XSF Discussion - 2020-07-16

  1. debacle has left
  2. thorsten has joined
  3. xsf has left
  4. xsf has joined
  5. sonny has left
  6. sonny has joined
  7. mukt2 has left
  8. sonny has left
  9. sonny has joined
  10. mimi89999 has joined
  11. mukt2 has joined
  12. sonny has left
  13. sonny has joined
  14. emus has left
  15. stpeter has left
  16. aj has joined
  17. sonny has left
  18. sonny has joined
  19. Shell has left
  20. Shell has joined
  21. j.r has left
  22. stpeter has joined
  23. aj has left
  24. mukt2 has left
  25. mukt2 has joined
  26. aj has joined
  27. aj has left
  28. j.r has joined
  29. stpeter has left
  30. mukt2 has left
  31. mukt2 has joined
  32. Shell has left
  33. Neustradamus has left
  34. neshtaxmpp has left
  35. Neustradamus has joined
  36. mukt2 has left
  37. Wojtek has left
  38. j.r has left
  39. mukt2 has joined
  40. stpeter has joined
  41. sonny has left
  42. sonny has joined
  43. citizenzibb has left
  44. citizenzibb has joined
  45. j.r has joined
  46. thorsten has left
  47. stpeter has left
  48. thorsten has joined
  49. sonny has left
  50. sonny has joined
  51. neshtaxmpp has joined
  52. j.r has left
  53. sonny has left
  54. sonny has joined
  55. sonny has left
  56. sonny has joined
  57. arc has left
  58. arc has joined
  59. j.r has joined
  60. mukt2 has left
  61. j.r has left
  62. sonny has left
  63. sonny has joined
  64. j.r has joined
  65. moparisthebest has left
  66. moparisthebest has joined
  67. mukt2 has joined
  68. Yagiza has joined
  69. thorsten has left
  70. Seve has joined
  71. mukt2 has left
  72. j.r has left
  73. stpeter has joined
  74. mukt2 has joined
  75. arc has left
  76. arc has joined
  77. arc has left
  78. arc has joined
  79. arc has left
  80. arc has joined
  81. stpeter has left
  82. j.r has joined
  83. Nekit has joined
  84. thorsten has joined
  85. mimi89999 has left
  86. mimi89999 has joined
  87. lovetox has joined
  88. arc has left
  89. arc has joined
  90. paul has joined
  91. mukt2 has left
  92. sonny has left
  93. Tobias has joined
  94. sonny has joined
  95. arc has left
  96. arc has joined
  97. lovetox has left
  98. arc has left
  99. arc has joined
  100. arc has left
  101. arc has joined
  102. sonny has left
  103. sonny has joined
  104. mukt2 has joined
  105. Mikaela has joined
  106. Seve has left
  107. Seve has joined
  108. emus has joined
  109. lorddavidiii has joined
  110. citizenzibb has left
  111. citizenzibb has joined
  112. j.r has left
  113. karoshi has joined
  114. stpeter has joined
  115. jcbrand has joined
  116. j.r has joined
  117. mukt2 has left
  118. stpeter has left
  119. waqas has left
  120. mukt2 has joined
  121. mukt2 has left
  122. karoshi has left
  123. Nekit has left
  124. Nekit has joined
  125. arc has left
  126. arc has joined
  127. LNJ has joined
  128. karoshi has joined
  129. lskdjf has joined
  130. thorsten has left
  131. marc has joined
  132. karoshi has left
  133. mukt2 has joined
  134. karoshi has joined
  135. debacle has joined
  136. j.r has left
  137. aj has joined
  138. arc has left
  139. arc has joined
  140. thorsten has joined
  141. goffi has joined
  142. karoshi has left
  143. lobodelrayo has left
  144. karoshi has joined
  145. mimi89999 has left
  146. arc has left
  147. arc has joined
  148. mimi89999 has joined
  149. j.r has joined
  150. mukt2 has left
  151. Unlife has left
  152. stpeter has joined
  153. Unlife has joined
  154. mukt2 has joined
  155. Shell has joined
  156. Shell has left
  157. stpeter has left
  158. xecks has joined
  159. adiaholic_ has left
  160. Dele Olajide has joined
  161. mukt2 has left
  162. adiaholic_ has joined
  163. Andrzej has joined
  164. debacle has left
  165. j.r has left
  166. j.r has joined
  167. darkijah has left
  168. Jeybe has left
  169. adiaholic_ has left
  170. adiaholic_ has joined
  171. aj has left
  172. marc has left
  173. marc has joined
  174. marc has left
  175. marc has joined
  176. Shell has joined
  177. Guus has left
  178. Guus has joined
  179. adiaholic_ has left
  180. pasdesushi has joined
  181. edhelas has left
  182. edhelas has joined
  183. adiaholic_ has joined
  184. mukt2 has joined
  185. pasdesushi has left
  186. edhelas has left
  187. edhelas has joined
  188. stpeter has joined
  189. mukt2 has left
  190. stpeter has left
  191. pasdesushi has joined
  192. debacle has joined
  193. Shell has left
