ralphmApologies for not sending minutes nor an agenda
ralphmAny particular items to discuss today?
pep.I added two items, one this week, one last week
ralphmOk, I'll take the items from Trello anyway.
ralphmI'll write the minutes from my last meeting right after this one.
ralphm1. Minute taker
ralphm2. Reevaluate the process for accepting XEP contributions
ralphmI see this is still on Trello, but I think we handled this, right?
pep.Yeah this should have been answered
Guusiirc jonas’ was happy with the outcome.
jonas’I think so, too
ralphm3. Figure out how to reconcile mission statement's goals with neutral stance
ralphmThis is one of pep.'s items (struggling with the punctiation here).
pep.There's a description in there that could be useful
ralphmI'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.
ralphmYes, I agree this is and has been our mission.
pep.Which to me means we want to encourage open and decentralized infrastructures
MattJWe want to *build* open and decentralized infrastructure
MattJThat's what it says
pep.MattJ, we're not building infrastructures anyway we're building protocols
MattJinfrastructure is a generic term, meaning it's something that can be a foundation (in this case, the protocol)
ralphmThis 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
pep.Which to me would mean there are use-cases to encourage more than others
pep.And causes to support (to which the XSF is never answering even if it's right in our mission)
ralphmI think the rest of the mission statement neatly explains what we mean with 'build'. And yes, it is opinionated.
MattJIt's not in our mission, though I think you're trying to read it that way
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
MattJSorry, I don't read it that way
ralphmI.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.
ralphmBut 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?
ralphmWell, 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
ralphmI'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 :)
MattJAnswer to what exactly? I don't understand what's actionable here
MattJAre 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
pep.what we do with our mission statement
MattJI don't see any conflict
ralphmI 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
ralphmI 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.
MattJDo 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
ralphmOr 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?
MattJThe 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.
MattJIf you think that's not "open", I don't know what to say
GuusWhat problem are we trying to solve here?
ralphmMy 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.
GuusWe 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
GuusI think we already do.
ralphmWell, we are.
MattJpep.'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
GuusYou apparently want to do it in different/more ways. Please elaborate on those
ralphmPossibly not optimally, but we definitely promote openness and decentralization
Holgerpep., 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.)
ralphmE.g. by our presence at conferences and other events, swag we have handed out/sold, news letter, messages on social media.
HolgerI'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.
DanielWhat's a specific action you'd like the XSF to take? Promoting sounds a bit vague?
HolgerSo I'm not sure why we'd discourage such a usage.
ralphmPut 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
ralphmI personally not interested in such activism.
DanielUnderneath 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
ralphmpep., 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
ralphmpep., 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.
MattJI personally 200% believe in decentralized and open communication tech for everyone
MattJand I don't want an activist standards organisation
MattJI want a standards organisation that serves as a place to collaborate on the protocol, with anyone who wants to do so
GuusI 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.
ralphmWhich doesn't mean individuals or groups of people within the XMPP community couldn't, of course.
Holgerpep., 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.
pep.Holger, you might have heard me wrong, I haven't (yet?) said kill all closed source solutions
Guussecondary: 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.
Guussecondary: 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.
GuusCan we agree to disagree here?
pep.Anyway. yeah, next
GuusUnsure to what extend we need to re-hash arguments?
ralphmGuus: well, I guess it is good to make it clear where we stand.
ralphmI don't think we've had this discussion so explicitly yet.
GuusSure. I feel we have to a large degree.
GuusSure. I feel we now have, to a large degree.
ralphmAnd 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.
ralphmSince we took our time:
Holger> Put out a tweet saying "Federate or Die!"
Having said all the above, occasional Tweets such as this one would be cool 😂
GuusI'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?
ralphmHolger, I'm happy to follow your new twitter account
ralphmpep., can you put that on trello, then?
ralphm5. Date of Next
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
ralphmHolger: please do this more often
HolgerReminds me, application time …
ralphmInput from "the floor" is awesome and we should have more of it.
NeustradamusAny 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])"
GuusWhat news are you expecting?
NeustradamusSome people think it is
NeustradamusSome people think that it is:
SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS > SCRAM-SHA-256 > SCRAM-SHA-1
NeustradamusSome 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
NeustradamusSome 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...
jonas’that seems odd. I’d prefer -PLUS if available, no matter the hash...
pep.but it's got a bigger number
emusI 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.
DanielPeople evaluate products. Not protocols.
