Dear all,
today I looked at the extensions web overview which we have improved in the recent time. Special thanks to Daniel B. again.
https://xmpp.org/extensions/
I would like to enhance the filtering with tags or categories to help developers when implementing the protocol. That way a quick selection of relevant XEPs dependent on the implementation purpose could make onboarding easier. All this may be clear to you, but is not to others and interest third parties. Currently they get a numbered list, but no focus or priority nor importance.
For example, one could filter for the latest compliance suite and its relevant XEPs. Or which are important around A/V implementation. Which XEPs are part of base and advanced implementation? Which is related
And maybe you have many more better ideas to help and guide people.
Theoretically, we have the solution already: Using tags. However, only one of the XEPs has tags so far:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/blob/master/xep-0488.xml#L25
So, if you agree and maybe also have ideas and/or suggestions I would call to update the most relevant XEPs.
If we have more tags we can also offer them as filter selections right away.
Let me know what you think.
Eddie
I've started proxy voting via xmpp:memberbot@xmpp.org on the membership
applications listed here:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q2_2024
We will hold a member meeting on June 6th, 2024 to formally approve the
voting results.
The meeting particulars are:
Date: June 6th, 2024
Time: 19:00 UTC
Location: xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org
When you have problems with memberbot please contact my directly by
email or xmpp.
Thanks,
Alex
According to my records the following XSF members have voted via proxy
in the current voting period:
* flo (at) geekplace.eu
* gnauck (at) conversations.im
* guus.der.kinderen (at) igniterealtime.org
* jabber (at) larma.de
* kevin.smith (at) isode.com
* lbocquet (at) jabber.org
* linkmauve (at) linkmauve.fr
* mario (at) sabatino.pro
* martin (at) mdosch.de
* mathieui (at) mathieui.net
* nicoco (at) nicoco.fr
* nicola (at) nicfab.chat
* root (at) nicolosus.chat
* stpeter (at) jabber.org
* tim (at) mailbox.bz
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
;TLTR
Dear all,
Regarding what is in the subject, I reproduced below the entire thread of emails exchanged with the Board members related to my proposal regarding the presence of XSF in Europe.
Each email is a block with a line separating one from the others.
All the best,
Nicola
***
Dear all,
Following our last Board meeting, I propose to discuss the organization of XSF's activities further to promote the XMPP protocol at every level, including at European institutions, possibly by participating in projects to obtain contributions and funding (I have some ideas, but I will explain later).
Each Board member's input is crucial.
I encourage everyone to outline a few items as our agenda for the next 6/12 months.
These points should be related to programmatic and organizational business only (non-technical), reflecting your unique perspectives and expertise.
In that way, everyone can be in the running for one or more items to deal with and what goal we (XSF) want to achieve following our program.
Hence, feel free to share your thoughts about the programmatic and organizational business, and then we can discuss them.
Apart from programmatic and organizational business, the first step is the proposal concerns amending the statutes of the registered office. That modification is necessary to access the European institutions. Other modification proposals are welcome, and we can evaluate all of them.
Otherwise, an amended version (in bold italic) of Article 1 follows.
### ARTICLE I: Offices
**Section 1.1 Registered Office and Registered Agent.** The address of the initial registered office of The XMPP Standards Foundation (the “Corporation”) in the State of Delaware and the name of the initial registered agent of the Corporation at such address are set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate”). The Corporation may, from time to time, designate a different address as its registered office or a different person as its registered agent, or both; provided, however, that such designation shall become effective upon the filing of a statement of such change with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware as is required by law.
***Section 1.2 Principal Offices.*** The principal offices of the Corporation shall be at 1899 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, ***and at xxxx, xxx, Europe,*** or at such other place as the Board of Directors shall designate from time to time. The business of the Corporation shall be transacted from the principal ***offices***, and the records of the Corporation shall be kept there. ***Both principal offices have legal effect, irrespective of where the activities are carried out and where they are intended***.
**Section 1.3 Other Offices.** The Corporation shall have such offices either within or outside the State of Delaware and within or outside the United States, as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine or as the business of the Corporation may require. In the event the Corporation desires to qualify to do business in one or more states other than Delaware, the Corporation shall designate the location of the registered office in each such state and designate the registered agent for service of process at such address in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the corporation elects to be qualified.