  194. Shell has joined
  195. Shell has left
  196. Shell has joined
  197. marc has left
  198. marc has joined
  199. adiaholic_ has left
  200. Shell has left
  201. Shell has joined
  202. adiaholic_ has joined
  203. pasdesushi has left
  204. marc has left
  205. arc has left
  206. arc has joined
  207. mukt2 has joined
  208. karoshi has left
  209. Neustradamus has left
  210. Neustradamus has joined
  211. arc has left
  212. arc has joined
  213. karoshi has joined
  214. mukt2 has left
  215. pasdesushi has joined
  216. marc has joined
  217. Jeybe has joined
  218. papatutuwawa has joined
  219. Jeybe has left
  220. Jeybe has joined
  221. marc has left
  222. marc has joined
  223. larma has left
  224. larma has joined
  225. mukt2 has joined
  226. Shell has left
  227. xsf has left
  228. Andrzej has left
  229. Andrzej has joined
  230. pasdesushi has left
  231. pasdesushi has joined
  232. marc has left
  233. marc has joined
  234. pasdesushi has left
  235. pasdesushi has joined
  236. papatutuwawa has left
  237. pasdesushi has left
  238. pasdesushi has joined
  239. stpeter has joined
  240. papatutuwawa has joined
  241. Dele Olajide has left
  242. pasdesushi has left
  243. pasdesushi has joined
  244. lskdjf has left
  245. Seve has left
  246. stpeter has left
  247. Seve has joined
  248. lskdjf has joined
  249. Dele Olajide has joined
  250. mukt2 has left
  251. Dele Olajide has left
  252. Shell has joined
  253. lskdjf has left
  254. pasdesushi has left
  255. pasdesushi has joined
  256. lskdjf has joined
  257. darkijah has joined
  258. pasdesushi has left
  259. pasdesushi has joined
  260. lskdjf has left
  261. Shell has left
  262. Shell has joined
  263. lskdjf has joined
  264. adiaholic_ has left
  265. mukt2 has joined
  266. adiaholic_ has joined
  267. lskdjf has left
  268. mukt2 has left
  269. Shell has left
  270. Shell has joined
  271. mukt2 has joined
  272. Shell has left
  273. Shell has joined
  274. karoshi has left
  275. lskdjf has joined
  276. karoshi has joined
  277. lskdjf has left
  278. papatutuwawa has left
  279. lskdjf has joined
  280. MattJ o/
  281. ralphm 0. Welcome
  282. pep. !
  283. ralphm waves
  284. ralphm Apologies for not sending minutes nor an agenda
  285. ralphm Any particular items to discuss today?
  286. pep. I added two items, one this week, one last week
  287. ralphm Ok, I'll take the items from Trello anyway.
  288. ralphm I'll write the minutes from my last meeting right after this one.
  289. ralphm 1. Minute taker
  290. pep. will do
  291. ralphm Thanks!
  292. ralphm 2. Reevaluate the process for accepting XEP contributions
  293. ralphm I see this is still on Trello, but I think we handled this, right?
  294. pep. Yeah this should have been answered
  295. Guus iirc jonas’ was happy with the outcome.
  296. ralphm Right
  297. jonas’ I think so, too
  298. ralphm 3. Figure out how to reconcile mission statement's goals with neutral stance
  299. lskdjf has left
  300. ralphm This is one of pep.'s items (struggling with the punctiation here).
  301. pep. There's a description in there that could be useful
  302. ralphm I'm not sure if I follow. Is the question on whether the mission statement was officially adopted by Board?
  303. pep. ralphm, the mission statement says (first sentence): > 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.
  304. ralphm Yes, I agree this is and has been our mission.
  305. pep. Which to me means we want to encourage open and decentralized infrastructures
  306. ralphm Right.
  307. MattJ We want to *build* open and decentralized infrastructure
  308. MattJ That's what it says
  309. pep. MattJ, we're not building infrastructures anyway we're building protocols
  310. MattJ infrastructure is a generic term, meaning it's something that can be a foundation (in this case, the protocol)
  311. ralphm This might be nitpicking, but doesn't defining the technologies, in the forms of our specifications, amount to building?
  312. pep. ralphm, might be nitpick but it's an important nuance
  313. thorsten has left
  314. pep. Which to me would mean there are use-cases to encourage more than others
  315. adiaholic_ has left
  316. adiaholic_ has joined
  317. pep. And causes to support (to which the XSF is never answering even if it's right in our mission)
  318. ralphm I think the rest of the mission statement neatly explains what we mean with 'build'. And yes, it is opinionated.
