XSF Discussion - 2022-05-05


  1. wgreenhouse

    crypt: there was an Incident about a year ago that resulted in s.j.n going offline at a time. so I think, seriously, "run your own" is not a bad suggestion--that way you can evaluate your own willingness to deal with abuse reports and legal threats, which may vary from others'

  2. wgreenhouse

    crypt: there was an Incident about a year ago that resulted in s.j.n going offline for a time. so I think, seriously, "run your own" is not a bad suggestion--that way you can evaluate your own willingness to deal with abuse reports and legal threats, which may vary from others'

  3. jcbrand

    Kev: could you explain a bit how in-protocol curating would work?

  4. wgreenhouse

    an XMPP server could have a "referral service" that users could run disco#items against to get a listing. just like listing a conference server's own rooms, except potentially they'd be in many locations

  5. crypt

    wgreenhouse: I appreciate your comment and suggestion. But my beef with "out of scope" is what I said earlier: > Not everything has to be family friendly (or politically correct). Not everything that's controversial or edgy should be reported. I agree with others that this subject has run its course in this room.

  6. crypt

    * reported (and delisted)

  7. wgreenhouse

    crypt: fair enough. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the context that s.j.n actually went down for a time over a dispute about its moderation

  8. crypt

    > wgreenhouse: > 2022-05-04 11:00 (CDT) > crypt: fair enough. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the context that s.j.n actually went down for a time over a dispute about its moderation Not aware

  9. wgreenhouse

    yeah.

  10. crypt

    **Quick sincerity check:** if I or someone else made an alternative room directory, would the XSF/xmpp.org list it under "getting started"? What would be the criteria for it to allowed?

  11. crypt

    **Quick sincerity check:** if I or someone else made an alternative room directory, would the XSF/xmpp.org list it under "getting started"? What would be the criteria for it to be allowed?

  12. wgreenhouse

    crypt: here is how s.j.n got added: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/622

  13. wgreenhouse

    not that long ago in the grand scheme

  14. wgreenhouse

    now at least we're on topic as you're asking "how do I suggest changes to the xsf website"

  15. wgreenhouse

    and I think the answer is "make a PR to add a useful community resource"

  16. wgreenhouse

    there are already e.g. multiple server directories included

  17. crypt

    wgreenhouse: One possible mistake I made was thinking search.jabber.network was also run by the XSF, but the whois is private. Don't know.

  18. wgreenhouse

    crypt: yeah, s.j.n is a one-person volunteer project; I believe the volunteer is a sometime _participant_ in the xsf, but it is not endorsed or managed in any way by xsf. just a community resource listed there, like the selection of server listings compiled by others.

  19. wgreenhouse

    https://search.jabber.network/legal has all the info about s.j.n's owner

  20. crypt

    > wgreenhouse: > 2022-05-04 11:25 (CDT) > crypt: yeah, s.j.n is a one-person volunteer project; I believe the volunteer is a sometime _participant_ in the xsf, but it is not endorsed or managed in any way by xsf. just a community resource listed there, like the selection of server listings compiled by others. This is a sane conversation. Thank you for providing context.

  21. crypt

    This room can get a bit toxic if you have different opinions or ideas.

  22. crypt

    > wgreenhouse: > 2022-05-04 11:26 (CDT) > https://search.jabber.network/legal has all the info about s.j.n's owner This is great. I might reach out to Jonas this way.

  23. Daniel

    Fwiw I for example am glad that s.j.n has strong content moderation polices. Or else I wouldn't be able to include it in Conversations

  24. Daniel

    Defending other people's so called free speech is fine as long as it's not your door that's gets kicked in by the police.

  25. crypt

    > Daniel: > 2022-05-04 11:31 (CDT) > Fwiw I for example am glad that s.j.n has strong content moderation polices. Or else I wouldn't be able to include it in Conversations That tells me any alternative that doesn't follow the exact same policy would be excluded. So much for user choice. Could or can a user add a room directory of their choice in Conversations?

  26. crypt

    If no, why not?

  27. Daniel

    From Conversations in particular? Yes absolutely. But I wouldn't call it 'excluded'. Just not included

  28. crypt

    > Daniel: > 2022-05-04 11:35 (CDT) > From Conversations in particular? Yes absolutely. But I wouldn't call it 'excluded'. Just not included Not sure I follow

  29. wgreenhouse

    Conversations can list s.j.n (default) or the MUC service of its own xmpp server (by toggling a setting--but then you only get results local to that server). s.j.n defines an API some other service could similarly use. some fork of Conversations could point to a different search domain.

  30. crypt

    A fork is partial choice. But to enable/add an alternative to your client shouldn't require permission from the dev (his moral point of view).

  31. wgreenhouse

    crypt: point me to a matrix client that can use a room directory other than the one hosted by matrix.org :D

  32. wgreenhouse

    that situation is actually a great deal worse

  33. wgreenhouse

    the equivalent to the local search option doesn't exist

  34. crypt

    wgreenhouse: don't change the subject (but I do have an answer) 😎

  35. wgreenhouse

    crypt: ok. settings have a cost, though. if you read through Conversations's issues and PRs, most of them are literally Daniel rejecting a setting. because tech debt and making UI more confusing. most of the many Conversations forks are to add back a setting Conversations rejected.

  36. wgreenhouse

    other clients (Gajim for example) have never seen any configuration option they thought was a bad idea.

  37. crypt

    > wgreenhouse: > 2022-05-04 11:44 (CDT) > crypt: ok. settings have a cost, though. if you read through Conversations's issues and PRs, most of them are literally Daniel rejecting a setting. because tech debt and making UI more confusing. > most of the many Conversations forks are to add back a setting Conversations rejected. It should be as easy as adding a link to that room directory. Out of his control or concern.

  38. wgreenhouse

    crypt: that's adding a setting, however. currently it's a 2-way toggle; s.j.n or your own server's MUC listing. you want to add a third, and a fillable

  39. crypt

    > wgreenhouse: > 2022-05-04 11:46 (CDT) > crypt: that's adding a setting, however. currently it's a 2-way toggle; s.j.n or your own server's MUC listing. you want to add a third, and a fillable Yup. Perfect.

  40. wgreenhouse

    ok. write the PR. high probability of reject simply because it adds a setting :)

  41. wgreenhouse

    then you've got your Conversations fork.

  42. wgreenhouse

    anyway, this is again straying off the topic. conversations is also not controlled or managed by xsf

  43. crypt

    But it's a revealing exercise on freedom and censorship

  44. crypt

    Have a goodnight everyone!

  45. Daniel

    You can also probably try to buy s.j.n for $44b in order to change the rules.

