According to my records the following XSF members have voted via proxy
in the current voting period:
* daniel (at) gultsch.de
* jabber (at) larma.de
* kevin.smith (at) isode.com
* polarian (at) icebound.dev
* travis (at) burtrum.org
* dele.olajide (at) igniterealtime.org
* daniel (at) spacecloud.one
* mario (at) sabatino.pro
* nicoco (at) nicoco.fr
* jonas (at) wielicki.name
* georg (at) yax.im
* gnauck (at) conversations.im
If you have not yet voted, please send a message to xmpp:memberbot@xmpp.org.
If you have problems with memberbot please contact me directly by email
or xmpp.
Thanks,
Alex
Dear Board members,
This email announces the agenda for our next Board meeting, scheduled for
Thursday, 27 August 2026, from 16:00 to 16:30 UTC. The meeting will take
place in the XSF chatroom at xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join.
Three consecutive meetings did not proceed (2026-07-02 opened but deferred
its only substantive item; 2026-07-16 and 2026-08-13 were cancelled). This
agenda therefore presents a candidate list of outstanding items rather than
a fixed agenda. The Board selects from it under item 2. Items not selected
are recorded as deferred in the minutes and carry forward to the next
meeting.
I'm aware that the agenda below uses plenty of markup, which may affect
rendering. The same agenda is available on the XSF wiki, which may be
helpful in case your mail client does not render this email as intended:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board-Meeting-2026-08-271. *Welcome*Opening of
the meeting. Roll call and confirmation of quorum.
2. *Formalize Agenda*The Board selects which of the candidate items below
will be taken today. Given the 30-minute slot, realistically two.
*Recommendation*: items A1 and A2, on the basis that A1 is now decidable
and A2 costs almost nothing. Items under section C are assignments
requiring no meeting time and can be confirmed without discussion.
Any Board member may promote an item from B or C into today's agenda, or
add an item not listed. Absent objection, the recommendation stands.
Items not selected are deferred, not dropped. The minutes will record the
deferred set.
Section A - recommended for today *A1. Jabber Trademark Sublicensing
Program* *(20 min - decision)*Deferred from 2026-07-02 pending community
feedback. That feedback arrived: the discussion ran on members@ through
July and has since concluded.
*What changed*
- The full Enforcement Agreement, including Exhibit A (the Jabber
Trademark Position Statement), is now published on the XSF website. Exhibit
A previously went unnoticed
- Read as a set, the documents show the administration arrangement the
XSF operates was structured as a twelve-month trial, ending either in
transfer of the Mark to the JSF or in reversion of administration to JINC.
The Mark was never transferred.
- Peter Saint-Andre confirms the arrangement was extended in practice,
that he holds no documentation of the extension, and that he found nothing
further in his own files.
- The License Agreement §5 expressly prohibits sublicensing by the JSF.
*Positions raised*
- *Peter*: do not carry sublicensing authority to a successor EU entity;
future applicants license directly with Cisco. Notes that requests have
been very rare since the initial flood in 2004-2006.
- *Ralph*: existing licenses are perpetual subject to good conduct;
cleanest route to certainty is a letter from Cisco recognising the new
entity as successor.
- *Georg*: in order of preference: (1) retain a stub XSF-US to issue
sublicenses; (2) wind down with a final registration window; (3) plain
wind-down. Notes Cisco recently renewed the mark and still ships
Jabber-branded products.
- *Jonas*, as a license holder: clarify the status of existing uses
before XSF-US winds down; if it cannot be clarified, holders must be told
to seek Cisco's blessing.
- *Travis*: stop advertising the program immediately.
*Decisions sought*
1. Whether sublicensing authority will be carried over to a successor
entity.
2. Whether to commit to a notification process for existing holders, and
on what timeline.
3. Whether to suspend or annotate the public sublicensing pages pending
(1).
*Dependency*: no application can be filed while trademark(a)xmpp.org is
bouncing. See C1.