  319. MattJ It's not in our mission, though I think you're trying to read it that way
  320. lobodelrayo has joined
  321. pep. MattJ, I'm not hiding I would like it to be that way (I hope it's known by now), though I do indeed read it this way anyway
  322. lskdjf has joined
  323. MattJ Sorry, I don't read it that way
  324. ralphm I.e. we do design for a decentralized architecture, and we do prefer people to operate their implementations in an open fashion, as part of the so-called Jabber network.
  325. ralphm But because we believe in the openness of the protocols and technologies, we also not object to proprietary setups.
  326. pep. ralphm, but we don't actually care if the main usage of XMPP has nothing to do with decentralization, is the message we're sending?
  327. ralphm Well, my theory here is that by not excluding that, we encourage the openness of what we do.
  328. pep. I'm happy for it to be, as long as it's clear
  329. thorsten has joined
  330. pep. Do we
  331. ralphm I'm not sure how to respond to that.
  332. pep. I have my own answer, and it's "no". But I would like to have an official answer someday :)
  333. MattJ Answer to what exactly? I don't understand what's actionable here
  334. MattJ Are you saying the mission statement is in conflict with what we do?
  335. pep. I was commenting on ralphm's statement "we encourage the openess of what we do"
  336. pep. MattJ, yes that's my original question, how to reconsile both
  337. MattJ Both what?
  338. pep. what we do with our mission statement
  339. MattJ I don't see any conflict
  340. ralphm I think the alternative position is to somehow attempt to lock down what XMPP technologies can be used for. This seems like a non-starter.
  341. pep. ralphm, I'm not saying "lock-down", I'm saying encourage more one way than another
  342. pep. There are multiple ways to "promote", you can either put less resources on one side or more on the other
  343. ralphm I don't see a problem with encouraging open protocols and decentralized systems, while at the same time not being concerned with using those technologies in other ways.
  344. MattJ Do you think we've been putting resources on one side but not the other? I don't
  345. pep. MattJ, well then we're effectively not promoting anything are we. Where are these values of openness and decentralization
  346. ralphm Or would you think this might be a problem if we put up testimonials of entities building systems, based on XMPP, which are not open or decentralized?
  347. MattJ The fact that the XSF is in the minority of standards organisations that openly publishes its standards, doesn't require membership to participate, etc.
  348. pep. ralphm, that'd be an example yeah. I might prefer not to I think.
  349. MattJ If you think that's not "open", I don't know what to say
  350. Guus What problem are we trying to solve here?
  351. ralphm My own view here is that by showing that we build useful technologies (they are being used), our work has merit and a higher likelihood of furthering our mission.
  352. marc has left
  353. Guus We seem to be juggling with words mostly - what's the desired outcome here?
  354. pep. Guus, to me, either admit we're not actually promoting "openness" and "decentralization", or do it
  355. Guus I think we already do.
  356. ralphm Well, we are.
  357. stpeter has joined
  358. MattJ pep.'s desired outcome is that the XSF becomes more involved with political causes and promotion of open-source decentralized communication (pep. correct me if I'm wrong please)
  359. pep. I don't think we do
  360. Guus You apparently want to do it in different/more ways. Please elaborate on those
  361. ralphm Possibly not optimally, but we definitely promote openness and decentralization
  362. Holger pep., there's some enterprise evaluating XMPP as a basis for their closed solution. Would you prefer them going for something else?
  363. pep. MattJ, that sounds more or less correct, with a nuance on "involved", one because we are already, whether we like it or not (don't tell me openness and decentralization have nothing to do with politics), and also because our involvement doesn't have to be all or nothing
  364. Holger (My assumption being that opening the solution is usually not an option at that point, and the only question might be whether or not to base things on XMPP.)
  365. ralphm E.g. by our presence at conferences and other events, swag we have handed out/sold, news letter, messages on social media.
  366. Holger I'm not sure XMPP is necessarily the best solution technically, but I think it's in our interest if they go for XMPP in that it might yield implementation improvements, help with marketing, and so on.
  367. Daniel What's a specific action you'd like the XSF to take? Promoting sounds a bit vague?
  368. Holger So I'm not sure why we'd discourage such a usage.
  369. Guus I don't think we're discussing discouraging anything?
  370. Holger Guus, I was asking pep. about his motivations.
  371. pep. Well as an example "Decentralization" is not even mentioned on the main page.
  372. Guus rather than engage in other activities more
  373. pep. I'd personally want to support free software solutions, for example. Giving them resources that they don't have compared to private solutions
  374. Holger (Personally I appreciate if the XSF just concentrates on specs and that's it.)
  375. ralphm pep., it is mentioned here, though: https://xmpp.org/about/technology-overview.html
  376. pep. ralphm, yeah..
