- Members - XMPP

Board & Council elections
by Alexander Gnauck 29 Oct '26

29 Oct '26

Hello, another year went by and we have to get prepared to elect the 2026-2027 XSF Board and Council soon. When you are interested in running for Board (business stuff) or Council (technical stuff) for the upcoming term, please create an appropriate Wiki page by November 8th, 2026, 00:00 UTC and link it from here: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board_and_Council_Elections_2026 When you need to learn more about those roles, feel free to ask questions on this list, our XSF chatroom, or contact people directly which have been in those roles before. Proxy voting is scheduled to start on November 9th, and we will hold our annual meeting to elect the next XSF Board and Council on November 26th. The meeting particulars are: Date: 2026-11-26 Time: 19:00 UTC Location: xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join Thanks, Alex

1 1

Review of the stand at OmniOpenCon
by Polarian 22 Oct '26

22 Oct '26

Good morning, I wanted to post this to the mailing list as I know other members also run stands of their own, and I wanted to provide a "what went well" from my own experiences. This was my first time running a stand, and I am shocked how well it turned out. To prevent myself repeating myself, my blogpost [1] covers it all (along with providing pretty pictures :p), there is also a open PR [2] to upstream the post to xmpp.org where it is also relevant. All credits have been provided to the best of my ability, as so many people dedicated their time to make it happen, along with some people investing their money into it, so thank you all! The biggest suggestion I am going to put out here, is providing a public MUC for any conference which a stand is at is invaluable, starting it before and advertising it for those who are attending, then a QR code during the conference at the stand for people to join and hang out, and then after, in the case of OmniOpenCon we *STILL* have chatter, days later. We are now seeking a partnership with the conference, which has given the go ahead to make XMPP an official comms method for the conference. I think the XMPP stand left a great impression on the organisers, and they seem to want us to return next year, which would be great! Regarding the comms, this is something which I, and some other volunteers will hopefully work with the conference to provide. I will update the list if it actually works out, because a conference using XMPP as one of their official comms is amazing :) Maybe next year someone here whos a lot more interesting to listen to could submit a talk about something actually interesting, I am pretty boring :p Thank you all again, and I hope the review helps others in improving their own stands. Take care, -- Polarian Website: https://polarian.dev Jabber/XMPP: polarian(a)icebound.dev [1] https://polarian.dev/posts/2026-10-22-omniopencon-review.html [2] https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/1724

1 0

Agenda for the XSF Board Meeting on October 22 2026
by Guus der Kinderen 21 Oct '26

21 Oct '26

Dear Board members, This email announces the agenda for our next Board meeting, scheduled for Thursday, 22 October 2026, from 16:00 to 16:30 UTC. The meeting will take place in the XSF chatroom at xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join. The agenda is available in the XSF wiki: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board-Meeting-2026-10-22 Please review the relevant materials ahead of the meeting so that we can use our time efficiently. Kind regards, Guus

1 0

Agenda for the XSF Board Meeting on October 8 2026
by Guus der Kinderen 07 Oct '26

07 Oct '26

Dear Board members, This email announces the agenda for our next Board meeting, scheduled for Thursday, 8 October 2026, from 16:00 to 16:30 UTC. The meeting will take place in the XSF chatroom at xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join. Previously, I've included the agenda in these announcements. It appears that to many, the markup applied by either my mail client, the mailing list engine, or a combination of both, affected the rendering of these items to a point where they were difficult to read. I'll stop including them until a better solution for inlining is found. The agenda is available in the XSF wiki: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board-Meeting-2026-10-08 Please review the relevant materials ahead of the meeting so that we can use our time efficiently. Kind regards, Guus

1 0

Membership Application period Q4 2026
by Alexander Gnauck 24 Sep '26

24 Sep '26

Hello. I have created the membership application page for Q4 2026 at: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q4_2026 The following XSF members have to reapply: * Ali Mattouk * Kim Alvefur * Adrien Bourmault * Dan Caseley * Joachim Lindborg * Georg Lukas * Yvo Meeres * Thilo Molitor * Axel Reimer * Peter Waher * Stephen Paul Weber Thanks, Alex

1 0

Agenda for the XSF Board Meeting on September 23 2026
by Guus der Kinderen 23 Sep '26