  46. Daniel

    Only to ultimately discover that the rules are there for a reason

  47. crypt

    > Daniel: > 2022-05-05 12:00 (CDT) > Only to ultimately discover that the rules are there for a reason YouTube's censorship crew would agree.

  48. crypt

    Probaby Twitter and Facebook, too.

  49. crypt

    Probably Twitter and Facebook, too.

  50. Daniel

    Exactly

  51. crypt

    > Daniel: > 2022-05-05 12:04 (CDT) > Exactly Glad you enjoy that world. You can keep it.

  52. Menel

    Can you try to inform yourself to German law, or shut up really! And really setup your own world with your views and don't try to force others to make it against their beliefs

  53. Menel

    Not posting something on their own website is not censorship

  54. Menel

    You can use this decentralized network and you'll *not* be censored. Only not everyone might want to see everything. And thats ok

  55. crypt

    *You can eat bread or bread. Which will it be?*

  56. Menel

    I don't know your goal. sjn will not change its tos because of text here... And the xsf will not create its own service.. They are for the technical standards of the protocol

  57. mathieui

    (And also further inquiries or demands may be seen as an additional hassle to running the service, which may lead to it shutting down)

  58. goffi

    hi jonas’, a friendly reminder about https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-public-subscriptions.html. Thanks!

  59. jonas’

    yes. I need to rework my editor schedule. Thanks for bumping.

  60. Guus

    are there known issues with Adium's implementation of BOSH?

  61. Guus

    specifically 1.5.10.4?

  62. jcbrand

    crypt: I wouldn't have a problem with making the search service configurable in Converse. I'm sympathetic to free speech concerns and don't like the IMO extreme censorship that's been on social media the last few years. That said, it's a complex topic and I also understand the viewpoint of people who want to filter out certain content. As a personal example, I'd rather my child is not too easily exposed to a lot of stuff online.

  63. Zash

    jcbrand, editor-ial: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html stuck in LC?

  64. Zash

    jonas’, editor-ial: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html stuck in LC? (sorry jc, wrong tab)

  65. jonas’

    and here I was hoping it wouldn't concern me

  66. Zash

    Well come to think of it, concerns jcbrand too

  67. Zash

    https://logs.xmpp.org/council/2022-01-05?p=h#2022-01-05-fa0ce69fd8b2d0be

  68. Zash

    Message referencing eh

  69. moparisthebest

    > are there known issues with Adium's implementation of BOSH? Guus: libpurple clients are still vulnerable to trivial undetectable-by-the-user mitm

  70. jcbrand

    I do one day want to address the concerns, but it's not high on my list of priorities ATM

  71. Guus

    moparisthebest: thanks, but I was after functional issues. I've got one person that seems to have an issue that any new outbound stanza is delayed until the longpoll of the preexisting HTTP request is over.

  72. Guus

    (which introduces weird delays)

  73. *IM*

    moparisthebest: libpurple clients are still vulnerable to trivial undetectable-by-the-user mitm Do you have a link?

  74. moparisthebest

    *IM*, https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2022-February/038759.html

  75. *IM*

    Thanks!

  76. Zash

    moparisthebest, https://keep.imfreedom.org/pidgin/pidgin/rev/d25fecfb02f9

  77. *IM*

    Isn't libpurple used by Matrix too?

  78. moparisthebest

    Zash, awesome! I assumed they'd forgotten about it :D Now we just need that CVE opened up so all the distros can update

  79. Menel

    *IM*: that may or may not be the case, but this one is about DNS records for xmpp. So they are not vulnerable, even if they use it

  80. MattJ

    Board?

  81. MattJ

    I have stuff to discuss that has been waiting a while, so I'll send out an email if there's to be no meeting again

  82. pep.

    If I wanted to report something about the CoC (I am not), where would I do this btw? There doesn't seem to be anything mentioned in the room description nor topic, nothing on the website either

  83. pep.

    If I wanted to report something about the CoC (I don't), where would I do this btw? There doesn't seem to be anything mentioned in the room description nor topic, nothing on the website either

  84. pep.

    Oh there is one page apparently mentioned the CoC.. where is it linked

  85. pep.

    Oh there is one page apparently mentioned the CoC.. where is it linked from..

  86. pep.

    `content/community/operators-rules.md` where am I supposed to find this page? https://xmpp.org/community/operators-rules{,/,.html} yield 404

  87. Zash

    pep., https://xmpp.org/community/channels/operators/

  88. Zash

    based on the url property in the header

  89. pep.

    Ah right..

  90. pep.

    But this still isn't linked from anywhere right?

  91. pep.

    At least on the website

  92. Zash

    `ack` finds https://xmpp.org/2021/07/the-xmpp-newsletter-june-2021/

  93. pep.

    It's in the topic on operators, that's good. I do think it should also be placed here, well the CoC, not especially this page

  94. pep.

    All concerned channels really

  95. pep.

    I might attempt a PR to move the CoC bits from the operators' page to one level higher (/community/)

  96. Zash

    sounds sensible

  97. pep.

    TIL joinjabber.org is appearing on xmpp.org

  98. moparisthebest

    If you see someone using "jabber" how can you tell if they got a proper trademark license from the XSF for it?

  99. Link Mauve

    They don’t need it AIUI.

  100. Link Mauve

    Err, using in which sense?

  101. Link Mauve

    In a product name there is the trademark page which lists them IIRC.

  102. Link Mauve

    moparisthebest, https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/ should explain things a bit.

  103. moparisthebest

    So "report it to the board" ?

  104. moparisthebest

    Ok board what about https://www.sitejabber.com/

  105. MattJ

    IANAL but I don't see any issue with that

  106. moparisthebest

    "leaving reviews and responding to them" is basically chat no?

  107. MattJ

    I am not a judge, either 🙂

  108. moparisthebest

    I just know I had some brand confusion when it popped up when I was trying to buy some tires :)

  109. pep.

    « The XSF wouldn’t be possible without the support of our sponsors. If your company is interested in sponsoring the XSF, we’d love to talk. » What is this doing on the community page?

  110. Kev

    Soliciting sponsors, by the look of it.

  111. jcbrand

    MattJ: I mentioned here a while back that the current meeting time is difficult for me to make. I should probably write an email to the board

  112. MattJ

    jcbrand: I gather it's less than ideal for everyone (including me). Worth trying again to find a better time, but last time we tried this was the least-worst

  113. pep.

    Kev, thanks I can read

  114. mathieui

    pep.: I would imagine gathering sponsors is part of a community effort

  115. pep.

    That's already more of an answer :)

  116. pep.

    well we're definitely not missing links to the sponsors page on the website..

  117. mathieui

    And companies using XMPP are part of the community, so it makes sense to remind them that sponsors are appreciated

  118. pep.

