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

  372. 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

  373. pep.

    Just like saying "It's not our fault there's no woman in tech it's their fault if they don't come"

  374. jonas’

    Kev, hey, no

  375. jonas’

    sorry, I did *not* want to make that impression that I’d support that

  376. Kev

    jonas’: I didn't say you endorsed the position.

  377. jonas’


  378. Kev

    But I think it was you who raised it?

  379. jonas’

    I thought that was where pep was going

  380. pep.

    yeah no

  381. jonas’

    which I then understood

  382. Kev

    I am not attempting to put words in people's mouths.

  383. jonas’

    Kev, I didn’t want to say you did, either

  384. jonas’

    I just wanted to make sure that noone feels offended by this debate

  385. pep.

    Oh I'm sure some do :x

  386. jonas’

    and I wanted to make sure that nobody would assume that I hold that position or something

  387. pep.

    And that's fine to me, it's not my problem if they don't assume their position

  388. 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!!"

  389. jonas’

    so, no offense taken or intended

  390. moparisthebest

    someone else pasted in Conversations MUC but it seems pretty relevant to paste here:

  391. moparisthebest


  392. 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.

  393. moparisthebest squints at date, April 19, 2020

  394. eevvoor


  395. eevvoor

    deswegen gibt es auch keine WA Gruppen moparisthebest :D

  396. eevvoor

    is ja WA under the hood

  397. Daniel

    The xmpp protocol tool™

  398. pep.

    "However, as an ever-growing tech company", maybe they should have looked here first..

  399. pep.

    Also I'm curious what they mean by "didn't provide basic features such as group chats"

  400. Daniel

    We went through great lengths to find the one xmpp protocol tool that doesn't implemt muc

  401. emus

    > pep., are you saying the XSF should exclude corporate members? I think that is a misleading questions and obviously out of his point

  402. emus

    > pep., are you saying the XSF should exclude corporate members? I think that is a misleading question and obviously out of his point