23 Sep '26

Dear Board members, This email announces the agenda for our next Board meeting, scheduled for Thursday, 23 September 2026, from 16:00 to 16:30 UTC. The meeting will take place in the XSF chatroom at xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join. 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-2026-09-24#Agenda Please review the relevant materials ahead of the meeting so that we can use our time efficiently. Kind regards, Guus *The candidate-list format introduced in the previous agendas is retained: the Board selects under item 2, and anything not taken is minuted as deferred by name.* 1. *Welcome*Opening of the meeting. Roll call and confirmation of quorum. 2. *Formalize Agenda**Recommendation*: A1 and A3 as the substantive items, A2 as a brief note. Section C: the Chair names an owner for each assignment before the meeting closes. Items not selected are deferred, not dropped, and are listed individually in the minutes. Section A - recommended for today *A1. Contact with Cisco* *(10 min - information, one decision)*A contact at Cisco, reached via Joe Hildebrand, replied on 15 September to the enquiry Mickaël sent following the 27 August meeting. Mickaël has forwarded the reply to the Board. In substance: Cisco is willing to work with the XSF, and to involve Cisco legal, if something more formal is needed; the correspondent was supportive of a move to an EU foundation; and indicated there would be no problem keeping the same arrangement for a new organisation that was the home of the XSF. *What it changes* The Board resolved on 10 September not to carry sublicensing authority to a successor entity. That resolution can stand: it followed Peter's recommendation and rested on the administrative effort of a programme with very little demand, which Cisco's willingness does not necessarily change. The value of the contact is that the XSF now has a willing counterparty and a route to Cisco legal, should it need to put anything on a formal footing once a successor entity exists. *Caveats* - This is an informal reply from an individual. The correspondent themselves distinguishes it from anything formal. - Nothing can be formalised until a successor entity has been chosen. See A3. *Status* It is not known whether there has been further correspondence between Cisco and Board members since 15 September. *Decision sought* 1. Who owns the correspondence from here, and whether a short acknowledgement is sent now to keep the channel open. *A2. Board and Council elections 2026* *(2 min - information)*Announced by the Secretary. Candidacy pages may be added until 8 November 2026, 00:00 UTC. The meeting is on 26 November 2026 at 19:00 UTC in the XSF chatroom. https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board_and_Council_Elections_2026 Noted for awareness; no Board action required. Members considering standing for either body are encouraged to do so. At the time of writing one Board candidacy has been posted and no Council candidacies. *A3. EU Legal Structure: self-assessments* *(10 min - decision)*Deferred from 10 September and from 27 August. The Board agreed on 4 June that authors would self-assess "before a date to be communicated". The call went out the same day; no date was ever communicated, and no self-assessment has been posted to members@. This is no longer only a process question. Nothing arising from the Cisco contact can be formalised until there is a successor entity to name, and the jurisdiction of any counsel the XSF instructs depends in part on which proposal is chosen. *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 Section B - candidate items, deferred unless promoted *B1. Legal questions and the route to counsel* *(10 min - decision)*A working page has been opened and seeded with the questions raised so far: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Legal_Questions:_Jabber_Trademark_and_XSF_Legal_S… Following the 10 September meeting, Guus wrote to Matija Šuklje, taking up the offer of assistance Matija made on standards@ in May. He has replied and is willing to help, with limited availability. In summary: on the IPR policy question he will look at it, or at least identify what should be asked further; on trademark he would defer to external counsel, but can help identify what counsel should examine, and can point to FOSS-friendly trademark expertise in more than one jurisdiction. *Decisions sought* 1. Whether to ask Matija to approach his contacts, and in which jurisdiction. The trademark is US-registered and the XSF is a Delaware corporation, so US counsel is the relevant jurisdiction for the trademark questions regardless of A3. 2. Whether any budget is committed before the scope is known. 3. Who owns the correspondence, given that Matija has limited time and should not be left to chase the XSF. *B2. Volunteer capacity* *(15 min - discussion)*Deferred from 10 September and from 27 August. 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: - When work arising from that discussion needed an owner, the person best placed to take it on had no capacity. - Concern was raised, at second hand and not contested on the list, that the Editor role may not be sustainable if the volume of low-quality submissions rises. *For discussion* 1. What concrete support is needed, and whether the Board can supply or fund it. 2. Whether critical functions have 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)*Deferred from 10 September and from 27 August. 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. Matija has now agreed to look at the narrow question, which may change what the Board needs to decide. See B1. *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. 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 *Confirm owners and status without discussion unless someone objects.* *C1. Website annotation and trademark@.*Agreed 2026-09-10. Mickaël to prepare a pull request annotating the public sublicensing pages, and to work with iteam on the bouncing address. Status? *Owner: Mickaël* *C2. Counsel enquiry.*Peter offered in July to raise the question of counsel on the open-source foundations list. Status? Largely superseded by Matija's offer of contacts - see B1. *Owner: TBD* *C3. Role address audit.*Listed on 27 August and 10 September, not yet confirmed. Beyond trademark@, the CoC publishes no contact address for the Board or conduct team. Confirm every XSF role address is monitored and published. *Owner: TBD* Standing items 3. *Any Other Business (AOB)* *(3 min)* 4. *Date of next meeting* *(2 min)*Proposed: Thursday, 8 October 2026, at the usual time. 5. *Close*

