XSF Discussion - 2020-09-03


  1. arc has left

  2. arc has joined

  3. arc has left

  4. arc has joined

  5. arc has left

  6. arc has joined

  7. intosi has joined

  8. thorsten has joined

  9. Wojtek has left

  10. arc has left

  11. arc has joined

  12. karoshi has left

  13. arc has left

  14. arc has joined

  15. intosi has left

  16. alameyo has left

  17. alameyo has joined

  18. thorsten has left

  19. krauq has left

  20. krauq has joined

  21. intosi has joined

  22. Seve has joined

  23. intosi has left

  24. intosi has joined

  25. adiaholic has joined

  26. adiaholic has left

  27. LNJ has left

  28. intosi has left

  29. neshtaxmpp has left

  30. neshtaxmpp has joined

  31. intosi has joined

  32. thorsten has joined

  33. arc has left

  34. arc has joined

  35. arc has left

  36. intosi has left

  37. arc has joined

  38. arc has left

  39. arc has joined

  40. arc has left

  41. arc has joined

  42. arc has left

  43. arc has joined

  44. intosi has joined

  45. Steve Kille has left

  46. adiaholic has joined

  47. intosi has left

  48. arc has left

  49. arc has joined

  50. arc has left

  51. arc has joined

  52. adiaholic has left

  53. adiaholic has joined

  54. adiaholic has left

  55. adiaholic has joined

  56. adiaholic has left

  57. adiaholic has joined

  58. arc has left

  59. arc has joined

  60. Yagiza has joined

  61. intosi has joined

  62. adiaholic has left

  63. adiaholic has joined

  64. adiaholic has left

  65. adiaholic has joined

  66. DebXWoody has joined

  67. arc has left

  68. arc has joined

  69. adiaholic has left

  70. adiaholic has joined

  71. arc has left

  72. arc has joined

  73. intosi has left

  74. adiaholic has left

  75. adiaholic has joined

  76. adiaholic has left

  77. adiaholic has joined

  78. adiaholic has left

  79. adiaholic has joined

  80. dwd has joined

  81. lorddavidiii has joined

  82. intosi has joined

  83. adiaholic has left

  84. adiaholic has joined

  85. adiaholic has left

  86. adiaholic has joined

  87. adiaholic has left

  88. adiaholic has joined

  89. adiaholic has left

  90. Tobias has joined

  91. krauq has left

  92. krauq has joined

  93. intosi has left

  94. adiaholic has joined

  95. wurstsalat has joined

  96. david has left

  97. david has joined

  98. j.r has left

  99. j.r has joined

  100. Mikaela has joined

  101. adiaholic has left

  102. adiaholic has joined

  103. j.r has left

  104. j.r has joined

  105. intosi has joined

  106. adiaholic has left

  107. adiaholic has joined

  108. APach has joined

  109. adiaholic has left

  110. adiaholic has joined

  111. alameyo has left

  112. intosi has left

  113. adiaholic has left

  114. adiaholic has joined

  115. alameyo has joined

  116. emus has joined

  117. adiaholic has left

  118. adiaholic has joined

  119. adiaholic has left

  120. adiaholic has joined

  121. Nekit has joined

  122. adiaholic has left

  123. adiaholic has joined

  124. lovetox has joined

  125. intosi has joined

  126. adiaholic has left

  127. adiaholic has joined

  128. krauq has left

  129. krauq has joined

  130. marc has left

  131. intosi has left

  132. moparisthebest has left

  133. adiaholic has left

  134. adiaholic has joined

  135. rion has joined

  136. Shell has left

  137. esil has joined

  138. marc has joined

  139. adiaholic has left

  140. adiaholic has joined

  141. lovetox has left

  142. lorddavidiii has left

  143. intosi has joined

  144. lovetox has joined

  145. adiaholic has left

  146. adiaholic has joined

  147. floretta has left

  148. floretta has joined

  149. lovetox has left

  150. adiaholic has left

  151. adiaholic has joined

  152. intosi has left

  153. adiaholic has left

  154. adiaholic has joined

  155. goffi has joined

  156. sonny has left

  157. adiaholic has left

  158. sonny has joined

  159. waqas has left

  160. waqas has joined

  161. arc has left

  162. arc has joined

  163. guus.der.kinderen has joined

  164. sonny has left

  165. Yagiza has left

  166. Yagiza has joined

  167. Yagiza has left

  168. Yagiza has joined

  169. intosi has joined

  170. jcbrand has joined

  171. sonny has joined

  172. intosi has left

  173. sonny has left

  174. intosi has joined

  175. sonny has joined

  176. adiaholic has joined

  177. sonny has left

  178. lskdjf has joined

  179. sonny has joined

  180. adiaholic has left

  181. adiaholic has joined

  182. goffi has left

  183. sonny has left

  184. adiaholic has left

  185. sonny has joined

  186. adiaholic has joined

  187. sonny has left

  188. guus.der.kinderen has left

  189. adiaholic has left

  190. adiaholic has joined

  191. goffi has joined

  192. sonny has joined

  193. debacle has joined

  194. sonny has left

  195. mukt2 has joined

  196. sonny has joined

  197. lorddavidiii has joined

  198. Guus

    I thin we've once discussed whether personal MAM archives should or should not include messages exchanged with a MUC by the archive owner. Was there consensus?

