XSF Discussion - 2020-07-01

  1. j.r has left

  2. robertooo has left

  3. alexis has left

  4. lskdjf has left

  5. alexis has joined

  6. stpeter has left

  7. alexis has left

  8. alexis has joined

  9. Wojtek has left

  10. stpeter has joined

  11. jcbrand has joined

  12. strypey has joined

  13. mukt2 has left

  14. Yagiza has joined

  15. adiaholic_ has left

  16. adiaholic_ has joined

  17. mukt2 has joined

  18. Zash has left

  19. Zash has joined

  20. stpeter has left

  21. strypey has left

  22. mukt2 has left

  23. stpeter has joined

  24. mukt2 has joined

  25. stpeter has left

  26. Lance has joined

  27. Lance has left

  28. mukt2 has left

  29. mukt2 has joined

  30. andy has joined

  31. neshtaxmpp has joined

  32. andy has left

  33. andy has joined

  34. neshtaxmpp has left

  35. mukt2 has left

  36. mukt2 has joined

  37. Tobias has joined

  38. lorddavidiii has joined

  39. Mikaela has joined

  40. stpeter has joined

  41. karoshi has joined

  42. stpeter has left

  43. j.r has joined

  44. mukt2 has left

  45. mukt2 has joined

  46. neshtaxmpp has joined

  47. neshtaxmpp has left

  48. debacle has joined

  49. neshtaxmpp has joined

  50. emus has joined

  51. Jeybe has joined

  52. neshtaxmpp has left

  53. adiaholic_ has left

  54. adiaholic_ has joined

  55. Daniel has left

  56. j.r has left

  57. stpeter has joined

  58. alexis has left

  59. alexis has joined

  60. david has left

  61. mukt2 has left

  62. stpeter has left

  63. david has joined

  64. mimi89999 has joined

  65. david has left

  66. david has joined

  67. Daniel has joined

  68. mukt2 has joined

  69. Andrzej has joined

  70. j.r has joined

  71. thorsten has left

  72. thorsten has joined

  73. Shell has left

  74. Shell has joined

  75. sonny has left

  76. sonny has joined

  77. LNJ has joined

  78. paul has left

  79. debacle has left

  80. lskdjf has joined

  81. mimi89999 has left

  82. Shell has left

  83. Shell has joined

  84. mimi89999 has joined

  85. Zash has left

  86. Zash has joined

  87. mukt2 has left

  88. Shell has left

  89. Shell has joined

  90. Shell has left

  91. Shell has joined

  92. Shell has left

  93. Shell has joined

  94. adiaholic_ has left

  95. adiaholic_ has joined

  96. Zash has left

  97. Zash has joined

  98. stpeter has joined

  99. lobodelrayo has left

  100. Andrzej has left

  101. govanify has left

  102. govanify has joined

  103. mukt2 has joined

  104. paul has joined

  105. robertooo has joined

  106. stpeter has left

  107. adiaholic_ has left

  108. adiaholic_ has joined

  109. mukt2 has left

  110. mukt2 has joined

  111. waqas has left

  112. Nekit has left

  113. mukt2 has left

  114. mukt2 has joined

  115. Shell has left

  116. Shell has joined

  117. Shell has left

  118. Shell has joined

  119. Shell has left

  120. Shell has joined

  121. govanify has left

  122. govanify has joined

  123. mukt2 has left

  124. mukt2 has joined

  125. adiaholic_ has left

  126. adiaholic_ has joined

  127. Unlife has left

  128. !XSF_Martin has left

  129. govanify has left

  130. govanify has joined

  131. !XSF_Martin has joined

  132. Zash has left

  133. Zash has joined

  134. Zash has left

  135. Unlife has joined

  136. Zash has joined

  137. maines has joined

  138. Shell has left

  139. Shell has joined

  140. sonny has left

  141. sonny has joined

  142. sonny has left

  143. sonny has joined

  144. Shell has left

  145. Shell has joined

  146. strypey has joined

  147. govanify has left

  148. govanify has joined

  149. mukt2 has left

  150. stpeter has joined

  151. adiaholic_ has left

  152. adiaholic_ has joined

  153. Jeybe has left

  154. Jeybe has joined

  155. stpeter has left

  156. mukt2 has joined

  157. Shell has left

  158. Shell has joined

  159. strypey has left

  160. alameyo has left

  161. neshtaxmpp has joined

  162. sonny has left

  163. alameyo has joined

  164. debacle has joined

  165. sonny has joined

  166. debacle has left

  167. debacle has joined

  168. mimi89999 has left

  169. intosi has left

  170. intosi has joined

  171. calvin has joined

  172. calvin has left

  173. !XSF_Martin has left

  174. Wojtek has joined

  175. !XSF_Martin has joined

  176. paul has left

  177. stpeter has joined

  178. sonny has left

  179. sonny has joined

  180. Andrzej has joined

  181. Shell has left

  182. Shell has joined

  183. eevvoor has joined

  184. stpeter has left

  185. eevvoor

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

  186. pep.

    Talk to the NickServ user or equivalent?

  187. pep.

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

  188. pep.

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

  189. 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

  190. eevvoor

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

  191. eevvoor