  377. pep. I'd also want the XSF to be slightly more vocal and take stances on these two points (openness and decentralization) online
  378. ralphm There's only so much that you can put on a front page. I don't see this as a problem.
  379. ralphm What concrete things do you believe we should do then?
  380. pep. Things like the letter I sent to the list 1-2 weeks ago. That was the perfect example
  381. pep. I'm not asking to sign it now, I realized after the fact it was from 2019, but I would have wanted to sign it then
  382. pep. https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2020-June/009168.html
  383. ralphm Put out a tweet saying "Federate or Die!" (this is not a joke, we've had people with t-shirts like that)
  384. pep. heh, I'd be happy if the XSF got there someday, even though I doubt it ever will
  385. marc has joined
  386. ralphm I personally not interested in such activism.
  387. Daniel Underneath a snake?
  388. pep. ralphm, what are you even doing here then. I'm actually curious what is everybody doing here if there is not a hint of activism in what you do
  389. pep. Why do we even care about openness or decentralization
  390. pep. Anyway, I'm happy to have had this discussion with board with not so many bumps compared to previous times. I see nobody actually wants to change
  391. ralphm pep., there's a difference between working on technologies and believing in openness and decentralization, and signing letters demanding things.
  392. pep. As as organization openly saying it has as mission to build an open and decentralize infrastructure, I wonder where you place the line
  393. ralphm pep., if by change you mean: have more activism, as is more common in the Free Software movement, than indeed, I do not have that preference.
  394. MattJ I personally 200% believe in decentralized and open communication tech for everyone
  395. MattJ and I don't want an activist standards organisation
  396. MattJ I want a standards organisation that serves as a place to collaborate on the protocol, with anyone who wants to do so
  397. ralphm Indeed
  398. Guus I prefer the XSF to not engage in activism either. I'm not saying that there should not be activism, but I don't think it'd be particularly beneficial for XMPP if the XSF started doing that.
  399. MattJ Ditto
  400. intosi Idem.
  401. ralphm Which doesn't mean individuals or groups of people within the XMPP community couldn't, of course.
  402. Holger pep., FWIW my main motivation is decentralization. So I'm interested in good specs and good implementations as they help with that. In a non-ideal world like ours, even closed solutions using the same specs/implementations might help with that. Activism/marketing might obviously help as well, but that's a separate task.
  403. stpeter has left
  404. marc has left
  405. pep. Holger, you might have heard me wrong, I haven't (yet?) said kill all closed source solutions
  406. Guus secondary: adding 'do activism' on our plate will spread our already thin resources even thinner. This might get complex, soon: what activism do we do, what's our wording, etc, etc. I'd just prefer to not be involved at all.
  407. Guus secondary: adding 'do activism' on our plate will spread our already thin resources even thinner. This might get complex, fast: what activism do we do, what's our wording, etc, etc. I'd just prefer to not be involved at all.
  408. Guus Can we agree to disagree here?
  409. pep. Anyway. yeah, next
  410. Guus Unsure to what extend we need to re-hash arguments?
  411. ralphm Guus: well, I guess it is good to make it clear where we stand.
  412. ralphm I don't think we've had this discussion so explicitly yet.
  413. Guus Sure. I feel we have to a large degree.
  414. Guus Sure. I feel we now have, to a large degree.
  415. ralphm And I feel that pep. has been hinting around this for a while. I think it is great that expresses his view point, and that we can agree to disagree.
  416. marc has joined
  417. ralphm Since we took our time:
  418. ralphm 4. AOB
  419. Holger > Put out a tweet saying "Federate or Die!" Having said all the above, occasional Tweets such as this one would be cool 😂
  420. Guus I'll probably be not available for meetings in the next 3 or 4 weeks.
  421. pep. Agenda items I've been meaning to add: come up with a roadmap. iirc there was one already that has never been finished?
  422. ralphm Holger, I'm happy to follow your new twitter account
  423. Holger 🙂
  424. ralphm pep., can you put that on trello, then?
  425. pep. will do
  426. ralphm thanks
  427. ralphm 5. Date of Next
  428. ralphm +1W
  429. ralphm 6. Close
  430. ralphm Thanks all!
  431. ralphm waves
  432. pep. Thanks
  433. Guus bye!
  434. ralphm bangs gavel twice, once retroactively just before "0. Welcome"
  435. Holger (Hadn't even noticed I'm babbling into your meeting, sorry 'bout that.)
  436. pep. Holger, I think input is good
  437. pep. from anybody involved
  438. ralphm Holger: please do this more often
  439. Holger Reminds me, application time …
  440. ralphm Input from "the floor" is awesome and we should have more of it.