  199. waqas has left

  200. krauq has left

  201. krauq has joined

  202. Zash

    It's awkward as long as MUC is the way it is, as you see 0 or more messages depending on how many clients are online and joined

  203. Ge0rG

    I think the consensus is to exclude type=groupchat from personal MAM, but then you end up with MUC-PM duplicates

  204. amuza@riseup.net has left

  205. sonny has left

  206. Steve Kille has joined

  207. mukt2 has left

  208. marc has left

  209. krauq has left

  210. krauq has joined

  211. marc has joined

  212. sonny has joined

  213. adiaholic has left

  214. adiaholic has joined

  215. sonny has left

  216. Mikaela has left

  217. amuza@riseup.net has joined

  218. Dele Olajide has joined

  219. Mikaela has joined

  220. sonny has joined

  221. intosi has left

  222. lovetox has joined

  223. APach has left

  224. sonny has left

  225. larma

    https://fosdem.org/2021/news/2020-09-01-dates-fosdem-2021/

  226. larma

    FOSDEM will be an online event next year, so what is going to happen to summit?

  227. vanitasvitae

    Online summit?

  228. vanitasvitae

    The XSF could host a jutsi meet

  229. larma

    Not sure how good this would work online. Those that joined remotely usually were mostly excluded from discussions

  230. vanitasvitae

    So next year everyone will be eual 😛

  231. vanitasvitae

    So next year everyone will be equal 😛

  232. APach has joined

  233. vanitasvitae

    Online Meeting is always < RL Meeting, but what else can we do?

  234. marc has left

  235. sonny has joined

  236. marc has joined

  237. pep.

    Maybe with everybody online this time people generally present would pay more attention to the others :)

  238. pep.

    Somewhat similar to a company where a small party works remotely, compared to a majority working remotely

  239. pep.

    Somewhat similar to a company where a small part works remotely, compared to a majority working remotely

  240. larma

    vanitasvitae, maybe by february we have vaccination? Than RL meetings really wouldn't be a big deal

  241. intosi has joined

  242. larma

    Or just quarantine for 14 days before summit 😀

  243. vanitasvitae

    fingers crossed

  244. vanitasvitae

    and i can imagine that more folks will choose to stay at home despite a vaccine

  245. larma

    Yeah, without FOSDEM it's less worth traveling to Brussels

  246. larma

    maybe instead of decentralized online summit, we do federated online summit? People gather in smaller groups and those join a conference call

  247. Kev

    If we could do an online sprint there might be merit too.

  248. Kev

    An online XEP-sprint, that is.

  249. sonny has left

  250. lovetox has left

  251. sonny has joined

  252. sonny has left

  253. sonny has joined

  254. eevvoor has joined

  255. karoshi has joined

  256. intosi has left

  257. lovetox has joined

  258. Mikaela has left

  259. krauq has left

  260. sonny has left

  261. sonny has joined

  262. krauq has joined

  263. lorddavidiii has left

  264. lovetox has left

  265. adiaholic has left

  266. lorddavidiii has joined

  267. sonny has left

  268. sonny has joined

  269. vanitasvitae

    > maybe instead of decentralized online summit, we do federated online summit? People gather in smaller groups and those join a conference call That sounds like a good idea!

  270. vanitasvitae

    We could hack in smaller groups on dofferent topics and every now and then come together online to discuss what has been done and what will need to be done

  271. intosi has joined

  272. sonny has left

  273. Mikaela has joined

  274. vanitasvitae

    Hehe I really like the term "federated summit"

  275. lovetox has joined

  276. jonas’

    that’s a terrible idea

  277. jonas’

    group/room microphones are terrible

  278. vanitasvitae

    Then maybe organize some mics that are handed around?

  279. Zash

    Physical rooms?

  280. sonny has joined

  281. vanitasvitae

    We could go for either.

  282. jonas’

    vanitasvitae, also annoying

  283. jonas’

    and still requires meeting people IRL

  284. sonny has left

  285. vanitasvitae

    I wouldnt say it *requires* people to meet irl

  286. sonny has joined

  287. mukt2 has joined

  288. sonny has left

  289. adiaholic has joined

  290. sonny has joined

  291. adiaholic has left

  292. mukt2 has left

  293. sonny has left

  294. sonny has joined

  295. amuza@riseup.net has left

  296. sonny has left

  297. rion has left

  298. amuza@riseup.net has joined

  299. sonny has joined

  300. mukt2 has joined

  301. sonny has left

  302. sonny has joined

  303. adiaholic has joined

  304. adiaholic has left

  305. adiaholic has joined

  306. adiaholic has left

  307. adiaholic has joined

  308. adiaholic has left

  309. sonny has left

  310. adiaholic has joined

  311. mukt2 has left

  312. adiaholic has left

  313. debacle has left

  314. adiaholic has joined

  315. adiaholic has left

  316. Mikaela has left

  317. adiaholic has joined

  318. adiaholic has left

  319. adiaholic has joined

  320. sonny has joined

  321. adiaholic has left

  322. adiaholic has joined

  323. LNJ has joined

  324. floretta has left

  325. floretta has joined

  326. debacle has joined

  327. sonny has left

  328. sonny has joined

  329. debacle has left

  330. adiaholic has left

  331. adiaholic has joined

  332. marc0s has left

  333. marc0s has joined

  334. adiaholic has left

  335. lorddavidiii has left

  336. adiaholic has joined

  337. Mikaela has joined

  338. Guus

    Handing mics around using the postal services seem inefficient though.