    Regarding my first question today, I'm still wondering where to get support when somebody is overstepping or violating the CoC, if I had to.

  119. pep.

    Is it still board?

  120. moparisthebest

    looks like the moderators of the channel first

  121. Zash

    the "Conduct team"

  122. Kev

    The CoC says Board and the Conduct team.

  123. pep.

    « The final decision on such exclusions is made by the Board, who may from time to time appoint a Work Team, called the Conduct Team, to act on their behalf. If the Work Team has not been appointed, the Conduct Team is the Board. There are exceptions to this - in particular any right of elected members of the Foundation under the Bylaws cannot be curtailed by the Board, though the Board (or any other any member) could start the process to eject a member. This means that members are trusted by the other members to a higher degree than other participants; something that should be considered during elections. »

  124. pep.

    Is the Conduct team a thing already

  125. Kev

    It's currently just Board, unless I missed it.

  126. pep.

    Always have a hard time finding teams on the website

  127. mathieui

    I don’t think we have a conduct team yet, but contacting board or one or several individuals should achieve the same purpose

  128. pep.

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

  129. moparisthebest

    it says things like "as soon as moderators are made aware..." so you should contact channel moderators first at least

  130. moparisthebest

    conduct team / board are last resorts

  131. Kev

    Which it - the CoC or the operators page?

  132. pep.

    Sure, well that's fine if moderators are not in

  133. pep.

    That's the operators' page

  134. pep.

    I'm rewriting it slightly

  135. pep.

    And moving it

  136. Kev

    AFAICS, the CoC trumps the operators page.

  137. Kev

    Or should.

  138. Kev

    So I think a rework of that page is deserved, thanks pep.

  139. pep.

    Should, probably, but I do read it's a bit thick to read

  140. pep.

    Should, probably, but I do think it's a bit thick to read

  141. pep.

    So when trying to summarize the CoC in a short list, I actually don't manage to come up with more then: - DO: Be welcoming and inclusive. Make the XSF a place where people are happy and comfortable. - DONT: Discriminate based on culture, religion, size and shape, sex, experience or ability.

  142. pep.

    I do feel like I'm missing things (not understanding things) in the text

  143. pep.

    https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/plain/code_of_conduct.txt something like this with a shortlist of DOs and DONTs included in the document is quite helpful

  144. Kev

    I do feel the personal attacks / ad hominem bit is pretty important (and we had a clear breach of that here the other day, although I didn't bother reporting it as Board members were here at the time too).

  145. pep.

    I also wonder why there had to be XSF-made document for this also. Stuff like Tor's are actually great

  146. pep.

    There was certainly personal attacks the other day, but to be fair there was stuff to report from both sides

  147. moparisthebest

    if a CoC can't be summarized as "be nice to each other" it's a bad CoC

  148. pep.

    ("We vote with our feet and code around here, we don't sit around whining wishing someone else would do something for us" definitely falls into "Don't discriminate based on [..] experience or ability" to me)

  149. moparisthebest

    I disagree, but also, put it in context

  150. pep.

    Definitely, that's why I reacted when you said it :)

  151. moparisthebest

    obvious troll complaining in the wrong channel after being told nicely over and over, meh

  152. moparisthebest

    "voting with your feet" doesn't require experience or ability

  153. pep.

    I'm going to try to put up something, but I guess the best would have to have this shortlist in the spec itself

  154. pep.

    Maybe there shouldn't be a /community/code-of-conduct and directly redirect to the spec, but then it needs to be clear, not like it is now

  155. Daniel

    I disagree with making trolls feel welcome. That's a classic paradox of tolerance

  156. moparisthebest

    I should have just ignored him and not trolled back though

  157. pep.

    From what I saw in xsf@, I wasn't able to say. I do agree I couldn't care less for fascists getting their stuff unlisted, but that's not reason to get worked up in here

  158. pep.

    From what I saw in xsf@, I wasn't able to say. I do agree I couldn't care less for fascists getting their stuff unlisted, but that's no reason to get worked up in here

  159. pep.

    (let's not be afraid to use words :))

  160. pep.

    (It's not just "trolls")

  161. moparisthebest

    I don't want to go assuming what he wanted listed, he could just be a horse porn connoisseur

  162. moparisthebest

    he was a troll because it was unrelated to this room and wouldn't stop despite being told nicely

  163. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest [20:55]: > if a CoC can't be summarized as "be nice to each other" it's a bad CoC Can't we just have that sentence as the CoC then? But then it's obvious common sense anyway, isn't it?

  164. pep.

    This is a free USican discrimination, but I love how you spell connoisseur :D

  165. Daniel

    It's not even clear they even wanted to create a room at all

  166. pep.

    Ge0rG, it means nothing though

  167. jcbrand

    > ("We vote with our feet and code around here, we don't sit around whining wishing someone else would do something for us" definitely falls into "Don't discriminate based on [..] experience or ability" to me) This kind of language policing highlights pretty well my reservations with CoCs.

  168. moparisthebest

    pep., if you think I know how to spell connoisseur and didn't just use ddg and copy+paste it you are mistaken :D

  169. pep.

    Tbh it's like saying we're inclusive in a document, yay we have the keyword, now what does that mean (not saying this in relation to the XSF's, just in general)

  170. Ge0rG

    The more explicit the rules are worded, the easier it is to violate the spirit of the rules while following the word

  171. jcbrand

    The common rebuttal is "we won't get literal and maintain the spirit" but I don't buuy it

  172. jcbrand

    The common rebuttal is "we won't get literal and maintain the spirit" but I don't buy it

  173. moparisthebest

    what Ge0rG just said is exactly my sentiment

  174. pep.

    moparisthebest, yeah no it's correct in english I think, and it certainly comes from french, but in french it's spelled « connaisseur » :P

  175. pep.

    Well the idea is to agree on common grounds. That's the hardest part. It's not because there is a document that the magic is done anyway

  176. pep.

    That's a cultural change

  177. jcbrand

    pep. Can you break down the word? I'm guessing it's some kind of compound noun or perhaps the doer of something. Like "taster" or "enjoyer"

  178. moparisthebest

    well we can all agree we should be nice to each other I suppose

  179. jcbrand

    You weren't all that nice earlier today TBH

  180. jcbrand

    You in the plural, not singling out one person

  181. Ge0rG

    If you have very loose wording, you'll get trolls complaining about arbitrary treatment. If you have specific wording, you'll get trolls complaining about not following the word of the rule

  182. pep.

    jcbrand, « connaître » is « to know », and -sseur is for the person who [..]

  183. jcbrand

    ah, so knower

  184. jcbrand

    Thanks

  185. Daniel

    Aren't code of conducts a thing invented by the CIA to waste everyone's time?