***
Dear Eddie,
Thank you for your email.
I highlight that my email follows what I said during the Summit in Bruxelles.
My intervention represents a proposal submitted to the Board, which must be discussed and voted on.
On 27 Apr 2024, at 15:14, E.M. wrote:
> Dear Nicola,
>
> many thanks for the effort to bring to review of our XSF organizational setup and make a suggestion to create a legal instance in Europe.
> I assume there will be more coming than creating an European instance for the XSF, right?
I thought it would be appropriate or helpful to try to be more proactive in Europe.
This also involves ensuring that XSF has a European presence and is ready with an action plan and agenda.
> Not being a lawyer, I am supporting this attempt in general very much. I believe we have a strong community in Europe and should also back up our community here with a legal instance for the technology we standardize.
>
> My question would be what legal aspects we need to discuss having a "bilateral" (or more) organizational setup? Does this bring any conflict?
> How do we as Board member refer and deal with new things like DMA etc.? What will EU legislation expect from us? What can we expect?
From my perspective, the legal aspects are mainly concerned with amending the bylaws to provide for a seat in Europe and the existence of a program, i.e., what XSF proposes to do to promote XMPP.
There shouldn't be any conflict because these are purely organizational activities.
I think that Board members should continue performing the same current activities in compliance with the bylaws, such as providing information, communicating, providing support where necessary, plus implementing programs.
It's important to note that XSF, as a foundation, must act respecting the bylaws, make proposals, and realize projects (if they exist).
We should not expect more.
However, XSF has the potential to form partnerships with companies that have plans to present projects on a European level.
> If we create a new legal instance, can we create the instance on an "Europe level" or would the instance exist in a distinct EU country? If so, which country?
The current bylaws already provide the possibility of setting up other locations.
We should only add a European XSF legal office (any Member State) so anyone can see this in the bylaws themselves.
> My question to Board would be: As I am in all favor for this attempt, and also in favor to put work and time into it, are you as well in favor? Or are you not, and what does not meant to you? My basic question is that I don't want to spent time fighting something that is actually not of interest by a majority in the Board or the XSF organization. Please kindly review this for yourself, too.
I reiterate that my intervention is only a proposal that the Board discusses and votes on.
Therefore, I await the replies of others.
> By the way, do we need to review the way we handle member applications and personal data? Any other hosting of data?
>
> Have a good day and stay healthy,
> Eddie
>
> On 26.04.24 16:28, Nicola Fabiano wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Following our last Board meeting, I propose to discuss the organization of XSF's activities further to promote the XMPP protocol at every level, including at European institutions, possibly by participating in projects to obtain contributions and funding (I have some ideas, but I will explain later).
>>
>> Each Board member's input is crucial.
>> I encourage everyone to outline a few items as our agenda for the next 6/12 months.
>> These points should be related to programmatic and organizational business only (non-technical), reflecting your unique perspectives and expertise.
>>
>> In that way, everyone can be in the running for one or more items to deal with and what goal we (XSF) want to achieve following our program.
>>
>> Hence, feel free to share your thoughts about the programmatic and organizational business, and then we can discuss them.
>>
>> Apart from programmatic and organizational business, the first step is the proposal concerns amending the statutes of the registered office. That modification is necessary to access the European institutions. Other modification proposals are welcome, and we can evaluate all of them.
>>
>> Otherwise, an amended version (in bold italic) of Article 1 follows.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> ### ARTICLE I: Offices
>>
>> **Section 1.1 Registered Office and Registered Agent.** The address of the initial registered office of The XMPP Standards Foundation (the “Corporation”) in the State of Delaware and the name of the initial registered agent of the Corporation at such address are set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate”). The Corporation may, from time to time, designate a different address as its registered office or a different person as its registered agent, or both; provided, however, that such designation shall become effective upon the filing of a statement of such change with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware as is required by law.
>>
>> ***Section 1.2 Principal Offices.*** The principal offices of the Corporation shall be at 1899 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, ***and at xxxx, xxx, Europe,*** or at such other place as the Board of Directors shall designate from time to time. The business of the Corporation shall be transacted from the principal ***offices***, and the records of the Corporation shall be kept there. ***Both principal offices have legal effect, irrespective of where the activities are carried out and where they are intended***.
