I'll write the minutes from my last meeting right after this one.
ralphm
1. Minute taker
pep.
will do
ralphm
Thanks!
ralphm
2. Reevaluate the process for accepting XEP contributions
ralphm
I see this is still on Trello, but I think we handled this, right?
pep.
Yeah this should have been answered
Guus
iirc jonas’ was happy with the outcome.
ralphm
Right
jonas’
I think so, too
ralphm
3. Figure out how to reconcile mission statement's goals with neutral stance
lskdjfhas left
ralphm
This is one of pep.'s items (struggling with the punctiation here).
pep.
There's a description in there that could be useful
ralphm
I'm not sure if I follow. Is the question on whether the mission statement was officially adopted by Board?
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.
ralphm
Yes, I agree this is and has been our mission.
pep.
Which to me means we want to encourage open and decentralized infrastructures
ralphm
Right.
MattJ
We want to *build* open and decentralized infrastructure
MattJ
That's what it says
pep.
MattJ, we're not building infrastructures anyway we're building protocols
MattJ
infrastructure is a generic term, meaning it's something that can be a foundation (in this case, the protocol)
ralphm
This might be nitpicking, but doesn't defining the technologies, in the forms of our specifications, amount to building?
pep.
ralphm, might be nitpick but it's an important nuance
thorstenhas left
pep.
Which to me would mean there are use-cases to encourage more than others
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
pep.
And causes to support (to which the XSF is never answering even if it's right in our mission)
ralphm
I think the rest of the mission statement neatly explains what we mean with 'build'. And yes, it is opinionated.
MattJ
It's not in our mission, though I think you're trying to read it that way
lobodelrayohas joined
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
lskdjfhas joined
MattJ
Sorry, I don't read it that way
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.
ralphm
But because we believe in the openness of the protocols and technologies, we also not object to proprietary setups.
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?
ralphm
Well, my theory here is that by not excluding that, we encourage the openness of what we do.
pep.
I'm happy for it to be, as long as it's clear
thorstenhas joined
pep.
Do we
ralphm
I'm not sure how to respond to that.
pep.
I have my own answer, and it's "no". But I would like to have an official answer someday :)
MattJ
Answer to what exactly? I don't understand what's actionable here
MattJ
Are you saying the mission statement is in conflict with what we do?
pep.
I was commenting on ralphm's statement "we encourage the openess of what we do"
pep.
MattJ, yes that's my original question, how to reconsile both
MattJ
Both what?
pep.
what we do with our mission statement
MattJ
I don't see any conflict
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.
pep.
ralphm, I'm not saying "lock-down", I'm saying encourage more one way than another
pep.
There are multiple ways to "promote", you can either put less resources on one side or more on the other
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.
MattJ
Do you think we've been putting resources on one side but not the other? I don't
pep.
MattJ, well then we're effectively not promoting anything are we. Where are these values of openness and decentralization
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?
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.
pep.
ralphm, that'd be an example yeah. I might prefer not to I think.
MattJ
If you think that's not "open", I don't know what to say
Guus
What problem are we trying to solve here?
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.
marchas left
Guus
We seem to be juggling with words mostly - what's the desired outcome here?
pep.
Guus, to me, either admit we're not actually promoting "openness" and "decentralization", or do it
Guus
I think we already do.
ralphm
Well, we are.
stpeterhas joined
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)
pep.
I don't think we do
Guus
You apparently want to do it in different/more ways. Please elaborate on those
ralphm
Possibly not optimally, but we definitely promote openness and decentralization
Holger
pep., there's some enterprise evaluating XMPP as a basis for their closed solution. Would you prefer them going for something else?
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
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.)
ralphm
E.g. by our presence at conferences and other events, swag we have handed out/sold, news letter, messages on social media.
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.
Daniel
What's a specific action you'd like the XSF to take? Promoting sounds a bit vague?
Holger
So I'm not sure why we'd discourage such a usage.
Guus
I don't think we're discussing discouraging anything?
Holger
Guus, I was asking pep. about his motivations.
pep.
Well as an example "Decentralization" is not even mentioned on the main page.
Guus
rather than engage in other activities more
pep.
