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 Oooooooooooooooh
  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 hehe
  201. eevvoor does not like IRC very much
  202. pep. "here"?
  203. Unlife has joined
  204. eevvoor here = jabber world
  205. Zash In Dino
  206. eevvoor ah no Zashs client
  207. Zash https://cerdale.zash.se/upload/A7sZVqKvyhggxDpD/a6614e25-d5a3-4689-82fb-0ba77945c8af.png
  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 okk
  238. jonas’ wrong
  239. jonas’ you have to register for every irc *network* anew
  240. jonas’ IRC servers *do* federate
  241. pep. sure..
  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. "we"?
  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’ so?
  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. non-liberal?
  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. So..
  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’ "we"
  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’ yes
  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’ active
  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’ no
  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’ likely
  599. nyco has left
  600. nyco has joined
  601. pep. who our* potential :x
  602. jonas’ indeed
  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. them?
  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’ thanks
  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 https://rocket.chat/how-kinghost-increased-team-efficiency-with-rocket-chat-2/
  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 OMFG
  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