  441. mukt2 has left
  442. mukt2 has joined
  443. govanify has left
  444. govanify has joined
  445. govanify has left
  446. govanify has joined
  447. Shell has left
  448. Shell has joined
  449. stpeter has joined
  450. govanify has left
  451. govanify has joined
  452. mukt2 has left
  453. mukt2 has joined
  454. Neustradamus Any news about the SCRAM order? SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1 Recall by stpeter (June 2019) : "When using the SASL SCRAM mechanism, the SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS variant SHOULD be preferred over the SCRAM-SHA-256 variant, and SHA-256 variants [RFC7677] SHOULD be preferred over SHA-1 variants [RFC5802])" -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8600
  455. darkijah has left
  456. darkijah has joined
  457. Wojtek has joined
  458. marc has left
  459. Guus What news are you expecting?
  460. Neustradamus Some people think it is
  461. Neustradamus Some people think that it is: SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1
  462. Neustradamus Some people think that it is: SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1 or SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1 > SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS
  463. mukt2 has left
  464. Neustradamus Some people think that it is: SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1 or SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1 > SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS or other...
  465. Neustradamus -> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/944
  466. paul has left
  467. mukt2 has joined
  468. jonas’ that seems odd. I’d prefer -PLUS if available, no matter the hash...
  469. pep. but it's got a bigger number
  470. pep. runs away
  471. thorsten has left
  472. pasdesushi has left
  473. lovetox has joined
  474. adiaholic_ has left
  475. adiaholic_ has joined
  476. thorsten has joined
  477. pasdesushi has joined
  478. pasdesushi has left
  479. citizenzibb has left
  480. citizenzibb has joined
  481. citizenzibb has left
  482. citizenzibb has joined
  483. paul has joined
  484. LNJ has left
  485. LNJ has joined
  486. papatutuwawa has joined
  487. govanify has left
  488. karoshi has left
  489. govanify has joined
  490. lovetox has left
  491. govanify has left
  492. govanify has joined
  493. emus I read the discussion. Due to the recent desicion making on communication software in my locale, I have the following questions: If there is someone evaluating their communication, do they actually consider XMPP as a protocol to use? If yes, because they knew it by chance? If not, why not? I think thats the case for most evaluations. Is the actually use of XMPP part of the XSF efforts in general? Where do I "go" as a company/developer to evaluate this technology for my purposes? In case they do, do we actually have the chance to take part of their evaluation? I think those are a questions I personally wonder about if I read the mission statement.
  494. APach has left
  495. APach has joined
  496. mukt2 has left
  497. adiaholic_ has left
  498. adiaholic_ has joined
  499. mukt2 has joined
  500. lovetox has joined
  501. emus has left
  502. emus has joined
  503. neshtaxmpp has left
  504. pasdesushi has joined
  505. Daniel People evaluate products. Not protocols.
  506. MattJ Well, some people evaluate protocols, but they are the minority :)
  507. Daniel I think what Mozilla has publicly documented is something I see when interacting with those kind of decision makers
  508. darkijah has left
  509. MattJ Right, I think there was a surprising number of surprised people in this community when that happened
  510. Daniel Wrt to people evaluating protocols I'm under the impression that we aren't even doing that terrible of a job
  511. MattJ An open sane process, and no, "XMPP" cannot just magically be adopted by Mozilla
  512. pasdesushi has left
  513. lovetox has left
  514. darkijah has joined
  515. Shell has left
  516. neshtaxmpp has joined
  517. emus > People evaluate products. Not protocols. Ok fine, but then product creators do evaluate on this. Then lets go one step back and ask what those conclude? And then ask do we want to be part of that evaluation or leave them with that on their own?
  518. lskdjf has left
  519. govanify has left
  520. govanify has joined
  521. Andrzej has left
  522. papatutuwawa has left
  523. Daniel Like I said. - or tried to say - I think we are doing OK on that front
  524. lskdjf has joined
  525. mukt2 has left
  526. karoshi has joined
  527. sonny has left
  528. mukt2 has joined
  529. sonny has joined
  530. lovetox has joined
  531. Shell has joined
  532. Neustradamus has left
  533. Neustradamus has joined
  534. karoshi has left
  535. mukt2 has left
  536. mukt2 has joined
  537. arc has left
  538. arc has joined
  539. Nekit has left
  540. karoshi has joined
  541. emus has left
  542. karoshi has left
  543. emus has joined
  544. xsf has joined
  545. emus Im not sure about that. And regarding creating an open and decentralised infrastructure/protocol, I think it almost completely failed (no offence), when measuring the result that is almost everyone is using closed and centralised solutions only. Few are acutally considering to join or even giving anything back to it or using it as it has been designed (open, decentralised). I also wonder why it is so hard (at least it feels like this to me) to question if we actually follow the mission or anything we head for.