    äh where? pep.

  192. eevvoor

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

  193. eevvoor

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

  194. pep.

    eevvoor: /message of course depends on your client

  195. pep.

    here I use poezio

  196. Zash


  197. pep.

    just initiate a chat with that user

  198. Zash

    Here it looks like you did /me ssage

  199. Unlife has left

  200. eevvoor


  201. eevvoor does not like IRC very much

  202. pep.


  203. Unlife has joined

  204. eevvoor

    here = jabber world

  205. Zash

    In Dino

  206. eevvoor

    ah no Zashs client

  207. Zash


  208. eevvoor

    ah it is literally NickServ. Is it case sensitive?

  209. eevvoor

    Zash :D

  210. pep.

    Zash, something something semantics in body? :x

  211. Zash

    IRC is not case sensitive

  212. pep.

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

  213. Zash

    Nor is XMPP for the localpart

  214. jonas’

    lol dino

  215. pep.

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

  216. eevvoor

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

  217. pep.

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

  218. Shell has left

  219. Shell has joined

  220. Shell has left

  221. pep.

    (/s if it's not obvious enough)

  222. Shell has joined

  223. jonas’

    you should’ve sent a sarcasm intent

  224. Zash

    !xep message tone

  225. mukt2 has left

  226. pep.

    jonas’: oops

  227. Zash

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

  228. pep.

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

  229. pep.

    As a user sure

  230. eevvoor

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

  231. pep.


  232. andy has left

  233. eevvoor

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

  234. Shell has left

  235. Shell has joined

  236. pep.

    Yep because they don't federate

  237. eevvoor


  238. jonas’


  239. jonas’

    you have to register for every irc *network* anew

  240. jonas’

    IRC servers *do* federate

  241. pep.


  242. jonas’

    but what you mean is probably network

  243. Zash

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

  244. 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)

  245. Zash

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

  246. j.r has left

  247. 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

  248. pep.

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

  249. jonas’

    I expect that to happen over spam fighting policies

  250. Zash

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

  251. pep.

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

  252. stpeter has joined

  253. Ge0rG

    You need a CoC to run an xmpp server now?

  254. pep.

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

  255. andy has joined

  256. Ge0rG

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

  257. !XSF_Martin

    Search for 'admin in the middle'

  258. 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?

  259. 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?

  260. pep.

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

  261. pep.

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

  262. mukt2 has joined

  263. jonas’

    now I wonder what you’re blocking based on

  264. pep.

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

  265. 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

  266. jonas’

    pep., what do you think does that achieve?

  267. jonas’

    (maybe this belongs into the other room)

  268. Zash

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

  269. pep.

    Zash, sure

  270. sonny has left

  271. pep.

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

  272. sonny has joined

  273. !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.

  274. mimi89999 has joined

  275. pep.

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

  276. j.r has joined

  277. andy has left

  278. 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.

  279. !XSF_Martin

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

  280. pep.

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

  281. !XSF_Martin

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

  282. jjrh

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

  283. andy has joined

  284. 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.

  285. pep.

    We have very much to lose for sure

  286. jjrh

    'we' as in the xsf?

  287. pep.

    The XMPP community

  288. pep.

    The XSF is leaning towards big players anyway already

  289. pep.

    whatever they think "neutral" means

  290. jjrh

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

  291. jjrh

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

  292. jjrh

    er want to

  293. lobodelrayo has joined

  294. !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'?