Background: https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/
Approved applications:
https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/approved-applications/
Mailing list thread:
https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/members@xmpp.org/message/AXQGRXYXSK…
*A2. EU Legal Structure: self-assessments have stalled* *(5 min - decision)*The
Board agreed on 18 June that authors would self-assess "before a date to be
communicated". The call went out on 4 June; no date was ever communicated.
Nearly three months on, no self-assessment has been posted to members@.
*Decisions sought*
1. A firm deadline.
2. Whether to contact the proposal authors directly rather than via the
list.
3. What happens to proposals whose authors do not respond -
Board-prepared assessment, or drop from consideration.
Wiki page: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XSF_EU_Legal_Transition_Proposal
Mailing list thread:
https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/members@xmpp.org/message/O4RR4XQ53S…
Section B - candidate items, deferred unless promoted *B1. Access to legal
expertise* *(15 min - decision)*The Board recorded on 18 June that several
points on the trademark programme require legal confirmation: the status of
existing licensees if the programme lapses, reversibility, and any transfer
to a successor entity. No advice has been obtained since.
In May, on standards@, Matija Šuklje offered assistance. He specialises in
IPR, specifically copyright and FOSS licensing, and co-authored the FLA. He
was explicit that he is not an attorney and cannot provide Legal Advice as
such, but offered his thoughts once the XSF has a rough idea what it wants
to achieve. The offer was acknowledged on-list but never taken up. He
remains active in the community.
*Decisions sought*
1. Whether to take up the offer, and who owns the interaction.
2. The set of questions to put - spanning the trademark position,
transferability of XSF obligations to a successor entity, and the IPR
questions in B3.
3. Whether an informal read precedes or replaces a decision on paid
counsel, and what would trigger the latter.
Mailing list post:
https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/standards@xmpp.org/message/W6UUNLIP…
*B2. Volunteer capacity* *(15 min - discussion)*Guus wrote on standards@ in
July that the volunteering force is one of the XSF's most valuable assets,
that the XSF has not historically done well at preventing burnout among
those volunteers, and that it needs to do better. Two signals from that
discussion bear on this directly:
- Goffi described himself as "already at the edge of burn-out" and
declined additional work on that basis.
- Goffi reported, and Kev independently described, that the Editor has
indicated he could not continue in the role if the volume of low-quality
submissions rises. Neither account is a first-hand statement, and neither
was contested on the list.
The XSF's volunteer force is not within the Council's remit. This item
exists because no other body owns it.
*For discussion*
1. What concrete support the Editor and Council need, and whether the
Board can supply or fund it.
2. Whether the Editor function has sufficient redundancy.
3. Whether the Board should adopt any ongoing practice for noticing
volunteer load before it becomes attrition.
*B3. IPR policy: warranty, copyright, and AI-assisted contributions* *(20
min - decision)*Goffi has asked three times whether this belongs with the
Board - twice in May, and again in July, when he asked whether the
discussion should continue on standards@ or whether the Board should take
it up and ask a team to work on an XSF statement on AI use. That question
remains unanswered.
Guus, as a Board member, twice replied that the matter was not yet ready,
and set out what would change that: a concrete proposal with prior art
behind it. The prior-art survey is now complete. Whether a concrete
proposal exists is for the Board to judge.
*The narrow question*
Marvin argued on standards@ that AI-generated content cannot comply with
the IPR policy as written: §3.1 requires the author to assign ownership
they may not hold, and §4 requires a copyright notice that may be invalid.
Dave argued the warranty model already indemnifies the XSF, since the
author asserts they can assign and the XSF accepts in good faith.
*Alternatives raised*
- Retain the current policy unchanged.
- Adopt submitter wording along the lines Dave proposed: an assertion
and warranty that, to the extent copyright exists in the contribution, the
submitter has permission from all rights holders to assign it, and does so.
- Adopt a matching qualification in Appendix C. Dave himself was unsure
this is necessary, on the basis that publishing a submission likely
suffices.
- Disclaim copyright in XEPs entirely and require submissions to do the
same. Reported by Dave as a position Peter has argued previously; not
stated by Peter in this thread.