  339. Guus

    Handing mics around using the postal services seems inefficient though.

  340. intosi has left

  341. Daniel has left

  342. lovetox_ has joined

  343. lorddavidiii has joined

  344. sonny has left

  345. sonny has joined

  346. adiaholic has left

  347. intosi has joined

  348. adiaholic has joined

  349. Mikaela has left

  350. Mikaela has joined

  351. sonny has left

  352. rion has joined

  353. eevvoor has left

  354. adiaholic has left

  355. adiaholic has joined

  356. sonny has joined

  357. debacle has joined

  358. sonny has left

  359. Daniel has joined

  360. moparisthebest has joined

  361. sonny has joined

  362. adiaholic has left

  363. adiaholic has joined

  364. sonny has left

  365. sonny has joined

  366. sonny has left

  367. lorddavidiii has left

  368. Yagiza has left

  369. lovetox_ has left

  370. lovetox_ has joined

  371. marc0s has left

  372. marc0s has joined

  373. undefined has joined

  374. Mikaela has left

  375. marc0s has left

  376. marc0s has joined

  377. adiaholic has left

  378. adiaholic has joined

  379. marc0s has left

  380. marc0s has joined

  381. sonny has joined

  382. krauq has left

  383. krauq has joined

  384. sonny has left

  385. Mikaela has joined

  386. undefined has left

  387. lovetox_ has left

  388. lovetox_ has joined

  389. arc has left

  390. arc has joined

  391. lorddavidiii has joined

  392. adiaholic has left

  393. adiaholic has joined

  394. lovetox_ has left

  395. lovetox_ has joined

  396. lovetox_ has left

  397. lovetox_ has joined

  398. lovetox_ has left

  399. lovetox_ has joined

  400. adiaholic has left

  401. adiaholic has joined

  402. lovetox_ has left

  403. lovetox_ has joined

  404. lovetox_ has left

  405. sonny has joined

  406. ralphm

    0. Welcome

  407. ralphm

    hi!

  408. ralphm bangs gavel, too

  409. sonny has left

  410. MattJ

    o/

  411. pep.

    !

  412. Guus

    ullo

  413. MattJ

    Seve sent apologies

  414. ralphm

    Right.

  415. ralphm

    1. Minute taker

  416. Guus

    Ill do it

  417. adiaholic has left

  418. adiaholic has joined

  419. ralphm

    2. MIssion statement

  420. ralphm

    This is in items for discussion. Was this already discussed?

  421. Guus

    no

  422. Guus

    not in a board meeting, at least.

  423. sonny has joined

  424. ralphm

    Ok. I did some digging on this not too long ago. If the problem is "did board officially adopt this mission statement?", then I believe the answer to be yes.

  425. ralphm

    I don't have the references handy right now, but that's what I gathered from the various mail threads around the time it was written.

  426. sonny has left

  427. adiaholic has left

  428. ralphm

    I also do not think the mission conflicts with a neutrality stance.

  429. adiaholic has joined

  430. pep.

    I disagree with this statement and I guess you're all already aware

  431. ralphm

    Oh, we discussed this on July 16, too.

  432. pep.

    Yeah we did once

  433. adiaholic has left

  434. ralphm

    https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2020-07-16#2020-07-16-3f57d5757711a34b

  435. adiaholic has joined

  436. ralphm

    From a quick reread, I think we agreed to disagree, where the majority seems to not think this is a problem.

  437. ralphm

    Anything we need to discuss further?

  438. pep.

    Also related: https://www.mnot.net/blog/2020/08/28/for_the_users, that I linked last week

  439. Guus

    linked where?

  440. pep.

    here

  441. Guus

    I missed it.

  442. adiaholic has left

  443. Guus

    I'm still at the same place where I was a couple of months ago: to me, this all feels like a semantics discussion where I've yet to see tangible results.

  444. pep.

    TL;DR: “So at its heart, The Internet is for End Users is a call for IETF participants to stop pretending that they can ignore the non-technical consequences of their decisions”

  445. pep.

    Guus, I'm not entirely sure what you call tangible

  446. adiaholic has joined

  447. pep.

    I think that's actually the main goal of board, to discuss of what you all call meta-stuff

  448. ralphm

    I haven't read that fully yet, but I'm not sure how the XSF is pretending that they can ignore non-technical consequences of their decisions, if that's the implication.

  449. lorddavidiii has left

  450. pep.

    lol

  451. pep.

    Sorry

  452. adiaholic has left

  453. ralphm

    ?

  454. adiaholic has joined

  455. lovetox has left

  456. pep.

    Even the mission statement is not clear on who are priorities are. It states « freedom, openness », but these words mean nothing without any context and they can be used for anything

  457. arc has left

  458. neshtaxmpp has left

  459. arc has joined

  460. MattJ

    So we need to include in the mission statement definitions of all the terms?

  461. adiaholic has left

  462. adiaholic has joined

  463. pep.

    Maybe be slightly more specific? For exemple even just mentioning (end-)users

  464. MattJ

    As far as I'm concerned our protocols are open (they are developed and published publicly) and free (anyone can use them)

  465. pep.

    (And of course applying it afterwards, not just for show)

  466. pep.

    MattJ, good. Now who are these protocols designed for, what purpose. Does the XSF accept anything that comes by? If so why? Or why not?