  295. 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)

  296. jjrh

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

  297. moparisthebest

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

  298. jjrh

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

  299. 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

  300. moparisthebest

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

  301. moparisthebest

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

  302. lobodelrayo has left

  303. lobodelrayo has joined

  304. jonas’

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

  305. Zash

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

  306. 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

  307. Zash

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

  308. jjrh

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

  309. moparisthebest

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

  310. jjrh

    well yes google is uh weird like that.

  311. moparisthebest

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

  312. 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)

  313. jonas’

    is that in reference to that open letter thing?

  314. pep.

    The open letter is just one example

  315. jonas’

    I think the stance is sensible fwiw

  316. pep.

    I think that's bs

  317. jonas’

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

  318. jonas’

    you also don’t see the IETF lobbying

  319. moparisthebest

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

  320. pep.

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

  321. jonas’

    where are they verboten?

  322. jonas’

    pep., why?

  323. jjrh

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

  324. Shell has left

  325. Shell has joined

  326. jjrh

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

  327. 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

  328. jonas’

    comparing the XSF with a judge is inappropriate

  329. jonas’

    to both the XSF and the judge

  330. jonas’

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

  331. pep.

    Which are quite subjective things

  332. Shell has left

  333. Shell has joined

  334. pep.

    I don't see the inappropriate-ness sorry

  335. jonas’

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

  336. j.r has left

  337. j.r has joined

  338. 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

  339. jonas’

    which is ok by me

  340. pep.

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

  341. 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.

  342. pep.

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

  343. Zash

    what jonas’ said

  344. jonas’

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

  345. jonas’

    how the protocol is used is out of scope

  346. jonas’

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

  347. moparisthebest

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

  348. 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"

  349. jonas’

    moparisthebest, see my message *right* after that

  350. jonas’

    well, not quite right after that

  351. jonas’

    but a bit above yours

  352. jonas’

    and, again, we settled that discussion

  353. Zash

    (where's that reference XEP?)

  354. jonas’

    please don’t bring it up again

  355. moparisthebest

    that is a judgement though

  356. pep.


  357. 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.

  358. moparisthebest

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

  359. 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

  360. 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

  361. jonas’

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

  362. pep.

    jonas’, yes

  363. jonas’

    that’s neutral

  364. pep.

    is it?

  365. jonas’

    why ont?

  366. jonas’

    why not?

  367. pep.

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

  368. jonas’


  369. 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)

  370. jonas’

    that’s kind of the point of having standards

  371. jonas’

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

  372. pep.

    I personally think it's not enough

  373. pep.


  374. pep.

    You're using scary words :p

  375. jonas’

    sorry for that

  376. jonas’

    but I’m kind of serious

  377. jonas’

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

  378. jonas’

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

  379. 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.

  380. jonas’

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

  381. pep.

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

  382. jonas’

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

  383. jonas’

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

  384. jonas’

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

  385. jonas’

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

  386. 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.

  387. jonas’

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

  388. 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

  389. jonas’

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

  390. pep.

    Our main users are corporate and we are aware of that

  391. jonas’

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

  392. jonas’

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

  393. jonas’

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

  394. Daniel

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

  395. jonas’

    (but it’s also not helping)

  396. pep.

    Daniel, that's up to you to decide

  397. pep.

    Just saying it's not neutral

  398. jonas’

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

  399. pep.

    Sure we can

  400. jonas’

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

  401. pep.

    We're empowering them

  402. jonas’

    in the way the protocols are written?

  403. jonas’

    how do we do that?

  404. pep.

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

  405. 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.

  406. jonas’

    pep., not sure if you got my question

  407. jonas’

    how do you think are we empowering corporate users?

  408. moparisthebest

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

  409. 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.)

  410. 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.

  411. neshtaxmpp has left

  412. jonas’

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

  413. jonas’

    We also give that protocol to non-corporate users.

  414. jonas’

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

  415. pep.

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

  416. jonas’

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

  417. jonas’

    where is the lack of neutrality?

  418. pep.

    This is the lack of neutrality?

  419. jonas’

    I can’t follow

  420. 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?