I'd personally want to support free software solutions, for example. Giving them resources that they don't have compared to private solutions
Holger
(Personally I appreciate if the XSF just concentrates on specs and that's it.)
ralphm
pep., it is mentioned here, though: https://xmpp.org/about/technology-overview.html
pep.
ralphm, yeah..
pep.
I'd also want the XSF to be slightly more vocal and take stances on these two points (openness and decentralization) online
ralphm
There's only so much that you can put on a front page. I don't see this as a problem.
ralphm
What concrete things do you believe we should do then?
pep.
Things like the letter I sent to the list 1-2 weeks ago. That was the perfect example
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
Put out a tweet saying "Federate or Die!" (this is not a joke, we've had people with t-shirts like that)
pep.
heh, I'd be happy if the XSF got there someday, even though I doubt it ever will
marchas joined
ralphm
I personally not interested in such activism.
Daniel
Underneath a snake?
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
pep.
Why do we even care about openness or decentralization
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
ralphm
pep., there's a difference between working on technologies and believing in openness and decentralization, and signing letters demanding things.
pep.
As as organization openly saying it has as mission to build an open and decentralize infrastructure, I wonder where you place the line
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.
MattJ
I personally 200% believe in decentralized and open communication tech for everyone
MattJ
and I don't want an activist standards organisation
MattJ
I want a standards organisation that serves as a place to collaborate on the protocol, with anyone who wants to do so
ralphm
Indeed
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.
MattJ
Ditto
intosi
Idem.
ralphm
Which doesn't mean individuals or groups of people within the XMPP community couldn't, of course.
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.
stpeterhas left
marchas left
pep.
Holger, you might have heard me wrong, I haven't (yet?) said kill all closed source solutions
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.✎
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. ✏
Guus
Can we agree to disagree here?
pep.
Anyway. yeah, next
Guus
Unsure to what extend we need to re-hash arguments?
ralphm
Guus: well, I guess it is good to make it clear where we stand.
ralphm
I don't think we've had this discussion so explicitly yet.
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.
marchas joined
ralphm
Since we took our time:
ralphm
4. AOB
Holger
> Put out a tweet saying "Federate or Die!"
Having said all the above, occasional Tweets such as this one would be cool 😂
Guus
I'll probably be not available for meetings in the next 3 or 4 weeks.
pep.
Agenda items I've been meaning to add: come up with a roadmap. iirc there was one already that has never been finished?
ralphm
Holger, I'm happy to follow your new twitter account
Holger
🙂
ralphm
pep., can you put that on trello, then?
pep.
will do
ralphm
thanks
ralphm
5. Date of Next
ralphm
+1W
ralphm
6. Close
ralphm
Thanks all!
ralphmwaves
pep.
Thanks
Guus
bye!
ralphmbangs gavel twice, once retroactively just before "0. Welcome"
Holger
(Hadn't even noticed I'm babbling into your meeting, sorry 'bout that.)
pep.
Holger, I think input is good
pep.
from anybody involved
ralphm
Holger: please do this more often
Holger
Reminds me, application time …
ralphm
Input from "the floor" is awesome and we should have more of it.
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
stpeterhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
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
Some people think that it is:
SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1✎✏
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✎✏
mukt2has left
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... ✏
Neustradamus
-> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/944
paulhas left
mukt2has joined
jonas’
that seems odd. I’d prefer -PLUS if available, no matter the hash...
pep.
but it's got a bigger number
pep.runs away
thorstenhas left
pasdesushihas left
lovetoxhas joined
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
thorstenhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
pasdesushihas left
citizenzibbhas left
citizenzibbhas joined
citizenzibbhas left
citizenzibbhas joined
paulhas joined
LNJhas left
LNJhas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
govanifyhas left
karoshihas left
govanifyhas joined
lovetoxhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
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.
APachhas left
APachhas joined
mukt2has left
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
mukt2has joined
lovetoxhas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
pasdesushihas joined
Daniel
People evaluate products. Not protocols.