  467. ralphm

    The mission statement doesn't live a vacuum. It lives on our website, so it other documents go into details, like https://xmpp.org/about/technology-overview.html. Additionally there are well-established meanings behind these words. I am not sure we need ironclad definitions.

  468. MattJ

    I don't think that level of detail belongs in a mission statement. Maybe in some other document...

  469. adiaholic has left

  470. pep.

    Whatever the answer to these questions these are choices that the XSF (board / members) has to make, and choice means taking sides

  471. adiaholic has joined

  472. pep.

    So no we are not neutral, even if we haven't answered these questions they are answered implicitely

  473. arc has left

  474. arc has joined

  475. neshtaxmpp has joined

  476. pep.

    Anyway I encourage you to read that blog article, and the RFC that goes with it

  477. ralphm

    Yes, it might be that we decide to non accept a submission. Usually this is on technical grounds. Sometimes on license issues. I don't think the XSF is 100% neutral. We encourage, and require at a stage, open source implementations. But we do not, as an organisation, favour particular contributors or specific implementations.

  478. Mikaela has left

  479. adiaholic has left

  480. adiaholic has joined

  481. sonny has joined

  482. pep.

    Would we accept a spec that encourages tracking users for example

  483. pep.

    Also just the use of the word "open-source" and not "free software", etc. etc.

  484. Syndace

    Sorry to interrupt, where would I find said mission statement? Is it the first paragraph of https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation.html ?

  485. pep.

    https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/mission.html

  486. Syndace

    ty

  487. pep.

    It's not linked from anywhere :/

  488. adiaholic has left

  489. ralphm

    We can fill hours of discussions on the difference between Open Source and Free Software.

  490. Ge0rG

    I'd also like to contribute a small AOB topic to the meeting: the IETF's use of Jabber.

  491. Guus

    To me, this feels like an never-ending rabbit hole of trying to preemptively define everything - I wonder what the benefit will be of us putting in the time and effort to do so.

  492. adiaholic has joined

  493. ralphm

    This

  494. pep.

    ralphm, the actual difference is not the point. The mere fact that there are differences is a clue that choices have been made and this is not neutral

  495. Mikaela has joined

  496. MattJ

    The "neutral" thing is being thrown about a lot, did we actually formalize any statement on what this means?

  497. ralphm

    But what is the *problem* with that then? We are not 100% neutral, and I also don't think we claim to be.

  498. pep.

    MattJ, I haven't seen any :/

  499. ralphm

    So where does this perceived incongruence come from?

  500. MattJ

    The primary neutrality that I am concerned with is one of implementation neutrality, along the lines of the question that was included in the members survey a few years ago

  501. pep.

    ralphm, don't we? Maybe not publicly but everybody present here at least has heard of the so-called neutrality I'd hope

  502. pep.

    There has even been a poll a few years ago

  503. MattJ

    i.e. the idea that the XSF should not favour/promote certain XMPP projects above others

  504. MattJ

    It's nothing to do with favouring one or another stance on protocols

  505. lorddavidiii has joined

  506. pep.

    Guus, is it not important to define who we're doing what we're doing for?

  507. ralphm

    To me, the XSFs so-called neutrality is focussed on the ability for everyone to implement protocols we standardize in our process, and not actively promote certain implementations over others.

  508. pep.

    (+english)

  509. pep.

    I mean, not developers, obviously they're gonna be the ones using the technology, but who is that technology for

  510. ralphm

    And we did have a loooong discussion on the Signal protocol used in our XEPs, *because* of the neutrality stance on this point.

  511. pep.

    I disagree on why we had that discussion, but that's another story

  512. ralphm

    Well, it was had, and we had an opinion.

  513. ralphm

    And to be clear Dave did raise that discussion to its fullest because of that specific reason.

  514. ralphm

    (hi dwd)

  515. adiaholic has left

  516. adiaholic has joined

  517. sonny has left

  518. pep.

    I still disagree, and that's a discussion we can have later if you want. That does relate to that so-called neutrality certainly

  519. pep.

    And who we're making/accepting protocols for

  520. pep.

    I note that nobody answered "Would we accept a spec that encourages tracking users for example" :)

  521. Guus

    Did that issue come up in the last ~20 years?

  522. MattJ

    Nobody has proposed such a spec, so discussing it is helpful how?

  523. Guus

    and if it did, don't you think we can handle those on a case-by-case basis?

  524. MattJ

    There are many thought experiments we could run along similar lines, but I don't see the benefit

  525. adiaholic has left

  526. MattJ

    Even if we made a decision now (before any such spec has been submitted), what's to say our stance couldn't change?

  527. ralphm

    we would, as the IETF does. The statement refenced by pep. was accepted by the IAB, not the IETF itself.

  528. MattJ

    Would we preemptively accept such a spec by saying "yes" to your question now?

  529. adiaholic has joined

  530. pep.

    Guus, I don't, actually. That's a pretty obvious example of what people might be uneasy about, but there are plenty of other exapmles, more subtle

  531. ralphm

    (case by case, I mean)

  532. pep.

    ralphm, surely it's "only" the IAB (and yeah that's another excuse I hear often), but it still has quite a lot of weight

  533. ralphm

    It all depends on what "tracking users" means in the context of that hypothetical specification.

  534. ralphm

    pep., and that weight is felt in our community too. I don't see us actively opposing that.

  535. adiaholic has left

  536. pep.