  421. Syndace

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

  422. Shell has left

  423. Shell has joined

  424. Nekit has joined

  425. govanify has left

  426. govanify has joined

  427. 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

  428. govanify has left

  429. govanify has joined

  430. 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.

  431. jonas’

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

  432. 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. »

  433. pep.

    I think the XSF is far from achieving its mission

  434. pep.

    Where is the promotion of decentralized infrastructure

  435. jonas’

    indeed, I wonder what the word infrastructure is doing there

  436. pep.

    Where is "open"

  437. jonas’

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

  438. jonas’

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

  439. pep.

    well I would read this as "help build"

  440. waqas has joined

  441. pep.

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

  442. pep.

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

  443. pep.


  444. Syndace

    but it's politically neutral I'd say

  445. pep.

    what is

  446. 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.

  447. Syndace

    promiting or aiming for decentralization

  448. Syndace

    promoting or aiming for decentralization

  449. pep.

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

  450. pep.

    Not sure where you got the idea

  451. pep.

    Syndace, why not promote centralisation instead?

  452. jonas’

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

  453. jonas’

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

  454. jonas’


  455. pep.

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

  456. jonas’

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

  457. jonas’

    pep., I agree with that

  458. pep.

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

  459. jonas’

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

  460. jonas’

    pep., I also agree with that

  461. jonas’

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

  462. MattJ

    /mute 24h

  463. pep.

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

  464. jonas’

    pep., not so harsh please

  465. pep.

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

  466. pep.

    a few weeks ago

  467. sonny has left

  468. 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

  469. MattJ

    I'm quite sure I know where everybody stands

  470. 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.

  471. pep.

    Syndace, indeed :)

  472. neshtaxmpp has joined

  473. jonas’

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

  474. 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.

  475. jonas’

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

  476. stpeter has left

  477. goffi has joined

  478. Abbe has left

  479. Abbe has joined

  480. neshtaxmpp has left

  481. 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).

  482. emus

    at least is a result of it

  483. Shell has left

  484. Shell has joined

  485. xecks has left

  486. xecks has joined

  487. stpeter has joined

  488. nyco has joined

  489. sonny has joined

  490. 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.

  491. pep.

    yeah that's a good summary

  492. APach has left

  493. alexis has left

  494. 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)

  495. mukt2 has left

  496. Shell has left

  497. Shell has joined

  498. 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"

  499. APach has joined

  500. 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)

  501. Nekit has left

  502. goffi has left

  503. Shell has left

  504. Shell has joined

  505. sonny has left

  506. sonny has joined

  507. sonny has left

  508. sonny has joined

  509. 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.

  510. jjrh

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

  511. pep.

    ("lol no?" scnr)

  512. nyco has left

  513. mukt2 has joined

  514. pep.

    It seems not interviening is what the XSF means by neutral

  515. pep.

    the freer the market..

  516. 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.

  517. jjrh

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

  518. neshtaxmpp has joined

  519. jjrh

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

  520. moparisthebest

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

  521. adiaholic_ has left

  522. adiaholic_ has joined

  523. 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

  524. jjrh

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

  525. Ge0rG

    riot games was stuffing xml into message bodies

  526. Ge0rG

    encoded xml that is

  527. moparisthebest

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

  528. moparisthebest

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

  529. 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)_

  530. 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.

  531. pep.

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

  532. jjrh

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

  533. pep.

    jjrh, yeah but not with the current XSF mission

  534. sonny has left

  535. pep.

    (which the XSF just doesn't apply)

  536. sonny has joined

  537. pep.

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

  538. 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.

  539. 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. "

  540. jjrh

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

  541. pep.

    I think it does

  542. sonny has left

  543. sonny has joined

  544. jjrh

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

  545. pep.

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

  546. pep.

    Just like there's been Google people before

  547. jjrh

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

  548. jjrh

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

  549. govanify has left

  550. govanify has joined

  551. pep.

    Is that in their interest at all

  552. pep.

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

  553. jonas’

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

  554. 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)

  555. jonas’

    yes, the starting line is different

  556. jonas’

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

  557. pep.

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

  558. pep.

    s/following/encouraging/ maybe is a better word

  559. jonas’

    pep., regarding the XSF? yes

  560. jonas’

    what do you mean by status quo?

  561. 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.