MattJWell, some people evaluate protocols, but they are the minority :)
DanielI think what Mozilla has publicly documented is something I see when interacting with those kind of decision makers
MattJRight, I think there was a surprising number of surprised people in this community when that happened
DanielWrt to people evaluating protocols I'm under the impression that we aren't even doing that terrible of a job
MattJAn open sane process, and no, "XMPP" cannot just magically be adopted by Mozilla
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?
DanielLike I said. - or tried to say - I think we are doing OK on that front
emusIm 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.
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.I can point you at the various pages on xmpp.org
MattJThat mean nothing
MattJMy family aren't listed on xmpp.org
pep.So 3 nerds using XMPP + Nintendo, Riot Games, etc.
MattJThere are tens of thousands of users on public servers
pep.And yet when Mozilla looks at the state of the art we're not even considered
MattJAnd 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)
MattJXMPP would have been considered had someone proposed it
MattJYou tell me :)
pep.Well I think we can agree there is nothing competing with Riot (Element), Mattermost, etc.
pep.So here we are
MattJI specifically chose not to take Snikket in that direction (at least for now)
pep.And the XSF doesn't seem to mind
MattJFeel free to work on filling that gap
MattJThe XSF is not a software or service provider
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")
MattJIf you don't do it, who do you expect?
MattJThe 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)
moparisthebestand what if they think they'd rather send money to isode instead?
MattJSnikket 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%
MattJIf 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
MattJThat would be a nice org to have, but again I'll repeat that the XSF should not be that
moparisthebestmy 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
MattJMembers 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..)
MattJOk, I retract "voted"
DanielI think there are better sources for funding - if you want it - than the xsf
MattJIt 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
MattJThe XSF doesn't have the expertise to set directions
MattJXMPP is used in more than IM
pep.MattJ, what's the mission for then
DanielUltimately it always comes down to individuals doing the work, acquiring the funding or whatever
MattJAnd 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
DanielAnd if you want to be that individual just be it
DanielWhy 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)
MattJHonestly all your problems stem from wanting the XSF to be something it is not, and would be problematic to transition to
pep.MattJ, "it is not" is a strong word. Could be :)
pep.MattJ, "it is not" is a strong phrase. Could be :)
MattJAs 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
MattJApart from anything else, a significant number of members disagree with you
pep.A significant number of vocal members
MattJI don't understand your obsession with the XSF, it is a volunteer org and does what its members do
MattJYou 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
MattJIt is a place to build the protocol
pep.We can do that without a front
MattJThe organisation and process and bank account helps though
MattJOr nobody at FOSDEM would know what XMPP is
pep.Well yes, individuals would do it? Isn't it what this is all about? Individuals :)
Danielbut do you as a person pep. actually want to do something? or do you want someone else to do something?
Danielfor 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
Danielok. but why is that a problem?
pep.Well the XSF is not saying what they think should be done.
pep.Also what I've been thinking about that roadmap again
Danielif 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
MattJThe XSF thinking it shouldn't do those things is not the same as thinking those things shouldn't be done
pep.(have to go)
moparisthebestthat's a perfect way to word it MattJ (+1)
lovetoxif i could work full time on Gajim instead of 2 hours a week
lovetoxit would look much different
Daniellovetox: but would you want?
lovetoxyes, but i guess thats a theme in life, we want the stuff we cant have
pep.lovetox: that's what the omnious they want you to believe :p
pep.MattJ, and as much as it's true it's irrelevant
MattJSo it's that you want the XSF to tell you what to do?
MattJThe XSF leadership is you and me and three other people
pep.MattJ, not just me, but yeah
MattJSo the XSF says (hypothetically) that right, we need a solution for orgs like Mozilla
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
MattJThat'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
MattJNever mind :)
pep.Sorry for missing the taunt
MattJPicking 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
DanielI still don't see how we get from agreeing that we need something like riot to having something like riot
MattJPeople will magically work on it if we suggest it
etaDaniel, the answer is a benevolent parent company throwing money at you for 4 years and then hooking up with some shady crypto businesses, clearly
DanielEven 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
DanielBecause Converse is probably the closest thing we have to riot
MattJExample web dev, and we are talking about competing with primarily-web projects
pep.Ok, well I'm sorry if you only look at things through the money angle
DanielI 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 :)
GuusI 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
etaI mean the XSF newsletter thing is I think something I'd personally like to see more of
etathe matrix people are big on developer advocacy, and the XSF kinda isn't
moparisthebestare 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")
pep.I don't exactly know what it implies yet, but this happened.
emusActually, 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.)