>>
>> **Section 1.3 Other Offices.** The Corporation shall have such offices either within or outside the State of Delaware and within or outside the United States, as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine or as the business of the Corporation may require. In the event the Corporation desires to qualify to do business in one or more states other than Delaware, the Corporation shall designate the location of the registered office in each such state and designate the registered agent for service of process at such address in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the corporation elects to be qualified.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> I look forward to receiving a reply from you.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Nicola
>>
>> ssigen
I am available.
***
Ciao Peter,
Thank you for your email and your insights.
On 29 Apr 2024, at 21:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Ciao Nicola,
>
> Thank you for initiating this discussion.
>
> I don't feel qualified to provide accurate insights regarding your proposal, so instead I will ask a few questions:
>
> (1) Is the intent here primarily to seek funding from European organizations (e.g., EU grants)?
Not only that, but the intention is to create a European positioning to evaluate any possible initiative. XSF's official headquarters in the US could be a distraction. From my point of view, an official presence in Europe would facilitate involvement in possible partnerships and more attention from the institutions (the European digital strategy is strongly focused on an internal market). That is my idea, and I hope to be right.
> (2) Is European domicile or a European business presence required in order to receive such grants?
That may not be the case, but as I said, presence in Europe would facilitate access to possible resources.
> (3) What are the legal, regulatory, tax (and thus also financial) implications of establishing a European business presence or "co-domicile" such as you have outlined?
I am not an accountant, so I am answering from my experience. Since XSF is a Foundation, contributions should not be taxed, especially if they come from institutional sources (participation in any EU projects). It may be necessary, with an office in Europe, to apply for a tax code or VAT number, but this should be asked of an accountant.
> (4) What is needed in order to establish such a presence or co-domicile? Do we need an office / physical address, or merely a mailing address?
The bylaws should be changed to provide for a seat in Europe with a postal address of any kind.
> (5) Should we perhaps consider moving the organization to Europe entirely instead of having some presence in the USA and some in a European country?
I propose to amend the bylaws, and I note two possible solutions:
1. change the registered office from the US to Europe and then have only one office in the EU;
2. Add - as provided for in the statute - a seat in the EU that is as official as the one in the USA; this second solution, legally, seems less valid to me.
It always depends on what one wants to do, i.e., what projects are to be realized and what XSF intends to do.
> I'd like to "take a step back" and consider what our goals are. Consider:
>
> - perhaps we feel it would be beneficial to significantly increase certain kinds of activity, for example:
> - promote XMPP as a neutral technology for interoperability (cf. DMA)
> - raise money that we can use to help support implementation of key protocols in open-source servers and clients
>
> - perhaps we feel that the best way to do that would be to seek out funding from European sources
>
> - perhaps we feel we won't be considered for such grants unless we have a European business presence / co-domicile
>
> - then we might conclude that what you propose makes sense
>
> But it seems to me that we need to be clear on the goals, first.
I agree, but XSF's identity and the goals it wants or would like to achieve need clarification. Therefore, an organizational, administrative (not technical) program is needed.
>
> Peter
>
> P.S. Aside from the reasoning outlined above, there might be other reasons to consider a co-domicile arrangement or moving the Foundation to Europe entirely. For example: most of the XSF's and the community's activity (Summits, FOSDEM, major open-source projects and companies) is in Europe, not North America. So that might be worth discussing anyway.
I agree, and this is one of the reasons why I made my proposal.
We are in no hurry. We can discuss it together, but we must evaluate it soon. Otherwise, XSF remains isolated from the rest of the business world, with a role relegated solely to technical aspects. XSF deserves more.
All the best,
Nicola
> On 4/26/24 8:28 AM, Nicola Fabiano wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Following our last Board meeting, I propose to discuss the organization of XSF's activities further to promote the XMPP protocol at every level, including at European institutions, possibly by participating in projects to obtain contributions and funding (I have some ideas, but I will explain later).
>>
>> Each Board member's input is crucial.
>> I encourage everyone to outline a few items as our agenda for the next 6/12 months.