MattJ
Well, some people evaluate protocols, but they are the minority :)
Daniel
I think what Mozilla has publicly documented is something I see when interacting with those kind of decision makers
darkijahhas left
MattJ
Right, I think there was a surprising number of surprised people in this community when that happened
Daniel
Wrt to people evaluating protocols I'm under the impression that we aren't even doing that terrible of a job
MattJ
An open sane process, and no, "XMPP" cannot just magically be adopted by Mozilla
pasdesushihas left
lovetoxhas left
darkijahhas joined
Shellhas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
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?
lskdjfhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Andrzejhas left
papatutuwawahas left
Daniel
Like I said. - or tried to say - I think we are doing OK on that front
lskdjfhas joined
mukt2has left
karoshihas joined
sonnyhas left
mukt2has joined
sonnyhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
Shellhas joined
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
karoshihas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
archas left
archas joined
Nekithas left
karoshihas joined
emushas left
karoshihas left
emushas joined
xsfhas joined
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.
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
jmpmanhas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
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
pep.
(And what I've been saying anyway)
pep.
Because yes indeed people evaluate products not protocols. And XMPP is nowhere to be found
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
MattJ
"The protocol is only going to be used for closed solutions, just as it is today" - seriously?
pep.
Mostly?
pep.
I can point you at the various pages on xmpp.org
MattJ
That mean nothing
MattJ
My family aren't listed on xmpp.org
MattJ
*means
mukt2has left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
pep.
So 3 nerds using XMPP + Nintendo, Riot Games, etc.
MattJ
There are tens of thousands of users on public servers
MattJ
At least
pep.
And yet when Mozilla looks at the state of the art we're not even considered
mukt2has joined
MattJ
And a few companies build stuff on top and you say XMPP is only used for closed stuff?
pep.
(Note that my issue is not that there is not closed source product using XMPP that Mozilla can use either)✎
pep.
(Note that my issue is not that there is no closed source product using XMPP that Mozilla can use either) ✏
MattJ
XMPP would have been considered had someone proposed it
pep.
What solution?
govanifyhas left
MattJ
You tell me :)
govanifyhas joined
pep.
Well I think we can agree there is nothing competing with Riot (Element), Mattermost, etc.
MattJ
Agreed
pep.
So here we are
MattJ
I specifically chose not to take Snikket in that direction (at least for now)
pep.
And the XSF doesn't seem to mind
MattJ
Feel free to work on filling that gap
MattJ
The XSF is not a software or service provider
Shellhas left
krauqhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
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")
lovetoxhas left
MattJ
If you don't do it, who do you expect?
MattJ
"The XSF"?
MattJ
The volunteers who all have day jobs?
pep.
MattJ, I'd be happy for example to have the XSF sponsor things like Snikket
pep.
Or things in domains they think is worth encouraging
pep.
(according to the mission)
moparisthebest
and what if they think they'd rather send money to isode instead?
MattJ
Snikket doesn't need XSF funds... the XSF doesn't have enough (it might right now but it's not sustainable)
pep.
MattJ, I'm not saying 100%
MattJ
If you go down that road the XSF just becomes a fundraising vehicle for open-source XMPP projects
pep.
moparisthebest, if it corresponds to the mission, so be it
MattJ
That would be a nice org to have, but again I'll repeat that the XSF should not be that
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
krauqhas joined
MattJ
Members voted 2-3 years ago in that direction
pep.
moparisthebest, fortunately there's a mission document under which we're all supposed to be gathered (with various interpretations as usual..)
MattJ
Ok, I retract "voted"
Daniel
I think there are better sources for funding - if you want it - than the xsf
MattJ
It was an informal survey, but still
pep.
Daniel, I do want the XSF to set directions though
pep.
Even if it's not doing the funding
Daniel
Why?
MattJ
The XSF doesn't have the expertise to set directions
mukt2has left
MattJ
XMPP is used in more than IM
pep.
MattJ, what's the mission for then
Daniel
Ultimately it always comes down to individuals doing the work, acquiring the funding or whatever
MattJ
And even IM cases can be broken into different segments
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
pep.
seemed*
Daniel
And if you want to be that individual just be it
Daniel
Why do you need xsf approval to get funding or start developing a client
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)
MattJ
Honestly all your problems stem from wanting the XSF to be something it is not, and would be problematic to transition to
MattJ, "it is not" is a strong phrase. Could be :) ✏
MattJ
As we have established in many ways by now, it could not be
pep.
Oh it could, it's just that some don't want it
MattJ
Apart from anything else, a significant number of members disagree with you
pasdesushihas joined
pep.