  546. govanify has left
  547. govanify has joined
  548. Shell has left
  549. Shell has joined
  550. jmpman has joined
  551. papatutuwawa has joined
  552. pep. One point that could be made and rejoins what emus is saying, if we don't push for open and decentralized implementations, then the protocol is only going to be used for closed solutions, just as it is today
  553. pep. (And what I've been saying anyway)
  554. pep. Because yes indeed people evaluate products not protocols. And XMPP is nowhere to be found
  555. pep. I'm happy to see Snikket becoming a thing, but we have to admit that free software XMPP implementations that can compete with today's competitors are very scarce
  556. MattJ "The protocol is only going to be used for closed solutions, just as it is today" - seriously?
  557. pep. Mostly?
  558. pep. I can point you at the various pages on xmpp.org
  559. MattJ That mean nothing
  560. MattJ My family aren't listed on xmpp.org
  561. MattJ *means
  562. mukt2 has left
  563. sonny has left
  564. sonny has joined
  565. pep. So 3 nerds using XMPP + Nintendo, Riot Games, etc.
  566. MattJ There are tens of thousands of users on public servers
  567. MattJ At least
  568. pep. And yet when Mozilla looks at the state of the art we're not even considered
  569. mukt2 has joined
  570. MattJ And a few companies build stuff on top and you say XMPP is only used for closed stuff?
  571. pep. (Note that my issue is not that there is not closed source product using XMPP that Mozilla can use either)
  572. pep. (Note that my issue is not that there is no closed source product using XMPP that Mozilla can use either)
  573. MattJ XMPP would have been considered had someone proposed it
  574. pep. What solution?
  575. govanify has left
  576. MattJ You tell me :)
  577. govanify has joined
  578. pep. Well I think we can agree there is nothing competing with Riot (Element), Mattermost, etc.
  579. MattJ Agreed
  580. pep. So here we are
  581. MattJ I specifically chose not to take Snikket in that direction (at least for now)
  582. pep. And the XSF doesn't seem to mind
  583. MattJ Feel free to work on filling that gap
  584. MattJ The XSF is not a software or service provider
  585. Shell has left
  586. krauq has left
  587. govanify has left
  588. govanify has joined
  589. pep. That's exactly the kind of comment I don't want, "do it yourself". That's just saying "it's not our fault" (to me it's pretty close to "if there's no product it must be that the market has decided it's better this way")
  590. lovetox has left
  591. MattJ If you don't do it, who do you expect?
  592. MattJ "The XSF"?
  593. MattJ The volunteers who all have day jobs?
  594. pep. MattJ, I'd be happy for example to have the XSF sponsor things like Snikket
  595. pep. Or things in domains they think is worth encouraging
  596. pep. (according to the mission)
  597. moparisthebest and what if they think they'd rather send money to isode instead?
  598. MattJ Snikket doesn't need XSF funds... the XSF doesn't have enough (it might right now but it's not sustainable)
  599. pep. MattJ, I'm not saying 100%
  600. MattJ If you go down that road the XSF just becomes a fundraising vehicle for open-source XMPP projects
  601. pep. moparisthebest, if it corresponds to the mission, so be it
  602. MattJ That would be a nice org to have, but again I'll repeat that the XSF should not be that
  603. moparisthebest my point being, XSF members probably have very different ideas about what is "worth encouraging", so maybe it's best for it to just encourage nothing
  604. krauq has joined
  605. MattJ Members voted 2-3 years ago in that direction
  606. pep. moparisthebest, fortunately there's a mission document under which we're all supposed to be gathered (with various interpretations as usual..)