  186. pep.

    Ge0rG, also why this is literally in Tor's CoC: DON'T: Hunt for ways to uphold the letter of this code while violating its spirit.

  187. moparisthebest

    TIL, neat, I also thought it was more like "enjoyer"

  188. pep.

    Daniel, hah. You wish

  189. jcbrand

    > Aren't code of conducts a thing invented by the CIA to waste everyone's time? Not the CIA, but moral busybodies

  190. pep.

    I guess you're referring to the saboteur's kit

  191. pep.

    But anyway, no. This is solely a set of common rules. Because no, rules aren't "obvious", "common sense" isn't actually common, it's different in every culture and sub-culture

  192. pep.

    So having a set of guidelines to go by is useful

  193. Ge0rG

    All I know is that this infighting of progressive groups already was well reflected in that 1979 comedy that must not be shown in Germany on Easter Friday

  194. pep.

    Surely it's the fault of the progressives :)

  195. pep.

    They're trying to bring the world down

  196. jcbrand

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions

  197. Zash

    Recent events makes me wonder if the inverse is true

  198. pep.

    Sure, and this is a collective effort

  199. jcbrand

    Concerning CoC, I think "don't harass people" is a rule most reasonable people can get behind and which is perhaps not so easy to apply overeagerly

  200. pep.

    jcbrand, yeah but it's sometimes helpful to know who's harassing who exactly

  201. jcbrand

    Well, if it's not clear, then I'd do what you do with kids. You tell them both to stop and to leave one another alone

  202. jcbrand

    Very often it isn't completely perpetrator vs victim

  203. jcbrand

    Very often both people had a role in escalating the situation

  204. pep.

    Sometimes one says something and that'll trigger a reaction on the other side because it was actually discriminatory and the first one didn't know, and the other one reacted as badly and they're the only ones to get blamed and no one reflects on this and life goes on

  205. jcbrand

    Getting triggered and lashing out at people is IMO not ok

  206. pep.

    I do agree

  207. jcbrand

    Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not IMO some kind of thing that should be excused

  208. pep.

    And in the case I mention (which happens more often that one would think), it's useful to be able to isolate what triggered all this

  209. msavoritias

    Cant we get a template and adapt it pep. ? I know of this template for example or we can get something else: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/

  210. pep.

    msavoritias, well there's already https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0458.html so I'm not sure what to do

  211. jcbrand

    The person who wrote that calls herself "Big-time open source troublemaker and sworn enemy of the status quo."

  212. pep.

    heh, and I think it's nice

  213. pep.

    Death to the status quo

  214. moparisthebest

    I wouldn't want anyone who's goal was to be a troublemaker in my group :P

  215. jcbrand

    Me neither

  216. pep.

    The thing is when you're surrounded with people who think the same, you got to make lots of noise to be able to actually be heared

  217. jcbrand

    The empty pots make the loudest noise

  218. pep.

    The thing is when you're surrounded with people who think the same, you got to make lots of noise to be able to actually be heard

  219. MattJ

    ???

  220. pep.

    Yeah, ?!

  221. jcbrand

    It's a saying, I don't know if it's in English

  222. jcbrand

    But it's in other languages

  223. MattJ

    This conversation is just getting defocused, I feel

  224. pep.

    MattJ, I'm not sure. Well it's obviously not on presenting the CoC on the website anymore

  225. MattJ

    The CoC has not had final approval yet (hence the "experimental" tag), I *think* there are still some pending edits, but I'd have to check

  226. pep.

    I'm still surprised though one has to take a stance for a CoC..

  227. Daniel

    > This conversation is just getting defocused, I feel That's why the CIA invented them. Duh

  228. pep.

    :D

  229. pep.

    jcbrand, basically, we're not a homegenous group, we have different interests (culture, religion, race, sex, gender, whether we are a developer, a user, whether we work in a company, for money, or not, etc.) and they're getting onto each other, and the language we speak, behaviour we have, all of it reflects this. So having common rules that we agree on is good I think

  230. moparisthebest

    be nice, talk about xmpp

  231. pep.

    I am!

  232. Zash

    can we have a Summit yet? to remind us that there are people attached to these nicknames? 🙂

  233. MattJ

    +1

  234. Ge0rG

    Zash: but those people are almost exclusively privileged white men

  235. pep.

    That is true

  236. pep.

    :P

  237. pep.

    Maybe the XSF wants to actively encourage other people to join? And/or help them join even

  238. Ge0rG

    Just enlist them without their knowledge

  239. pep.

    Right, and check the greenbox

  240. moparisthebest

    I think a recent dilbert cartoon covered this scenario

  241. moparisthebest

    as far as I'm concerned the XSF encourages everyone who wants to to join, and doesn't know anything about them other then their nicknames, and that's how it should be

  242. moparisthebest

    unfortunately the membership process requires divulging those, but you can participate quite a bit without doing that

  243. jcbrand

    In lieu (I can speak French too 😉 ) of a summit, we could also just have sprints again

  244. moparisthebest

    can't have summits anymore, that certainly excludes people based on their ability to travel >:)

  245. pep.

    jcbrand, actually let me edit what I said above. We are not homogenous, but we are not really diverse either (a majority being white males employed in tech), so having these rules also allow us to encourage people not like us to join. Of course just having this document isn't enough, we also need to work on it

  246. jcbrand

    moparisthebest: Ah yes, travelist

  247. pep.

    "as far as I'm concerned the XSF encourages everyone who wants to to join" how?

  248. Daniel

    > can't have summits anymore, that certainly excludes people based on their ability to travel >:) I know this is a joke. But this is actually a real problem

  249. pep.

    Just saying it won't make people come magically

  250. Daniel

    With the 'official' summit hotel being really expensive and so on

  251. jcbrand

    pep. Don't rules do the opposite? Instead of encouraging people not like us, they encourage other people to be like us.

  252. pep.

    jcbrand, I depends on the rules?

  253. pep.

    Daniel, yeah and being in belgium also, in europe.

  254. jcbrand

    This seems like unnecessary hand-wringing to me. It's before a very large free conference and AFAICT most active members are in the EU

  255. jcbrand

    Also, people on other continents are free to organize their own events

  256. jcbrand

    Coming from South Africa, I know a lot about what it's like to be isolated from events

  257. Daniel

    If you don't have the resources to travel you don't have the resources to put on a conference

  258. jcbrand

    That's not true

  259. jcbrand

    I put on a sprint in South Africa and got funding from the Plone foundation

  260. jcbrand

    And some US devs even flew to be there

  261. pep.