  562. jonas’


  563. jonas’

    I wouldn’t call that encouraging

  564. pep.

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

  565. jonas’


  566. pep.

    yeah ok

  567. jonas’

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

  568. 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

  569. neshtaxmpp has left

  570. pep.

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

  571. pep.

    And how is us acknowledging this not "endorsing"

  572. Andrzej has left

  573. pep.

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

  574. pep.

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

  575. 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.

  576. jonas’

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

  577. 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

  578. pep.

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

  579. nyco has joined

  580. jonas’

    pep., it’s just that

  581. 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

  582. jonas’

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

  583. jonas’

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

  584. 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

  585. jonas’

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

  586. pep.

    This is us passively doing this

  587. jonas’


  588. jonas’

    you can’t passively do something

  589. pep.

    We could also actively influence

  590. pep.

    But we prefer not to

  591. jonas’

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

  592. jonas’

    I don’t want the XSF to take either side

  593. pep.

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

  594. jonas’

    this is not our hill to die on.

  595. Tobias has left

  596. jonas’

    I don’t think that’s true

  597. pep.

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

  598. jonas’


  599. nyco has left

  600. nyco has joined

  601. pep.

    who our* potential :x

  602. jonas’


  603. Tobias has joined

  604. LNJ has left

  605. mukt2 has left

  606. mukt2 has joined

  607. nyco has left

  608. Mikaela has left

  609. Mikaela has joined

  610. sonny has left

  611. sonny has joined

  612. 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?

  613. pep.


  614. 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.).

  615. pep.

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

  616. 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

  617. sonny has left

  618. pep.

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

  619. sonny has joined

  620. jonas’

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

  621. pep.

    Planned economy vs unplanned economy? :)

  622. LNJ has joined

  623. jonas’

    I think it’s not the XSF’s place

  624. APach has left

  625. APach has joined

  626. 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.

  627. Kev

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

  628. jjrh

    Yep :)

  629. 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

  630. pep.

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

  631. lovetox has joined

  632. nyco has joined

  633. 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.

  634. pep.

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

  635. nyco has left

  636. pep.

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

  637. nyco has joined

  638. nyco has left

  639. jjrh

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

  640. Nekit has joined

  641. pep.

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

  642. jonas’

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

  643. jonas’

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

  644. pep.

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

  645. Kev

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

  646. pep.

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

  647. jonas’

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

  648. pep.

    Kev, that's true

  649. Kev

    Daniel is a paid XMPP developer, no?

  650. 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

  651. jjrh

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

  652. pep.

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

  653. Kev

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

  654. pep.

    hah, which falacy is that

  655. 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.

  656. pep.

    Saying I'm not inclusive?

  657. Kev

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

  658. nyco has joined

  659. 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

  660. 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

  661. pep.

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

  662. lobodelrayo has left

  663. lobodelrayo has joined

  664. Andrzej has joined

  665. Shell has left

  666. Shell has joined

  667. govanify has left

  668. govanify has joined

  669. jonas’

    Kev, hey, no

  670. jonas’

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

  671. Kev

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

  672. jonas’


  673. Kev

    But I think it was you who raised it?

  674. jonas’

    I thought that was where pep was going

  675. pep.

    yeah no

  676. jonas’

    which I then understood

  677. Kev

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

  678. jonas’

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

  679. jonas’

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

  680. pep.

    Oh I'm sure some do :x

  681. jonas’

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

  682. pep.

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

  683. 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!!"

  684. jonas’