1 0

Compiling a list of questions for legal counsel
by Guus der Kinderen 10 Sep '26

10 Sep '26

Dear members, Following on from the trademark decisions: the Board has repeatedly concluded that particular questions require legal confirmation, without ever establishing what those questions actually are. That gap is why matters keep returning unresolved. So, before deciding whether to seek counsel (and at what cost) it would be useful to compile a list of specific questions. I've started one here: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Legal_Questions:_Jabber_Trademark_and_XSF_Legal_S… It's prepopulated with the questions raised so far, covering the status of the sublicensing programme, existing licence holders, the XSF's own use of the mark, a successor entity, and whether approaching Cisco itself changes anything. Please add to it. Questions, better wording for existing ones, or notes where something is already answered are all very welcome. If you're unsure whether something belongs, add it: narrowing the list later is easier than remembering what got left out. This is open to anyone with relevant expertise, member or not. Several people have offered help at various points. That offer is very much still wanted. The Board will pick this up at the meeting on 24 September, with a view to deciding then whether to instruct counsel. Kind regards, Guus

1 0

Board decisions on the Jabber trademark sublicensing programme
by Guus der Kinderen 10 Sep '26

10 Sep '26

Dear members, The Board met today and resolved: The XSF will not carry sublicensing authority to any successor entity. Existing licences are unaffected. The Board makes no determination today about the legal basis of the programme, which remains subject to advice. This carried unanimously among those present. The Board also agreed to keep processing applications for now (not a pause, but two of us framed this as pending legal confirmation, which we don't yet have); to ask Cisco to recognise a successor entity in respect of the XSF's own use of the mark, kept separate from the sublicensing question; to annotate the public pages rather than remove them; and to get trademark(a)xmpp.org fixed, which currently bounces. Ge0rG: that answers your earlier requests: an application would be welcome now, subject to that caveat. Minutes: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board-Meeting-2026-09-10#Minutes I'll follow up separately on the legal questions. Kind regards, Guus

1 0

Agenda for the XSF Board Meeting on September 10 2026
by Guus der Kinderen 10 Sep '26