    "most active member are in the EU" "people on other continents are free to organize their own events", this isn't exactly how I see "trying to be inclusive"

  262. moparisthebest

    I'm not seriously suggesting we never have a summit for that reason, but it is *extremely hard* for me to attend

  263. jcbrand

    Sure, but what should we do about that

  264. jcbrand

    Sure, but what should we do about that?

  265. jcbrand

    When I lived in SA it was also extremely hard for me to attend things

  266. moparisthebest

    keep doing most work in XMPP and carry on

  267. moparisthebest

    my only point is that you can't avoid all discrimination on everything no matter what you do

  268. pep.

    I don't know if Debian as a whole is a good example, but they try to host their conference in a different place every time and I think that's a great first step

  269. Kev

    Should we not hold summits because they're hard for some people to attend? I don't think so. Should we acknowledge that summits are not terribly inclusive to some people? I think so.

  270. pep.

    Kev, acknowledging would definitely be the greatest first start :)

  271. jcbrand

    Yes, where would we be without feeling guilty about things

  272. Zash

    Hasn't the XSF helped with travel before?

  273. Kev

    Zash: Yes, but its ability to do so is very limited.

  274. Kev

    It's been (AFAICR) always people already in the community that it wanted to have there.

  275. moparisthebest

    I'd just rather we stop pretending you can never "discriminate based on ability" or whatever those words were

  276. pep.

    moparisthebest, as with everything it's not an absolute but a goal

  277. moparisthebest

    if it's in the CoC as a rule it's an absolute

  278. moparisthebest

    if it's a goal "be nice" covers it

  279. Zash

    we don't deal in absolutes here!

  280. moparisthebest

    wait this isn't the Sith counsel ? oh no...

  281. Guus

    > Hasn't the XSF helped with travel before? For gsoc students, we did.

  282. Guus

    > With the 'official' summit hotel being really expensive and so on Laziness on my part.

  283. jcbrand

    One way to help the geographically challenged, could be to have breakout conferences at the same time

  284. pep.

    moparisthebest, should I be banned because I discriminated againt my own class? :)

  285. jcbrand

    I.e. people in the US can meet at the same time and connect via video and XMPP

  286. jcbrand

    Or in India or whereever

  287. pep.

    I think it'd be hard, (timezones), but it would be good to try

  288. jcbrand

    ah yes, timezones

  289. Guus

    > I.e. people in the US can meet at the same time and connect via video and XMPP We used to have two summits per year, geographically separated.

  290. pep.

    jcbrand, yeah, that little detail :p

  291. moparisthebest

    US is a big place, it's about the same level of difficulty for me to travel to san francisco as belgium

  292. jcbrand

    > We used to have two summits per year, geographically separated. I"m guessing the US summit doesn't happen anymore due to lack of attendees?

  293. jcbrand

    moparisthebest: I remember a pep talk about voting with feet and not whining or something

  294. moparisthebest

    sorry I started this, there's nothing wrong with the summit, and no one should feel bad about it, I was just trying to make a point about CoCs :P

  295. Zash

    Board already struggles with the timezone problem

  296. Guus

    > I"m guessing the US summit doesn't happen anymore due to lack of attendees? I think so. Most people in here are from the EU continent, I think?

  297. moparisthebest

    I think we could all easily agree to abolish timezones :)

  298. MattJ

    jcbrand, the last one I attended in the US was just a handful of people, and half of those were working for &yet who (at the time) were working a lot with XMPP

  299. pep.

    The XSF doesn'T actually have to organise evernts on all continents if there isn't demand for it, but it can propose to help/take over organizing if there is

  300. pep.

    The XSF doesn'T actually have to organise events on all continents if there isn't demand for it, but it can propose to help/take over organizing if there is

  301. Guus

    > I think we could all easily agree to abolish timezones :) We can't even get you guys to abandon MM/DD/YY!

  302. jcbrand

    lol

  303. Zash

    Did we even agree to abolish DST?

  304. pep.

    Zash, wasn't that rolled back?

  305. Guus

    > The XSF doesn'T actually have to organise events on all continents if there isn't demand for it, but it can propose to help/take over organizing if there is Isn't that basically the sprint things? I quite liked that.

  306. jcbrand

    I'm trying to organize an OMEMO sprint

  307. pep.

    « jcbrand> pep. Don't rules do the opposite? Instead of encouraging people not like us, they encourage other people to be like us. » fwiw this is also a concern of mine. The text can say something and we can aply it some other way, or the text can say what we expect it to say (inclusivity and all) and we can not apply it this way. Or the text can say something and we can apply it correctly but not doing anything for the excluded groups..

  308. jcbrand

    pep. I think the question is also are certain groups actively excluded, or are they simply disinterested?

  309. msavoritias

    > pep. wrote: > jcbrand, actually let me edit what I said above. We are not homogenous, but we are not really diverse either (a majority being white males employed in tech), so having these rules also allow us to encourage people not like us to join. Of course just having this document isn't enough, we also need to work on it I agree completely how can we encourage people to join that are *different* than us if we dont make them feel safe

  310. jcbrand

    Or perhaps not able to (e.g. due to geography)

  311. pep.

    jcbrand, talking only about online activity, thinking that these groups aren't (not just marginaly) among us "because they're not interested" would be wrong IMO. That's pushing the ball to them saying "well it's your fault for not coming to us" when we might not have been doing anything to encourage them, or we've been doing it but badly

  312. jcbrand

    I don't think it's helpful to talk about who's "fault" it is.

  313. pep.

    I'm not looking to blame, just trying to point at things to improve

  314. pep.

    Saying "white males" isn't to blame white males to be white males IMO

  315. pep.

    That's useless

  316. msavoritias

    Yeap agreed. Some groups need to be encouraged and/or helped to contribute

  317. jcbrand

    Sounds paternalistic to me

  318. moparisthebest

    can anyone give a concrete example of any person/group that should "come to us" that is not for any reason ?

  319. moparisthebest

    I don't even like that language, why should anyone "come to us" in the first place? only if they feel like it I suppose

  320. pep.

    I'm not talking about going fishing either, fwiw

  321. msavoritias

    moparisthebest: thats the thing though. If they: Dont feel safe Dont have the resources Need guidance We are not clear Or more cases even. Its not always about of they feel like its also if they can

  322. msavoritias

    Not everybody in life is want/dont want

  323. moparisthebest

    do we have any concrete examples of any of those things happening?