  607. MattJ Ok, I retract "voted"
  608. Daniel I think there are better sources for funding - if you want it - than the xsf
  609. MattJ It was an informal survey, but still
  610. pep. Daniel, I do want the XSF to set directions though
  611. pep. Even if it's not doing the funding
  612. Daniel Why?
  613. MattJ The XSF doesn't have the expertise to set directions
  614. mukt2 has left
  615. MattJ XMPP is used in more than IM
  616. pep. MattJ, what's the mission for then
  617. Daniel Ultimately it always comes down to individuals doing the work, acquiring the funding or whatever
  618. MattJ And even IM cases can be broken into different segments
  619. pep. In the meantime we can ask around to various organizations for their needs. Seems pretty obvious to me what Mozilla was going to go with
  620. pep. seemed*
  621. Daniel And if you want to be that individual just be it
  622. Daniel Why do you need xsf approval to get funding or start developing a client
  623. pep. Daniel, that's exactly what I don't want to come down to as I said above. To me that means us running away from our sheparding-ish responsabilities (whether we want it or not, it's very much what this looks likes to everybody else outside of the XSF, and even to some inside)
  624. MattJ Honestly all your problems stem from wanting the XSF to be something it is not, and would be problematic to transition to
  625. lovetox has joined
  626. pep. MattJ, "it is not" is a strong word. Could be :)
  627. pep. MattJ, "it is not" is a strong phrase. Could be :)
  628. MattJ As we have established in many ways by now, it could not be
  629. pep. Oh it could, it's just that some don't want it
  630. MattJ Apart from anything else, a significant number of members disagree with you
  631. pasdesushi has joined
  632. pep. A significant number of vocal members
  633. mukt2 has joined
  634. MattJ I don't understand your obsession with the XSF, it is a volunteer org and does what its members do
  635. MattJ You complain they aren't doing what you want, and don't want to do it yourself
  636. pep. Why the need for the XSF at all then if it doesn't even set directions
  637. MattJ It is a place to build the protocol
  638. sonny has left
  639. pep. We can do that without a front
  640. sonny has joined
  641. sonny has left
  642. sonny has joined
  643. MattJ Sure
  644. MattJ The organisation and process and bank account helps though
  645. sonny has left
  646. MattJ Or nobody at FOSDEM would know what XMPP is
  647. sonny has joined
  648. pep. Well yes, individuals would do it? Isn't it what this is all about? Individuals :)
  649. Daniel but do you as a person pep. actually want to do something? or do you want someone else to do something?
  650. MattJ It is
  651. Daniel for what ever that something is
  652. pep. Daniel, I'm obviously doing things
  653. pep. But what I'm doing and what the XSF thinks should be done are two different things
  654. Daniel ok. but why is that a problem?
  655. pep. Well the XSF is not saying what they think should be done.
  656. pasdesushi has left
  657. pep. Also what I've been thinking about that roadmap again
  658. Daniel if you think xmpp needs better clients go build a client. if you think XMPP needs more shit posting on twitter go ahead and do that
  659. MattJ The XSF thinking it shouldn't do those things is not the same as thinking those things shouldn't be done
  660. pep. (have to go)
  661. Shell has joined
  662. moparisthebest that's a perfect way to word it MattJ (+1)
  663. jmpman has left
  664. lovetox if i could work full time on Gajim instead of 2 hours a week
  665. Yagiza has left
  666. lovetox it would look much different
  667. Shell has left
  668. Shell has joined
  669. Daniel lovetox: but would you want?
  670. karoshi has joined
  671. lovetox yes, but i guess thats a theme in life, we want the stuff we cant have
  672. lskdjf has left
  673. Shell has left
  674. Shell has joined
  675. Unlife has left
  676. pasdesushi has joined
  677. pep. lovetox: that's what the omnious they want you to believe :p
  678. pasdesushi has left
  679. pep. MattJ, and as much as it's true it's irrelevant
  680. arc has left
  681. arc has joined
  682. MattJ So it's that you want the XSF to tell you what to do?
  683. MattJ The XSF leadership is you and me and three other people
  684. pep. MattJ, not just me, but yeah
  685. lskdjf has joined
  686. MattJ So the XSF says (hypothetically) that right, we need a solution for orgs like Mozilla
  687. MattJ Then what?
  688. pep. Shows that at least we care about the state of the world (at least the small part in which we are)
  689. pep. And maybe suggests people to take action in these areas
  690. MattJ That's not how open-source works, trust me
  691. pep. And on top of that we could say we'll sponsor that project up to x%
  692. pep. Yeah I don't care about open-source. I care about free software
  693. MattJ Freeware then
  694. pep. ?
  695. MattJ Never mind :)
  696. pep. Sorry for missing the taunt
  697. Shell has left
  698. Shell has joined
  699. MattJ Picking on my use of the term "open-source" is quite beside the point of discussion, but you can pretend I said FLOSS if you want, it makes no difference
  700. pep. Then I don't agree with your vision of how free software works
  701. Daniel I still don't see how we get from agreeing that we need something like riot to having something like riot
  702. LNJ has left
  703. MattJ People will magically work on it if we suggest it
  704. eta Daniel, the answer is a benevolent parent company throwing money at you for 4 years and then hooking up with some shady crypto businesses, clearly
  705. Daniel Even if we transfer literally all the money in the xsfs bank account to JC and JC quits his job I don't think that would be enough to satisfy Mozilla
  706. eta (why JC)
  707. Daniel Because Converse is probably the closest thing we have to riot
  708. MattJ Example web dev, and we are talking about competing with primarily-web projects
  709. MattJ And that
  710. papatutuwawa has left
  711. papatutuwawa has joined
  712. pep. Ok, well I'm sorry if you only look at things through the money angle
  713. Daniel I thought this was about money
  714. pep. pep.> Shows that at least we care about the state of the world (at least the small part in which we are) pep.> And maybe suggests people to take action in these areas
  715. pep. Money is secondary
  716. pep. But yeah it's indeed an efficient way to say we care
  717. MattJ "Money is secondary" is not a thing for most people :)
  718. Andrzej has joined
  719. Guus I personally prefer to work on improving the ecosystem around XMPP. Allow business opportunities to happen, which allows more people to work on XMPP implementations, which is a direct driver for improvements to projects to happen.