    I see us talking about things that are opposite to this. What does « neutrality » even mean in the context of this hypothetical spec?

  537. pep.

    "yeah well we're neutral we'll accept your spec, sure"

  538. adiaholic has joined

  539. pep.

    A more concrete example maybe. I read that two weeks ago board voted to support/sponsor an event on message encryption or something,

  540. pep.

    Great, I would probably have agreed as well (even though I now think it might have been a SCAM matter? anyway). But why?

  541. pep.

    Why do we care about message encryption

  542. pep.

    I have my answers obviously, and they are political

  543. pep.

    Not neutral.

  544. adiaholic has left

  545. adiaholic has joined

  546. pep.

    (I don't even know what neutral would mean here tbh)

  547. ralphm

    I saw a no-objection mention in minutes. It covers messaging, a space the XSF seems to live in. Why is that a neutrality issue?

  548. pep.

    Ok so, whatever comes in we'll just accept? Is that what that means to you?

  549. pep.

    What if tomorrow encrypting things becomes illegal in most of the world? (note that it already is in some countries)

  550. pep.

    Is the XSF explicitely going to support evil people wanting to encrypt messages

  551. ralphm

    In the context of the earlier discussion on Signal, MLS has come up several times. It makes sense to me to be involved with topics like that, so that if people want to do encryption of message, there's a common way that also works for XMPP.

  552. Zash

    Secure Messaging Summit, that's happening today and tomorrow?

  553. ralphm

    No only good-doers.

  554. pep.

    ralphm, but they'd be against the law!!

  555. ralphm

    There's no 'the law'.

  556. adiaholic has left

  557. pep.

    Isn't there. Not that I care much about it either and I'd explicitely support encryption even if it was illegal in most countries.

  558. sonny has joined

  559. pep.

    (Because it is illegal in some countries already, as mentioned above.)

  560. Guus

    Can we come to some kind of conclusion please?

  561. lorddavidiii has left

  562. ralphm

    I don't think this discussion is leading in a particular direction. pep.: if you really want to change something here, you need to make it more concrete.

  563. pep.

    I say we drop the neutral stance, because it doesn't actually mean anything (or at least I'd expect some document defining what this means to us), and we aren't neutral anyway (according to my definition).

  564. vanitasvitae

    Or rather than dropping it, define explicitly in what ways the XSF is neutral and in which not?

  565. pep.

    Might as well put that in the mission statement or similar document and say how we'll do things and how we won't do things. Instead of clinging to that notion of neutrality

  566. pep.

    And there maybe we'll realize it's not that easy

  567. vanitasvitae

    As in "the xsf is neutral in regards to implementations, but will protect end-users™"

  568. pep.

    Fortunately(?) we don't have the same trafic as the IETF

  569. Guus

    I do not like the optics of removing a 'neutral' stance - even without defining it. "ah, the XSF is no longer neutral" That will not have any positive effects.

  570. ralphm

    pep. if you want to draft a change like that, we can discuss it more concretely. IMO

  571. ralphm

    and what Guus says

  572. Guus

    as to defining things - I'm not seeing the point, but I'm happy to discuss a concrete suggestion.

  573. pep.

    Who are we trying to please when we're afraid that the XSF is "no longer neutral"

  574. pep.

    (I bet that's exactly those I don't really care about)

  575. ralphm

    Cutting it short here. Let's pick this up for a next meeting.

  576. pep.

    k

  577. ralphm

    Also the AOB will move to next week.

  578. ralphm

    3. Date of Next

  579. ralphm

    +1W

  580. ralphm

    4. Close

  581. pep.

    wfm

  582. ralphm

    Thanks people!

  583. pep.

    Thanks

  584. Ge0rG

    🤷

  585. ralphm bangs gavel

  586. pep.

    Sorry Ge0rG I took all your time :p

  587. Ge0rG

    pep.: wasn't important anyway :

  588. Ge0rG

    :)

  589. sonny has left

  590. Guus

    I think we need better time management than this

  591. sonny has joined

  592. Ge0rG

    it was just that I've recently impersonated the XSF and offered our resources for free.

  593. Guus

    also, can we please have agendas, as we agreed earlier?

  594. ralphm

    Guus: I'm sorry.

  595. ralphm

    Ge0rG: splendid

  596. adiaholic has joined

  597. sonny has left

  598. pep.

    fwiw, I'm not so fond of defining something I have no stakes in. This neutrality thing is not on the website yet and I'm not going to try to promote it for you

  599. pep.

    I'd just like that we drop the ball internally once and for all

  600. krauq has left

  601. ralphm

    unfortunately, you seem to be the only one so far that believes there's a ball to drop and we have a problem. Again, make a concrete proposal, and we will discuss it.

  602. Syndace

    To me it seemed like the board members agreed that the XSF is not 100% neutral in all matters, so I agree with ralphm that the ball is already dropped at least among Board members?

  603. pep.

    I'm not the one claiming that we are neutral

  604. adiaholic has left

  605. adiaholic has joined

  606. pep.

    Syndace, might as well drop the word then

  607. MattJ

    Neither is anyone else, to such an extent as you seem to believe?

  608. pep.

    Indeed

  609. pep.

    Wait

  610. Holger

    pep.: Isn't that a good topic for a broader mailing list discussion? I think I'd personally disagree with your goal (sorry) but I do get your point, and think your examples weren't bad to clarify it (i.e. I don't agree with your point being vague). I'd see value in clarifying these points.

