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