A significant number of vocal members
mukt2has joined
MattJ
I don't understand your obsession with the XSF, it is a volunteer org and does what its members do
MattJ
You complain they aren't doing what you want, and don't want to do it yourself
pep.
Why the need for the XSF at all then if it doesn't even set directions
MattJ
It is a place to build the protocol
sonnyhas left
pep.
We can do that without a front
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
MattJ
Sure
MattJ
The organisation and process and bank account helps though
sonnyhas left
MattJ
Or nobody at FOSDEM would know what XMPP is
sonnyhas joined
pep.
Well yes, individuals would do it? Isn't it what this is all about? Individuals :)
Daniel
but do you as a person pep. actually want to do something? or do you want someone else to do something?
MattJ
It is
Daniel
for what ever that something is
pep.
Daniel, I'm obviously doing things
pep.
But what I'm doing and what the XSF thinks should be done are two different things
Daniel
ok. but why is that a problem?
pep.
Well the XSF is not saying what they think should be done.
pasdesushihas left
pep.
Also what I've been thinking about that roadmap again
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
MattJ
The XSF thinking it shouldn't do those things is not the same as thinking those things shouldn't be done
pep.
(have to go)
Shellhas joined
moparisthebest
that's a perfect way to word it MattJ (+1)
jmpmanhas left
lovetox
if i could work full time on Gajim instead of 2 hours a week
Yagizahas left
lovetox
it would look much different
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
Daniel
lovetox: but would you want?
karoshihas joined
lovetox
yes, but i guess thats a theme in life, we want the stuff we cant have
lskdjfhas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
Unlifehas left
pasdesushihas joined
pep.
lovetox: that's what the omnious they want you to believe :p
pasdesushihas left
pep.
MattJ, and as much as it's true it's irrelevant
archas left
archas joined
MattJ
So it's that you want the XSF to tell you what to do?
MattJ
The XSF leadership is you and me and three other people
pep.
MattJ, not just me, but yeah
lskdjfhas joined
MattJ
So the XSF says (hypothetically) that right, we need a solution for orgs like Mozilla
MattJ
Then what?
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
MattJ
That's not how open-source works, trust me
pep.
And on top of that we could say we'll sponsor that project up to x%
pep.
Yeah I don't care about open-source. I care about free software
MattJ
Freeware then
pep.
?
MattJ
Never mind :)
pep.
Sorry for missing the taunt
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
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
pep.
Then I don't agree with your vision of how free software works
Daniel
I still don't see how we get from agreeing that we need something like riot to having something like riot
LNJhas left
MattJ
People will magically work on it if we suggest it
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
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
eta
(why JC)
Daniel
Because Converse is probably the closest thing we have to riot
MattJ
Example web dev, and we are talking about competing with primarily-web projects
MattJ
And that
papatutuwawahas left
papatutuwawahas joined
pep.
Ok, well I'm sorry if you only look at things through the money angle
Daniel
I thought this was about money
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
pep.
Money is secondary
pep.
But yeah it's indeed an efficient way to say we care
MattJ
"Money is secondary" is not a thing for most people :)
Andrzejhas joined
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.
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
eta
I mean the XSF newsletter thing is I think something I'd personally like to see more of
eta
the matrix people are big on developer advocacy, and the XSF kinda isn't
debaclehas left
moparisthebest
are there matrix developers? I thought it was just the 1 client
pep.
(I won't mention commteam not accepting my offer to work with a marketing person..)
pep.
(to those who'd think "he's just words and no action")
I don't exactly know what it implies yet, but this happened.
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
darkijahhas left
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
debaclehas joined
darkijahhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
goffihas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
debaclehas left
lobodelrayohas left
lobodelrayohas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
archas left
archas joined
Tobiashas left
lovetoxhas left
lovetoxhas joined
lovetoxhas left
archas left
archas joined
Jeybehas left
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
Lancehas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
Lancehas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
archas left
archas joined
werdanhas joined
archas left
archas joined
papatutuwawahas left
Nekithas joined
archas left
archas joined
Danielhas left
neshtaxmpphas left
archas left
archas joined
jcbrandhas left
archas left
archas joined
werdanhas left
Mikaelahas left
Wojtekhas left
robertooohas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
robertooohas joined
paulhas left
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.)