  611. pep.

    Can you rephrase

  612. krauq has joined

  613. lorddavidiii has joined

  614. adiaholic has left

  615. MattJ

    I see several examples of different kinds of neutrality that have been discussed in the past year, they are not all the same thing, and we don't have a single "neutrality" stance

  616. adiaholic has joined

  617. ralphm

    ^

  618. pep.

    MattJ, right, so that's even more confusing

  619. MattJ

    1) implementation neutrality, which as I said earlier, is the thing that was asked about in the members survey

  620. MattJ

    2) licensing neutrality, which was heavily discussed to death during the OMEMO debate

  621. MattJ

    3) political neutrality, in which some non-tech issues were recently discussed at board meetings, and what action the XSF should take, if any

  622. ralphm

    1) and 2) are explicitly encoded in our Mission and in XEP-0001

  623. MattJ

    A single person can have different views on each of these three "neutralities", and still be a member of the XSF

  624. ralphm

    For 3, if we can't get consensus in Board, we tend to ask our membership and/or wider community.

  625. pep.

    2) isn't about "neutrality", it's about being permissive, not about allowing any kind of license, right

  626. pep.

    See how that's also confusing

  627. sonny has joined

  628. ralphm

    2) definitely ties into neutrality in that we want *everyone* to be able to implement our protocols. Most of the OMEMO debate was exactly about this point.

  629. MattJ

    neutrality in that sense is that we should not exclude people from implementing the protocols we publish

  630. ralphm

    by applying a limiting license to the protocol itself (Signal), that invalidated that goal

  631. pep.

    ralphm, I still disagree wrt. the point of the OMEMO debate. I agree it has touched this subject of neutrality but I disagree that was the main purpose

  632. ralphm

    Of course others can have other angles, but the discussion was kicked off on this point particularly, by dwd

  633. pep.

    The purpose of the OMEMO debate to me was about saying "Hey if we allow specs to mandate GPL implementations, I don't have off-the-shelf pieces I can use anymore for my non-GPL product". And tbh, I couldn't care less about this specific point

  634. adiaholic has left

  635. ralphm

    That quoted statement is internally inconsistent.

  636. Ge0rG

    pep.: well, it was about adding a dependency on something that only existed as a GPL implementation

  637. pep.

    MattJ, so neutrality of implementation still

  638. adiaholic has joined

  639. pep.

    Ge0rG, sure

  640. ralphm

    Non-GPL product developers would totally ok with implementing MEMO, if the spec would allow for this.

  641. pep.

    ralphm, how so?

  642. Ge0rG

    pep.: if there was a permissively-licensed protocol specification, adding it would be neutral.

  643. ralphm

    OMEMO, I meant from scratch

  644. pep.

    ralphm, yes and note that I'm not talking about OMEMO in the quote

  645. pep.

    Because it doesn't matter

  646. lorddavidiii has left

  647. ralphm

    Indeed, we would reject all such protocols

  648. pep.

    I think you're missing my point. Anyway..

  649. Ge0rG

    pep.: the important difference is between "there is only a GPL implementation of this" and "there can only ever be a GPL implementation of this"

  650. pep.

    Or just ignoring it, dunno

  651. Syndace

    > Or just ignoring it, dunno cmon...

  652. pep.

    Syndace, I'm genuinely asking :/

  653. sonny has left

  654. Zash

    Makes more sense to me if you think of it as the protocol and its normative references being incomplete and insufficient to implement the protocol.

  655. ralphm

    pep. yes, I have a track record on ignoring peoples opinions when they don't match mine, and always shutdown discussions

  656. pep.

    Ah well, that explains it :P

  657. adiaholic has left

  658. adiaholic has joined

  659. pep.

    MattJ, so to me the "neutrality" that's been used around for years is really just about allowing anybody to implement our stuff, nothing less nothing more

  660. pep.

    It doesn't say anything about what we accept or we don't, who our protocols target etc.

  661. pep.

    (who we're doing all this for)

  662. Ge0rG

    that'd be #2 from the above list, then

  663. ralphm

    You raise a good point on not being explicit on who we develop protocols for.

  664. MattJ

    Then why are talking about our "neutrality" stance in the context of sponsoring a secure messaging summit? (which is implementation-agnostic)

  665. ralphm

    I think that is orthogonal to the neutrality thing.

  666. pep.

    MattJ, because it does seem all mixed up

  667. MattJ

    Clearly you think the "neutrality" thing *does* cover more than just implementation neutrality

  668. adiaholic has left

  669. pep.

    Well I don't remember a clear statement anywhere so..

  670. pep.

    (and no I don't remember that one private survey from 2-3-4 years ago)

  671. ralphm

    Ok, in that case, let's assume that there isn't anything beyond that, until shown otherwise.

  672. adiaholic has joined

  673. sonny has joined

  674. Yagiza has joined

  675. lorddavidiii has joined

  676. undefined has joined

  677. Yagiza has left

  678. adiaholic has left

  679. Yagiza has joined

  680. amuza@riseup.net has left

  681. amuza@riseup.net has joined

  682. adiaholic has joined

  683. pep.

    "Ge0rG> pep.: the important difference is between "there is only a GPL implementation of this" and "there can only ever be a GPL implementation of this"" now seeing this. And as much as I understand the difference, I'm not entirely sure it did matter in the thread. I can quote parts of it if you'd like

  684. Ge0rG

    pep.: well, it's a complex topic and I'm sure there were misunderstandings both in reading and in writing opinions.