*Decisions sought*
1. Whether the current IPR policy is adequate as written, or is to be
opened.
2. If opened, which direction, and who drafts.
3. Whether any XSF-wide statement is commissioned beyond Council's
XEP-0143 work, and a reply to Goffi either way.
*Scope note*: author-facing guidance belongs in XEP-0143 and is Council's.
PR #1552 is with Council, where revised wording was proposed at the most
recent Council meeting. The Board should not duplicate that work.
Mailing list thread:
https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/standards@xmpp.org/thread/TEATGPR45…
Prior art:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/AI_contribution_policies_in_other_projects
XEP-0143 PR #1552: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1552
Section C - assignments, no meeting time required
*Confirm owners without discussion unless someone objects.*
*C1. Role address audit.*trademark(a)xmpp.org has been reported bouncing
since June; no sublicense application can be filed while it is broken. The
Board agreed on 18 June that this should be addressed; it appears not to
have been. The CoC also publishes no contact address for the Board or
conduct team. Confirm every XSF role address is monitored and
published. *Owner:
TBD*
*C2. Counsel enquiry.*Peter offered in July to raise the question of
counsel on the open-source foundations list. Status unknown; confirm. *Owner:
TBD*
*C3. Summit 29 topic suggestion.*Topic suggestions close today. Anyone may
suggest a topic; this requires no Board decision. If any Board member wants
intake reform or the role of Council discussed on 4-5 September, they
should post to the list directly. Daniel has already proposed a related
topic. *No Board action required - noted for awareness*
Standing items 3. *Any Other Business (AOB)* *(5 min)*
- *XMPP Summit 29 *: 4-5 September 2026, online - the first online-only
Summit: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Conferences/Summit_29
4. *Date of next meeting*Proposed: Thursday, 10 September 2026, at the
usual time.
Note the membership meeting on 3 September and Summit 29 on 4-5 September
fall before it.
The Board may also wish to confirm the timeline for the annual meeting and
Board and Council elections, given the current term is designated
2025-2026. 5. *Close*
Please review the relevant materials ahead of the meeting so that we can
use our time efficiently.
Kind regards,
Guus
Good morning
the 29th XMPP Summit is fast approaching. It is our first attempt at
an online only Summit and will be held on Friday 4 September and
Saturday 5 September 2026.
If you intent to attend please add yourself to the participants list¹.
Adding yourself might also motivate others to participate itself.
Please find the time to do so even if there is no "limited seating" or
other constraints.
We are also looking for topic suggestions. We will maintain the
unconference style of offline summits (meaning participants can bring
their own topics) but for time constraints we will do the topic
suggestions and topic sorting ahead of time.
Meaning what usually happens on the white board in the first hour of a
traditional summit will now happen on list.
Please go ahead and propose topics and include a short pitch.
Additionally please add the topic to the wiki.² (If you someone only
suggests it here I’ll try my best to add it to the wiki myself.)
I will close the topic suggestion round on Thursday 27th so we will
have about a week to vote on the topics. (which will determine the
order of the four topics we'll be discussing during the Summit)
cheers
Daniel
¹: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Conferences/Summit_29#Participants
²: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Conferences/Summit_29#Proposed_Topics
I've started proxy voting via xmpp:memberbot@xmpp.org on the membership
applications listed here:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q3_2026
We will hold a member meeting on September 3rd, 2026 to formally approve
the voting results.
The meeting particulars are:
Date: September 3, 2026
Time: 19.00 UTC
Location: xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org
When you have problems with memberbot please contact my directly by
email or xmpp.
Alex
Hello,
I have created the membership application page for Q3 2026 at:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q3_2026
The following XSF members have to reapply:
* Gonzalo Raúl Nemmi
* Travis Burtrum
* Severino Ferrer de la Peñita
* Timothée Jaussoin
* Trevor Krahn
* Ralph Meijer
* Edwin Mons
* Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
* Peter Saint-Andre
* Holger Weiß
* Gideon White
* Natalie Wirth
* Marvin Wissfeld
Regards,
Alex