  324. moparisthebest

    if they are we should 100% fix them, it's hard to deal in conjecture though

  325. jcbrand

    For me the whole way of phrasing things in terms of "feeling safe" is problematic. It's incredibly subjective. Some people how have anxiety disorders will never feel safe, no matter what we do

  326. jcbrand

    For me the whole way of phrasing things in terms of "feeling safe" is problematic. It's incredibly subjective. Some people who have anxiety disorders will never feel safe, no matter what we do

  327. msavoritias

    moparisthebest: You mean not have the resources? Look at income levels in places Safety? Read some articles on discrimination/harrasment Likewise for the rest of the problems Im not saying these are happening in xsf. I am saying these are happeninp in general

  328. pep.

    jcbrand, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying, should we

  329. msavoritias

    So people need encouragement because they have been burned before

  330. msavoritias

    One step to that is the COC

  331. moparisthebest

    I mean I guess I have concrete examples of "not feeling safe", back in the day some forums were well-known for if anyone new posted anything a ton of people would reply with "haha noob", but we don't do that here

  332. jcbrand

    pep. I think making an effort to be friendly and reasonable is enough, and everyone here and in the XSF already do that

  333. moparisthebest

    msavoritias, right, but are any applicable to the XSF ? not that I'm aware of

  334. msavoritias

    moparisthebest: We dont. I agree. But people dont know that. So lets roght it in the COC. We dont descriminate based on experience

  335. jcbrand

    > We dont descriminate based on experience What does that mean?

  336. moparisthebest

    but if it just said "Be kind to each other" wouldn't that tell them that and more ?

  337. pep.

    jcbrand: I kinda disagree, judging by the last few days (but not just). There is much that could be improved still. Not saying it's not allowed to slip for sure, I also do often, but there is work being done on this I feel

  338. jcbrand

    You mean don't call people "noob"?

  339. jcbrand

    It's already covered under "be nice"

  340. msavoritias

    > moparisthebest wrote: > msavoritias, right, but are any applicable to the XSF ? not that I'm aware of I said that they are not. But thiy are happening elsewhere. And people are understandably reluctant because they have been burned before

  341. emus

    > Zash escribió: > can we have a Summit yet? to remind us that there are people attached to these nicknames? 🙂 please

  342. msavoritias

    > moparisthebest wrote: > but if it just said "Be kind to each other" wouldn't that tell them that and more ? Would it? For you maybe. For me not. jcbrand

  343. msavoritias

    Every person is different as pep. Said

  344. msavoritias

    > jcbrand wrote: > You mean don't call people "noob"? I meant what moparisthebest wrote about tne forums

  345. jcbrand

    It already doesn't happen here though.

  346. moparisthebest

    msavoritias, I appreciate that, so what would you like it to say? I just think we need some concrete examples

  347. msavoritias

    > jcbrand wrote: > It already doesn't happen here though. I know and i agree with you. People not in the community dont though. So lets tell them :)

  348. moparisthebest

    a list of all the bad things we know about that we don't do would be a very long list

  349. jcbrand

    Yeah, I'm just not in love with long lists of rules

  350. pep.

    One example of not discriminating based on experience or skill could be lowering the amount of "PR welcome" answers

  351. Zash

    what is the alternative to that?

  352. pep.

    Without any explanation of how to do so, or having asked before if the person knew how to

  353. moparisthebest

    what is the alternative answer if 1) you don't want to do it 2) you don't know of others that want to do it

  354. jcbrand

    pep. Do you have time to give in-depth explanations and/or to debug and fix the problems of every person who asks you for help with XMPP?

  355. pep.

    I'm not saying we have to be the help desk of the internet, right. But there are things we can do to help people feel welcome

  356. jcbrand

    Or to implement every requested feature?

  357. moparisthebest

    in my opinion, anyone who wants to can learn to code and make a PR, so that wouldn't ever be discriminatory

  358. msavoritias

    I think correcting qnd approving: ttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0458.html Would be a good step moparisthebest

  359. pep.

    jcbrand, of course not and that's not what I'm saying

  360. Zash

    Searching the logs, "PRs welcome" seems to have been mostly aimed at Ge0rG

  361. pep.

    Zash, well you get it, this kind of language in general

  362. pep.

    That was just one example

  363. pep.

    Ge0rG, PR welcome.

  364. jcbrand

    PRs welcome is slightly better than "I'm not going to spend time on this"

  365. moparisthebest

    msavoritias, it's already been accepted no?

  366. pep.

    (that was free of charge)

  367. msavoritias

    moparisthebest: its still experimental afaik

  368. pep.

    jcbrand, no I think it's actually worse tbh

  369. jcbrand

    why?

  370. moparisthebest

    > Accept as Experimental after unanimous approval by Board of the ProtoXEP draft for discussion within the community.

  371. Zash

    "I'm not going to spend time _reviewing or merging that PR_"

  372. moparisthebest

    I can't say I looked up the lifecycle for procedural XEPs but I thought it was official

  373. msavoritias

    Also wasnt it pep. That looked at the xsf site and didnt find it somewhere easily accesible there?

  374. jcbrand

    Yeah, what Zash said is worse than "PRs welcome"

  375. jcbrand

    PRs welcome actually means, I'll help you if you make an effort

  376. jcbrand

    Of course, some people can't make a PR, I get that, but what am I supposed to do about that?

  377. pep.

    Does it though. It's nice if that's what it means to your, and it would be better phrased the way you just did for sure :)

  378. pep.

    to you*

  379. pep.

    More explicit

  380. jcbrand

    meh

  381. pep.

    "PR welcome" to me is often derogatory, "pscht, do it yourself"

  382. Zash

    pep., no, that's "patches welcome"

  383. pep.

    Same thing

  384. jcbrand

    Yeah, seems to me you choose to interpret it like that

  385. pep.

    jcbrand, hence the more explicit version being better :)

  386. Zash

    https://xkcd.com/1860/ ?

  387. moparisthebest

    pep., would it be better to actually just say "do it your damn self if you want it done"

  388. moparisthebest

    I agree "PR welcome" is basically that, but a more polite way

  389. pep.

    moparisthebest, that'd definitely make it more explicit :P

  390. moparisthebest

    I tend to think the polite way is better...

  391. jcbrand

    Seems to me like we're really splitting hairs here, but ok pep. I'll keep it in mind

  392. pep.

    Not really better

  393. moparisthebest

    what is a better way though?

  394. pep.

    The thing here is that, taking into account that it's harder online, how the person receiving the words understands it is important, I think, more than the intent (even though this is not to be dismissed at all)

  395. pep.

    You can't say "I didn't mean it this way so go cry alone it's not my fault" really, can you

  396. moparisthebest

    still waiting for the better wording for "PR Welcome"

  397. pep.

    "It depends".

  398. pep.

    (No this is not an alternative wording for "PR welcome")

  399. moparisthebest

    you are right that context matters, so in that case I have a suggestion for the CoC:

  400. moparisthebest

    1. Be kind to each other 2. Assume good intentions

  401. msavoritias

    Personally its not just the PR welcome phrase. Its a larger thing. Its the whole mentality of some open source elitist communities of "If you dont know how to code or cant self host, you have no right to complain and i can do whatever i want." Which i realize it goes off topic so i will leave it here. Also a big topic either way.