  685. andrey.g has joined

  686. Ge0rG

    I like the three dimensions of neutrality that MattJ outlined above, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have some sort of Mission Statement Explanation that identifies our position, if any, on each of them

  687. sonny has left

  688. Dele Olajide has left

  689. Dele Olajide has joined

  690. pep.

    I think 1 and 2 are exactly the same

  691. adiaholic has left

  692. adiaholic has joined

  693. Ge0rG

    I read #1 as giving money to developers

  694. ralphm

    No licensing is not the only possible issue. So are things like patents, copyright (on literal strings like with Signal), trademarks.

  695. Zash

    If you s/money/advertising space/ and then look at the software listing pages

  696. LNJ has left

  697. theTedd has joined

  698. sonny has joined

  699. theTedd

    not to drag this on, but I interpret pep.'s point as being: it's impossible to be universally impartial, so the XSF should state in which directions it aims to be and what what actions it takes to pursue those aims

  700. pep.

    Anyway.. I still don't like the word "neutral", because most often it's a lie. Being neutral most often just means supporting the status quo. Be it when it comes to licenses (What's our impact in terms of what kind of implementation (licenses)'s got the most users?), politics (who are our direct users in terms of their number of users?), etc.

  701. j.r has left

  702. MattJ

    theTedd, and as far as I'm concerned, we do, on a case-by-case basis

  703. pep.

    On what basis, what document should I refer to

  704. MattJ

    I wouldn't oppose some general document that summarizes our stance in certain areas

  705. MattJ

    But I'm not volunteering to write it, because I see other priorities

  706. MattJ

    Maybe this will get me unelected soon, but: I care relatively little about the XSF as an organization

  707. j.r has joined

  708. MattJ

    I think it serves as a decent steward of the protocol, but I think XMPP is bigger than the XSF

  709. ralphm

    The XSF is a means, not a goal.

  710. MattJ

    In terms of the ecosystem, and the directions XMPP needs to go in

  711. pep.

    Tbh if I didn't care about the XSF as an org I wouldn't be in board right now. It's not exactly going the way I want it (which is why I'm here), it's a huge time sink. If I only care about XMPP I wouldn't bother with the XSF

  712. pep.

    Tbh if I didn't care about the XSF as an org I wouldn't be in board right now. It's not exactly going the way I want it (which is why I'm here), it's a huge time sink. If I only cared about XMPP I wouldn't bother with the XSF

  713. adiaholic has left

  714. theTedd

    who should I poke for a website issue?

  715. adiaholic has joined

  716. pep.

    (also emotional sink, exactly because it's not going the way I want it, and lots of resistance :))

  717. pep.

    theTedd, issue, or commteam, but ultimately board members and iteam also have commit rights

  718. MattJ

    The only thing an actual organization is useful for is holding IP (trademark, etc.) and channelling money... and I'm not sure the XSF is excelling at either of these things (though slowly improving)

  719. ralphm

    pep. What if you never get consensus in your favor?

  720. Kev

    I think the XEP series without an organisation wouldn't work.

  721. sonny has left

  722. MattJ

    Kev, many open-source projects don't have an organization to back them

  723. Kev

    And I do think the XEP series, for its flaws, is still worthwhile.

  724. MattJ

    and they work just fine

  725. pep.

    ralphm, I'm probably gonna give up. It's crossed my mind quite a few times. And I'll let you be in piece (finally?) :)

  726. Kev

    MattJ: But they don't generally provide open standards.

  727. pep.

    I know I'm not the only one with this kind of opinions, but I'm the only one vocal about it

  728. intosi

    Open source and open standards are two vastly different domains.

  729. pep.

    So is free software

  730. theTedd

    all of those terms have become loaded, so different people understand them to mean different things

  731. pep.

    theTedd, https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler I encourage you to read this

  732. adiaholic has left

  733. pep.

    it was a good read

  734. ralphm

    pep. I would hate to see you go. You say there are others, but rough consensus only works if people speak up. I can see that arguing against the 'rest' can be tiresome. On both ends.

  735. adiaholic has joined

  736. Zash

    theTedd: It was mentioned elsewhere that https://bitbucket.org/mrtedd/compliance-badges/ has been lost to the gitbucket. Putting those up somewhere else would be nice if it could be arranged.

  737. theTedd

    pep., it looks long, but maybe later ;)

  738. pep.

    yeah it is long

  739. theTedd

    Zash, I'm going to update it anyway, so I'll fix it then

  740. marc0s has left

  741. marc0s has joined

  742. theTedd

    on the website issue: xmpp.org/extensions/ has a broken link in the head -- <script src="/js/extensions-table.js"... should be "/theme/js/extensions-table.js"

  743. pep.

    If you can PR I'll merge it

  744. pep.

    (indeed it's borked)

  745. ralphm

    I agree with Kev on needing an org for standards development. If only for our IPR policy

  746. pep.

    theTedd, or I can PR if you don't want to do github, that's fine :)

  747. theTedd

    if you can pep., thanks

  748. Dele Olajide has left

  749. lovetox has joined

  750. pep.

    https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/784 somebody to merge?

  751. sonny has joined

  752. pep.

    https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/785 another.

