-
MattJ
o/
-
ralphm
0. Welcome
-
pep.
!
- ralphm waves
-
ralphm
Apologies for not sending minutes nor an agenda
-
ralphm
Any particular items to discuss today?
-
pep.
I added two items, one this week, one last week
-
ralphm
Ok, I'll take the items from Trello anyway.
-
ralphm
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
pep.
https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2020-June/009168.html
-
ralphm
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Guus
Sure. I feel we have to a large degree.✎ -
Guus
Sure. I feel we now have, to a large degree. ✏
-
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.
-
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!
- ralphm waves
-
pep.
Thanks
-
Guus
bye!
- ralphm bangs 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.
-
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
-
Guus
What news are you expecting?
-
Neustradamus
Some people think it is✎ -
Neustradamus
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✎ ✏ -
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
Daniel
Like I said. - or tried to say - I think we are doing OK on that front
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
MattJ
You tell me :)
-
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
-
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")
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
pep.
MattJ, "it is not" is a strong word. Could be :)✎ -
pep.
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
-
pep.
A significant number of vocal members
-
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
-
pep.
We can do that without a front
-
MattJ
Sure
-
MattJ
The organisation and process and bank account helps though
-
MattJ
Or nobody at FOSDEM would know what XMPP is
-
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.
-
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)
-
moparisthebest
that's a perfect way to word it MattJ (+1)
-
lovetox
if i could work full time on Gajim instead of 2 hours a week
-
lovetox
it would look much different
-
Daniel
lovetox: but would you want?
-
lovetox
yes, 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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 :)
-
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
-
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")
-
pep.
Unrelated, https://www.zdnet.com/article/european-court-strikes-down-eu-us-privacy-shield-citizen-data-transfer-agreement/
-
pep.
I don't exactly know what it implies yet, but this happened.
-
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.)