  402. moparisthebest

    that way when someone says "PR welcome" you should assume they mean "my apologies but I don't have the resources to put into this myself at the moment" and not "f*ck off and go away"

  403. msavoritias

    moparisthebest: Thats already in the COC we linked though 🤔

  404. moparisthebest

    msavoritias, I mean, I do believe that, since anyone interested can easily learn to code and self host...

  405. msavoritias

    Not true. But anyway....

  406. jcbrand

    Even so, just because someone can't code doesn't mean I'm somehow obligated to spend my time and energy doing stuff for free for them

  407. emus

    > pep. escribió: > "PR welcome" to me is often derogatory, "pscht, do it yourself" In unpaid open-source I think thats the idea?

  408. moparisthebest

    I mean it's a balancing act, some suggestions are good, and some not

  409. emus

    > pep. escribió: > "PR welcome" to me is often derogatory, "pscht, do it yourself" In unpaid open-source I thought thats the idea?

  410. moparisthebest

    it's open source, that gives you more rights than *any* proprietary crap, and that's absolutely the best that can be done without enslaving devs

  411. pep.

    « moparisthebest> msavoritias, I mean, I do believe that, since anyone interested can easily learn to code and self host... » as said the other day, I definitely disagree with this

  412. pep.

    And I agree with msavoritias that it's not just about words but the idea behind it

  413. moparisthebest

    who can use a computer that can't learn to code? any concrete examples?

  414. Guus

    "PR welcome" to me is an affirmation that the change suggestion is at least valid.

  415. jcbrand

    Guus yes

  416. msavoritias

    Nobody said to enslave the devs or force them to work on stuff they dont want here. moparisthebest jcbrand

  417. pep.

    Guus, jcbrand, well as I said above, unfortunately often it matters less what you intend to say rather that how it's interpreted, and it's great if people can understand each other without having to get all worked up first

  418. jcbrand

    I don't agree

  419. jcbrand

    People can always find something to be offended about

  420. pep.

    Well if you start this way, surely it's not gonna go well

  421. msavoritias

    Yes. But you can make it easier. Words matter.

  422. moparisthebest

    I'm not only this way about computers by the way, I think anyone who drives a car should be able to change a tire, and people should be able to do minor house repairs etc etc

  423. moparisthebest

    too much of our lives are controlled by computers to *not* be able to program some

  424. Guus

    pep.: I don't think that I should be 100% responsible for "how people understand me" if the recipient is 100% willing to assume that I'm not trying to be derogatory.

  425. pep.

    jcbrand, that's the thing about not assuming that everybody has the same culture as you, and accept that they might not understand phrases as you mean them "because that's what I generally mean with it"

  426. jcbrand

    That goes both ways pep.

  427. Guus

    pep.: I don't think that I should be 100% responsible for "how people understand me" if the recipient is 100% willing to assume that I'm trying to be derogatory.

  428. pep.

    Sure sure

  429. crypt

    I'm sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn. This is too good.

  430. pep.

    But a person that is from a marginal group is already making some effort to be here (judging by how we currently are welcoming and inclusive), so I'm personally willing to do some more effort

  431. crypt

    Lefties talking about being inclusive while excluding those they dislike for political beliefs, color of their skin, or sex.

  432. moparisthebest

    I think we are all willing to do anything reasonable

  433. jcbrand

    crypt I'm not aware of anyone being excluded here

  434. crypt

    Fascists, white men, CIS gender

  435. crypt

    The name calling is rich

  436. crypt

    But go on..

  437. moparisthebest

    crypt, how can we discriminate on political affiliation, gender, skin color etc if we have *no idea* what of those you have :P

  438. moparisthebest

    anyway, troll is back :D

  439. jcbrand

    lol

  440. pep.

    Oh I am definitely going to exclude people based on them being fascists, for sure, if that's how you identity, crypt

  441. pep.

    But your behaviour does say enough tbh

  442. Guus

    crypt: you've lost me. I'm only talking about merge requests. Mostly performed by non-identifying anonymous handles/nicknames.

  443. Guus

    Also, I suspect that more than half of the "I welcome your PR" that I utter is aimed at people that I've been working with for years (and happily will work with for years).

  444. emus

    I think hes back to the CoC

  445. Guus

    Heck, JC does it to me all the time 😂

  446. crypt

    > pep.: > 2022-05-05 03:49 (CDT) > Oh I am definitely going to exclude people based on them being fascists, for sure, if that's how you identity, crypt I'm a political, free thinker

  447. crypt

    > pep.: > 2022-05-05 03:49 (CDT) > Oh I am definitely going to exclude people based on them being fascists, for sure, if that's how you identity, crypt I'm apolitical, free thinker

  448. pep.

    lol. sure

  449. pep.

    and I'm the pope

  450. crypt

    See you're ready to label people

  451. phryk

    Can I be inflammatory? :>

  452. jcbrand

    Please don't

  453. jcbrand

    Let's try to keep things to XMPP and not go into politics

  454. pep.

    I guess we're going to avoid and we'll just stop engaging and a mod would take care of it?

  455. pep.

    can we stop believing what we do isn't politics please

  456. phryk

    jcbrand, I'll give it my best shot :)

  457. crypt

    Can you point to an example of something I said that makes me a fascist? How do you define fascist?

  458. jcbrand

    crypt stop please

  459. moparisthebest

    it isn't politics, protocols and code can be used by anyone, just how it should be

  460. Zash

    everything is politics, but it doesn't mean we have to drag world politics in here

  461. crypt

    > Zash: > 2022-05-05 03:54 (CDT) > everything is politics, but it doesn't mean we have to drag world politics in here Agree 100%

  462. Guus

    ... tabs vs. spaces anyone?

  463. phryk

    The world is where we live, tho. Can we agree that assuming the two (XSF and world politics) don't have any contact points is foolhardy?

  464. Zash

    Guus, space tabs!

  465. phryk

    Guus, unicode snowmen!

  466. moparisthebest

    Guus, non-breaking spaces ??

  467. Guus

    Zash: sounds very retro 80's for some reason!

  468. phryk

    Sounds like supercondensed weed brownies… :P

  469. phryk

    Honestly tho, XMPP and the XSF mainly interest me for political reasons. Not party politics or anything but the wider definition and I like the values currently espoused by the wider community.