10 Sep '26

Dear Board members, This email announces the agenda for our next Board meeting, scheduled for Thursday, 10 September 2026, from 16:00 to 16:30 UTC. The meeting will take place in the XSF chatroom at xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join. 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-2026-09-10#Agenda Please review the relevant materials ahead of the meeting so that we can use our time efficiently. Kind regards, Guus 1. *Welcome*Opening of the meeting. Roll call and confirmation of quorum. 2. *Formalize Agenda**Recommendation*: A1 as the substantive item, with A2 and A3 as short items. Section C assignments to be confirmed by name before close. Items not selected are deferred, not dropped. Section A - recommended for today *A1. Jabber Trademark: separate the questions* *(20 min - decision)*The 27 August discussion did not conclude. It repeatedly collapsed three distinct questions into one. Ralph set them out as: 1. Does the sublicensing programme, in its current form, exist? 2. If so, does the XSF want to continue it? 3. What happens to it if the XSF changes domicile, or winds down? Ralph also noted (and dwd agreed) that these need not be approached together. A request that Cisco recognise a successor entity concerns the XSF's own use of the Mark, which Ralph noted is not in question today, and need not mention the sublicensing programme at all. The two approaches can be made separately, or one without the other. *Positions stated on 27 August* - *Mickaël*: wind the programme down; it is not wise to take new applicants. - *Ralph*: the programme does exist - it continued well beyond the trial with JINC's awareness, and it is the trademark holder's duty to know. Separately, contacting Cisco about successor recognition is low-risk and need not raise the programme. - *Guus*: reluctant to act as though a fully functional programme exists given the documentation gap; asking Cisco and letting their answer drive the decision is acceptable. - From the floor, dwd: without contacting Cisco the programme probably has to be shuttered; with contact, either answer gives clarity. *Decisions sought* 1. Whether to decouple the successor-entity request from the sublicensing question, per Ralph and dwd. 2. On question 2 above - does the XSF want to continue the programme at all? Mickaël has proposed it should not. This is answerable today and does not depend on legal advice. 3. Whether new applications are issued while the programme's status is disputed. Ge0rG has indicated he intends to apply, for a non-commercial hosting collective, and asked for a grace period before Cisco is contacted. Guus questioned whether the XSF should issue anything under a programme in this state. 4. Whether to suspend or annotate the public sublicensing pages pending the above. *Not for decision today* - Whether an oral or implied agreement can extend or override the written License Agreement. This was argued at length on 27 August without resolution and none of the Board are lawyers. See A2. *Status of actions from 27 August* - Mickaël agreed to contact Joe Hildebrand via LinkedIn, with Ralph copied, on the history of the arrangement - including whether the programme came up at the time of the JSF-to-XSF name change. Status? *A2. Legal questions: assemble the list* *(10 min - decision)* No agreement was reached on 27 August about obtaining legal advice. Guus observed that the legal arguments in the meeting were not helping and that none of those present are lawyers; Ralph did not consider the discussion disruptive in itself. From the floor, it was suggested a trademark lawyer would be needed before contacting Cisco. Ralph confirmed the XSF has members who are lawyers but does not currently retain any. Before the Board can decide whether to seek counsel, it needs to know what it would ask. No such list exists. This item is about producing one; the decision on counsel follows. *Known questions, as a starting point* - Does the sublicensing authority survive the absence of documentation extending the twelve-month trial? - Can continued execution with the trademark holder's awareness affect the written terms? - What is the status of existing sublicense holders if the programme is discontinued? - Can the arrangement, or the XSF's obligations under it, transfer to a successor entity? - If the programme is discontinued, does anything in the existing agreements prevent the XSF, or a successor entity, from seeking a new sublicensing arrangement later? - Does the XSF's own license to use the Mark survive the JSF-to-XSF name change and the Cisco acquisition, and on what terms? - Does contacting Cisco itself change the legal position, as was suggested from the floor? *Decisions sought* 1. Who drafts the consolidated list, and by when. 2. Whether EU-transition questions are bundled with the trademark ones or kept separate. 3. Whether to ask Matija Šuklje to help frame the questions. He offered assistance on standards@ in May and was explicit he cannot provide Legal Advice - which makes scoping an appropriate use of the offer. See also C2. *A3. EU Legal Structure: self-assessments have stalled* *(5 min - decision)*Not reached on 27 August. 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, and no self-assessment has been posted to members@ in the three months since. *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 Section B - candidate items, deferred unless promoted *B1. Volunteer capacity* *(15 min - discussion)*Deferred from 2026-08-27. 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. *B2. IPR policy: warranty, copyright, and AI-assisted contributions* *(20 min - decision)*Deferred from 2026-08-27. 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 *Listed on 2026-08-27 but not confirmed. To be read out and owners named before close.* *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. Confirm status. Feeds A2. *Owner: TBD* *C3. Historical enquiry: Joe Hildebrand.*Agreed 2026-08-27. Ralph to be copied. *Owner: Mickaël* Standing items 3. *Any Other Business (AOB)* *(3 min)* - *XMPP Summit 30*: Announced by SCAM at the end of Summit 29. 28-29 January 2027 in Brussels, preceding FOSDEM (as per usual): https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Conferences/Summit_30 4. *Date of next meeting* *(2 min)*Proposed: Thursday, 24 September 2026, at the usual time, resuming the fortnightly cadence. 5. *Close*

2 4

voting results & meeting minutes
by Alexander Gnauck 03 Sep '26

03 Sep '26

Hello, you can find the meeting minutes here: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2026-09-03 All reappliers were accepted. I will open the Q4 application period ASAP. Also our annual board and council elections are upcoming. I will work on a schedule for this soon. Thanks, Alex

1 0