  753. Zash

    Somebody™

  754. Zash

    YOLO /me clicks button

  755. lovetox_ has joined

  756. sonny has left

  757. andrey.g has left

  758. theTedd has left

  759. sonny has joined

  760. Mikaela has left

  761. Mikaela has joined

  762. lovetox_ has left

  763. sonny has left

  764. lovetox_ has joined

  765. lovetox_ has left

  766. Nekit has left

  767. Nekit has joined

  768. undefined has left

  769. DebXWoody has left

  770. eta has left

  771. eta has joined

  772. sonny has joined

  773. undefined has joined

  774. sonny has left

  775. lorddavidiii has left

  776. mdosch

    Zash: > gitbucket Hey!

  777. Zash

    Yes, I stole it. That's what it's called now.

  778. mdosch

    😂

  779. Ge0rG

    bithub?

  780. lorddavidiii has joined

  781. Wojtek has joined

  782. undefined has left

  783. sonny has joined

  784. lorddavidiii has left

  785. lorddavidiii has joined

  786. sonny has left

  787. Guus has left

  788. Guus has joined

  789. j.r has left

  790. j.r has joined

  791. krauq has left

  792. undefined has joined

  793. j.r has left

  794. intosi has left

  795. j.r has joined

  796. undefined has left

  797. krauq has joined

  798. j.r has left

  799. intosi has joined

  800. krauq has left

  801. debacle has left

  802. krauq has joined

  803. DebXWoody has joined

  804. krauq has left

  805. krauq has joined

  806. krauq has left

  807. krauq has joined

  808. Nekit has left

  809. APach has left

  810. krauq has left

  811. krauq has joined

  812. krauq has left

  813. DebXWoody has left

  814. krauq has joined

  815. mukt2 has joined

  816. intosi has left

  817. amuza@riseup.net has left

  818. adiaholic has left

  819. adiaholic has joined

  820. j.r has joined

  821. mukt2 has left

  822. Andrzej has left

  823. APach has joined

  824. intosi has joined

  825. deuill has joined

  826. Andrzej has joined

  827. Andrzej has left

  828. moparisthebest has left

  829. moparisthebest has joined

  830. intosi has left

  831. waqas has joined

  832. adiaholic has left

  833. adiaholic has joined

  834. paul has left

  835. paul has joined

  836. mukt2 has joined

  837. Andrzej has joined

  838. intosi has joined

  839. mukt2 has left

  840. LNJ has joined

  841. APach has left

  842. APach has joined

  843. jabberjocke has left

  844. intosi has left

  845. Andrzej has left

  846. adiaholic has left

  847. adiaholic has joined

  848. lorddavidiii has left

  849. krauq has left

  850. adiaholic has left

  851. Yagiza has left

  852. adiaholic has joined

  853. krauq has joined

  854. adiaholic has left

  855. adiaholic has joined

  856. Andrzej has joined

  857. Mikaela has left

  858. Andrzej has left

  859. Andrzej has joined

  860. intosi has joined

  861. serge90 has joined

  862. Andrzej has left

  863. Andrzej has joined

  864. undefined has joined

  865. serge90 has left

  866. mukt2 has joined

  867. undefined has left

  868. Mikaela has joined

  869. Andrzej has left

  870. Andrzej has joined

  871. debacle has joined

  872. intosi has left

  873. mukt2 has left

  874. Andrzej has left

  875. thorsten has left

  876. adiaholic has left

  877. intosi has joined

  878. Andrzej has joined

  879. Andrzej has left

  880. Andrzej has joined

  881. marc

    Ge0rG, just wondering if we would need more than 389 + a more or less general definition of jabber:x:data for a token challenge (as defined in 389)

  882. Mikaela has left

  883. alameyo has left

  884. alameyo has joined

  885. intosi has left

  886. papatutuwawa has left

  887. papatutuwawa has joined

  888. adiaholic has joined

  889. Tobias has left

  890. j.r has left

  891. j.r has joined

  892. Ge0rG

    marc: I'm not sure. Are you speaking of data forms? We've had them in IBR already...

  893. Ge0rG

    This is not my core competence

  894. adiaholic has left

  895. marc

    Ge0rG, yes, data forms

  896. marc

    anyway, so far 389 looks like a quite flexible solution

  897. Ge0rG

    Then we end up replacing data forms with... data forms?

  898. marc

    Ge0rG, the difference is that we have proper definition what data elements are necessary for a given "flow"

  899. intosi has joined

  900. marc

    like for 401 / token: provide a token and an username (optional when not defined by the token)

  901. marc

    and can be used automagically by a client

  902. marc

    and we can advertise features which is not possible atm

  903. intosi has left

  904. mdosch has left

  905. mdosch has joined

  906. Nekit has joined

  907. neshtaxmpp has left

  908. goffi has left

  909. neshtaxmpp has joined

  910. intosi has joined

  911. jcbrand has left

  912. debacle has left

  913. emus has left

  914. mukt2 has joined

  915. lovetox has left

  916. neshtaxmpp has left

  917. neshtaxmpp has joined

  918. krauq has left

  919. krauq has joined

  920. thorsten has joined

  921. rion has left

  922. arc has left

  923. arc has joined

  924. mukt2 has left

  925. neshtaxmpp has left

  926. alameyo has left

  927. alameyo has joined

  928. waqas has left

  929. papatutuwawa has left

  930. lskdjf has left

  931. Seve has left

  932. alameyo has left

  933. alameyo has joined

  934. krauq has left

  935. krauq has joined