  470. moparisthebest

    I use XMPP and the XSF because it allows me to communicate with my family easier, I share views here with some people but not everyone and that's fine

  471. moparisthebest

    I don't care if $insert-political-compass-coordinates wrote the spec/software, if it's helpful to me, I'll use it

  472. phryk

    And with traditional politics moving to ban or undermine E2EE in the US and EU, I don't think strictly keeping politics out is even possible.

  473. phryk

    Incidentally, I would really like the XSF to publicly communicate they're going to keep E2EE and not compromise or drop XEPs to undermine it.

  474. moparisthebest

    I mean, I guess some issues we tackle *can be political* if you want to put it that way

  475. crypt

    I don't care WHO you are (identity politics). I care about how you think and treat me and others. Politics and tech shouldn't mix if you want "community".

  476. emus

    Maybe we should host the xep protocols via onion adresses too :-)

  477. phryk

    I think privacy issues are deeply political. Without privacy, a free society is inherently impossible.

  478. phryk

    emus, a great idea, too. :)

  479. emus

    really?

  480. moparisthebest

    phryk, like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7258 ?

  481. phryk

    moparisthebest, yes.

  482. moparisthebest

    I like that idea too

  483. moparisthebest

    PR welcome ? :D

  484. emus closes eyes and falls asleep ... unfortunaltly I failed on the right links. hope it redeploys correclty soon: https://xmpp.org/2022/05/the-xmpp-newsletter-april-2022/

  485. phryk

    emus, yes if you think back to the first crypto wars, there was a lot going on with export restrictions, so it should be possible to keep visits to XSF standards out of public DNS requests.

  486. pep.

    At least I'm happy xmpp.org isn't hosted on cloudflare.. Unlike the IETF

  487. pep.

    emus, thanks!

  488. emus

    Indeed, well I think that would be nice to have somebackup places

  489. emus

    pep.: sure!

  490. pep.

    And yeah I guess I'd be happy to have XEPs available on a .onion as well :)

  491. phryk

    moparisthebest, I'm not even an XSF member, also I think there should be a fair bit of cooperative authoring if the XSF is to make a statement like that.

  492. moparisthebest

    phryk, you don't have to be (but you can be!), start it up anyway

  493. emus

    wow, I cannot believe I was the first one with this idea

  494. emus

    ^^

  495. emus

    am I?

  496. phryk

    emus, probably not, but I'd say it's the implementation that counts. :P

  497. emus

    yep, wayback machine possibly too

  498. emus

    gn8

  499. phryk

    moparisthebest, yeah, but would i even have a chance to get y'all to sign off on it? like, I don't even know who here besides Zash and jcbrand are actually XSF members.^^

  500. phryk

    night, emus.

  501. emus

    same!

  502. phryk

    hah, i still got a couple hours work before me, but thanks. :P

  503. moparisthebest

    phryk, sure, if it's a XEP there's a well defined submission process I can point you to/help you with, if it's something else... then I don't know but this is the place to ask

  504. phryk

    moparisthebest, is there already a social or political XEP like that? someone was previously talking about a CoC, is that an XEP, too?

  505. Zash

    statement? on what?

  506. Zash

    something like https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stpeter/manifesto/master/manifesto.txt ?

  507. moparisthebest

    phryk, CoC is here https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0458.html a Procedural XEP, I'd kind of like to see it like that

  508. moparisthebest

    I guess then board would have to approve/reject

  509. phryk

    @Zash not dropping/undermining E2EE because of political pressure, mainly. Would have to think this through, make a draft, then collect feedback here, yadda yadda.^^

  510. phryk

    But yes, something like that – is that somewhere on xmpp.org, too?

  511. Zash

    not exactly, but a search finds https://xmpp.org/2013/11/xmpp-ubiquitous-encryption-a-manifesto/

  512. phryk

    Then a good approach might be for me to read the entire manifesto and see whether I can update it to include modern E2EE and pour it into XEP form?

  513. moparisthebest

    *that* manifesto was really just about mandatory TLS on the federated network right?

  514. Zash

    moparisthebest, yes

  515. Zash

    from around the time of the Snowden stuff

  516. Zash

    as was the RFC linked

  517. phryk

    exactly. hence adding modern E2EE stuff.

  518. phryk

    Yup. And we now have to expect crypto wars… 2? 3? 4?^^

  519. moparisthebest

    I thought you were proposing some additional procedures for vetting new protocols coming in

  520. moparisthebest

    ie, rejecting ones that harm e2e or something, unsure, sounds annoying to word correctly

  521. Zash

    That TLS manifesto was aimed at the wider community, not the XSF, which isn't in charge of such policy decisions anyway.

  522. phryk

    Ah, alrighty. I guess that'll make things easier, as we can just tackle the current problem of undermining/banning E2EE.

  523. msavoritias

    Yep sounds like a good idea

  524. phryk

    Cool. If I had my KanBan thing already deployed, I'd add it for after building the woofer and deploying my KanBan thing and the XMPP service. ^^

  525. phryk

    So I'll just make a physical note for it and hope it don't get lost :D

  526. crypt

    > moparisthebest: > 2022-05-05 04:03 (CDT) > I don't care if $insert-political-compass-coordinates wrote the spec/software, if it's helpful to me, I'll use it We agree on something for a change.

  527. pep.

    Maybe alongside the CoC we should also have something like this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8890 "XMPP is for End Users" :)

  528. pep.

    Even though of course it would only speak in the XSF's name

  529. pep.

    That reminds me someday poezio should remember /ignore'd participants

  530. crypt

    And for the record... I like pep. (from the posts and activity I've seen).

  531. moparisthebest

    Maybe we should just link those two RFCs and say "us too" ?

  532. crypt

    > phryk: > 2022-05-05 03:57 (CDT) > The world is where we live, tho. Can we agree that assuming the two (XSF and world politics) don't have any contact points is foolhardy? This begets tribalism, not community. If you only want to interact with people who share **your** world view and values. In essence, exclusionary. But I know no one cares about this outsider's opinion.

  533. moparisthebest

    I don't think anyone said that

  534. moparisthebest

    And everyone likes pep. , How could you not? :)

  535. phryk

    > implying

  536. crypt

    Might as well post a statement of what the XSF believes so people know what they're walking into if you go the route. Either all are welcome or not.

  537. crypt

    Might as well post a statement of what the XSF believes so people know what they're walking into if you go thid route. Either all are welcome or not.

  538. crypt

    Might as well post a statement of what the XSF believes so people know what they're walking into if you go this route. Either all are welcome or not.

  539. moparisthebest

    crypt: this is what the XSF believes https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation/

  540. crypt

    The thread that brings all together should be the love for XMPP.

  541. crypt

    > moparisthebest: > 2022-05-05 06:43 (CDT) > crypt: this is what the XSF believes https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation/ Perfectly acceptable and shouldn't be changed.