    so, no offense taken or intended

  685. adiaholic_ has left

  686. adiaholic_ has joined

  687. lobodelrayo has left

  688. lobodelrayo has joined

  689. lobodelrayo has left

  690. lobodelrayo has joined

  691. Shell has left

  692. Shell has joined

  693. sonny has left

  694. sonny has joined

  695. sonny has left

  696. sonny has joined

  697. sonny has left

  698. sonny has joined

  699. govanify has left

  700. govanify has joined

  701. sonny has left

  702. sonny has joined

  703. sonny has left

  704. sonny has joined

  705. mukt2 has left

  706. sonny has left

  707. sonny has joined

  708. sonny has left

  709. sonny has joined

  710. eta has left

  711. eta has joined

  712. sonny has left

  713. sonny has joined

  714. j.r has left

  715. krauq has left

  716. j.r has joined

  717. Yagiza has left

  718. mukt2 has joined

  719. krauq has joined

  720. Unlife has left

  721. Unlife has joined

  722. adiaholic_ has left

  723. adiaholic_ has joined

  724. Jeybe has left

  725. sonny has left

  726. sonny has joined

  727. LNJ has left

  728. LNJ has joined

  729. sonny has left

  730. sonny has joined

  731. neshtaxmpp has joined

  732. Andrzej has left

  733. sonny has left

  734. sonny has joined

  735. sonny has left

  736. sonny has joined

  737. j.r has left

  738. neshtaxmpp has left

  739. jcbrand has left

  740. j.r has joined

  741. Unlife has left

  742. Unlife has joined

  743. jcbrand has joined

  744. adiaholic_ has left

  745. adiaholic_ has joined

  746. moparisthebest

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

  747. moparisthebest


  748. Maranda has left

  749. 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.

  750. Maranda has joined

  751. moparisthebest squints at date, April 19, 2020

  752. govanify has left

  753. govanify has joined

  754. eevvoor


  755. eevvoor

    deswegen gibt es auch keine WA Gruppen moparisthebest :D

  756. eevvoor

    is ja WA under the hood

  757. werdan has joined

  758. Daniel

    The xmpp protocol tool™

  759. pep.

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

  760. pep.

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

  761. Daniel

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

  762. emus

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

  763. emus

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

  764. sonny has left

  765. sonny has joined

  766. arc has left

  767. arc has joined

  768. govanify has left

  769. andy has left

  770. govanify has joined

  771. andy has joined

  772. stpeter has left

  773. eevvoor has left

  774. david has left

  775. david has joined

  776. eevvoor has joined

  777. lovetox has left

  778. eevvoor has left

  779. eevvoor has joined

  780. lorddavidiii has left

  781. Mikaela has left

  782. eevvoor has left

  783. sonny has left

  784. neshtaxmpp has joined

  785. sonny has joined

  786. debacle has left

  787. sonny has left

  788. sonny has joined

  789. Tobias has left

  790. arc has left

  791. arc has joined

  792. eevvoor has joined

  793. govanify has left

  794. govanify has joined

  795. sonny has left

  796. sonny has joined

  797. neshtaxmpp has left

  798. Shell has left

  799. Shell has joined

  800. moparisthebest has left

  801. stpeter has joined

  802. waqas has left

  803. arc has left

  804. arc has joined

  805. emus has left

  806. emus has joined

  807. alexis has joined

  808. werdan has left

  809. arc has left

  810. arc has joined

  811. alameyo has left

  812. alameyo has joined

  813. Vaulor has left

  814. stpeter has left

  815. mukt2 has left

  816. mukt2 has joined

  817. neshtaxmpp has joined

  818. stpeter has joined

  819. neshtaxmpp has left

  820. wurstsalat has left

  821. robertooo has left

  822. robertooo has joined

  823. marc has left

  824. lobodelrayo has left

  825. lobodelrayo has joined

  826. arc has left

  827. arc has joined

  828. debacle has joined

  829. xecks has left

  830. arc has left

  831. arc has joined

  832. andy has left

  833. arc has left

  834. arc has joined

  835. karoshi has left

  836. arc has left

  837. arc has joined

  838. eevvoor has left

  839. Nekit has left

  840. arc has left

  841. arc has joined

  842. arc has left

  843. arc has joined

  844. arc has left

  845. arc has joined

  846. lobodelrayo has left

  847. lobodelrayo has joined

  848. arc has left

  849. arc has joined

  850. arc has left

  851. arc has joined

  852. arc has left

  853. arc has joined

  854. alameyo has left

  855. alameyo has joined

  856. arc has left

  857. arc has joined

  858. waqas has joined

  859. arc has left

  860. arc has joined

  861. mukt2 has left

  862. mukt2 has joined

  863. arc has left

  864. arc has joined

  865. neshtaxmpp has joined

  866. moparisthebest has joined

  867. neshtaxmpp has left

  868. neshtaxmpp has joined

  869. mukt2 has left

  870. lskdjf has left

  871. mukt2 has joined

  872. mimi89999 has left

  873. mimi89999 has joined