  720. pep. https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/roadmap see this for example. I think that was a great idea and I'd like to update it
  721. eta I mean the XSF newsletter thing is I think something I'd personally like to see more of
  722. eta the matrix people are big on developer advocacy, and the XSF kinda isn't
  723. debacle has left
  724. moparisthebest are there matrix developers? I thought it was just the 1 client
  725. pep. (I won't mention commteam not accepting my offer to work with a marketing person..)
  726. pep. (to those who'd think "he's just words and no action")
  727. mukt2 has left
  728. mukt2 has joined
  729. pep. Unrelated, https://www.zdnet.com/article/european-court-strikes-down-eu-us-privacy-shield-citizen-data-transfer-agreement/
  730. pep. I don't exactly know what it implies yet, but this happened.
  731. Shell has left
  732. Shell has joined
  733. darkijah has left
  734. mukt2 has left
  735. mukt2 has joined
  736. debacle has joined
  737. darkijah has joined
  738. Andrzej has left
  739. Andrzej has joined
  740. goffi has left
  741. Andrzej has left
  742. Andrzej has joined
  743. Andrzej has left
  744. Shell has left
  745. Shell has joined
  746. debacle has left
  747. lobodelrayo has left
  748. lobodelrayo has joined
  749. Shell has left
  750. Shell has joined
  751. j.r has left
  752. j.r has joined
  753. arc has left
  754. arc has joined
  755. Tobias has left
  756. lovetox has left
  757. lovetox has joined
  758. lovetox has left
  759. arc has left
  760. arc has joined
  761. Jeybe has left
  762. arc has left
  763. arc has joined
  764. arc has left
  765. arc has joined
  766. arc has left
  767. arc has joined
  768. Lance has joined
  769. neshtaxmpp has left
  770. Lance has left
  771. neshtaxmpp has joined
  772. arc has left
  773. arc has joined
  774. werdan has joined
  775. arc has left
  776. arc has joined
  777. papatutuwawa has left
  778. Nekit has joined
  779. arc has left
  780. arc has joined
  781. Daniel has left
  782. neshtaxmpp has left
  783. arc has left
  784. arc has joined
  785. jcbrand has left
  786. arc has left
  787. arc has joined
  788. werdan has left
  789. Mikaela has left
  790. Wojtek has left
  791. robertooo has left
  792. Shell has left
  793. Shell has joined
  794. robertooo has joined
  795. paul has left
  796. emus Actually, talking about "all on individuals", apart from the discussion today, it would be honorable to the active people to support their individual internal work here with, if appropiate, e.g. paid work. So we can keep the good things up and consistent and have an organisation which enables to focus on the actually goals. If everything is done voluntary by individuals thats a question of time till important things break apart? So this should be something that is serving for everyone internally. I also want to warn to exhaust people with that circumstance (everything on individuals). Thats also not really caretaking on the atmosphere if thats the understanding of the work of the people here. (And even if I mistook something, that should be an important factor.)
  797. alameyo has left
  798. alameyo has joined
  799. mukt2 has left
  800. Jeybe has joined
  801. debacle has joined
  802. arc has left
  803. arc has joined
  804. Seve has left
  805. xecks has left
  806. mukt2 has joined
  807. Wojtek has joined
  808. arc has left
  809. arc has joined
  810. Wojtek has left
  811. neshtaxmpp has joined
  812. neshtaxmpp has left
  813. arc has left
  814. arc has joined
  815. Shell has left
  816. Shell has joined
  817. alameyo has left
  818. alameyo has joined
  819. karoshi has left
  820. moparisthebest has left
  821. neshtaxmpp has joined
  822. moparisthebest has joined
  823. Shell has left
  824. Shell has joined
  825. Shell has left
  826. Shell has joined
  827. lskdjf has left
  828. debacle has left
  829. mukt2 has left
  830. lorddavidiii has left
  831. mukt2 has joined
  832. arc has left
  833. arc has joined
  834. j.r has left
  835. mukt2 has left
  836. arc has left
  837. arc has joined
  838. mukt2 has joined
  839. Shell has left
  840. Shell has joined
  841. mimi89999 has left
  842. arc has left
  843. arc has joined