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


  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


  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


  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


  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.


  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


  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


  400. intosi


  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


  427. ralphm

    5. Date of Next

  428. ralphm


  429. ralphm

    6. Close

  430. ralphm

    Thanks all!

  431. ralphm waves

  432. pep.


  433. Guus


  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.


  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


  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


  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


  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.


  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


  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