>> These points should be related to programmatic and organizational business only (non-technical), reflecting your unique perspectives and expertise.
>>
>> In that way, everyone can be in the running for one or more items to deal with and what goal we (XSF) want to achieve following our program.
>>
>> Hence, feel free to share your thoughts about the programmatic and organizational business, and then we can discuss them.
>>
>> Apart from programmatic and organizational business, the first step is the proposal concerns amending the statutes of the registered office. That modification is necessary to access the European institutions. Other modification proposals are welcome, and we can evaluate all of them.
>>
>> Otherwise, an amended version (in bold italic) of Article 1 follows.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ARTICLE I: Offices
>>
>> *Section 1.1 Registered Office and Registered Agent.* The address of the initial registered office of The XMPP Standards Foundation (the “Corporation”) in the State of Delaware and the name of the initial registered agent of the Corporation at such address are set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate”). The Corporation may, from time to time, designate a different address as its registered office or a different person as its registered agent, or both; provided, however, that such designation shall become effective upon the filing of a statement of such change with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware as is required by law.
>>
>> /*Section 1.2 Principal Offices.*/ The principal offices of the Corporation shall be at 1899 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, /*and at xxxx, xxx, Europe,*/ or at such other place as the Board of Directors shall designate from time to time. The business of the Corporation shall be transacted from the principal /*offices*/, and the records of the Corporation shall be kept there. /*Both principal offices have legal effect, irrespective of where the activities are carried out and where they are intended*/.
>>
>> *Section 1.3 Other Offices.* The Corporation shall have such offices either within or outside the State of Delaware and within or outside the United States, as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine or as the business of the Corporation may require. In the event the Corporation desires to qualify to do business in one or more states other than Delaware, the Corporation shall designate the location of the registered office in each such state and designate the registered agent for service of process at such address in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the corporation elects to be qualified.
***
On 2 May 2024, at 1:38, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Ciao Nicola, more thoughts below...
>
> On 4/30/24 1:32 AM, Nicola Fabiano wrote:
>> Ciao Peter,
>>
>> Thank you for your email and your insights.
>>
>> On 29 Apr 2024, at 21:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>> Ciao Nicola,
>>
>> Thank you for initiating this discussion.
>>
>> I don't feel qualified to provide accurate insights regarding your
>> proposal, so instead I will ask a few questions:
>>
>> (1) Is the intent here primarily to seek funding from European
>> organizations (e.g., EU grants)?
>>
>> Not only that, but the intention is to create a European positioning to evaluate any possible initiative. XSF's official headquarters in the US could be a distraction. From my point of view, an official presence in Europe would facilitate involvement in possible partnerships and more attention from the institutions (the European digital strategy is strongly focused on an internal market). That is my idea, and I hope to be right.
>
> This seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
>
> If there were no costs involved and we could identify people to handle certain aspects of XSF operations (e.g., the Treasurer role that I've filled for many years), I would be in favor of moving the entire organization from the USA to the EU.
>
> Of course, there are always costs involved and it's not always easy to find people to fill certain roles in the long term. :-) But I think it's worth exploring.
>
> Naturally, if this change led to more funding, then we'd have money to spend on legal and accounting help to make the transition across the Atlantic. But we have a bit of a "chicken and egg problem" here.
>
>> (2) Is European domicile or a European business presence required in
>> order to receive such grants?
>>
>> That may not be the case, but as I said, presence in Europe would facilitate access to possible resources.
>>
>> (3) What are the legal, regulatory, tax (and thus also financial)
>> implications of establishing a European business presence or
>> "co-domicile" such as you have outlined?
>>
>> I am not an accountant, so I am answering from my experience. Since XSF is a Foundation, contributions should not be taxed, especially if they come from institutional sources (participation in any EU projects). It may be necessary, with an office in Europe, to apply for a tax code or VAT number, but this should be asked of an accountant.
>
> For sure. I am reasonably familiar with U.S. rules for non-profits, but I am utterly ignorant of the situation in the EU (or UK), I don't know how things differ by country and which countries are most friendly to non-profit organizations, etc.
>
>> (4) What is needed in order to establish such a presence or
>> co-domicile? Do we need an office / physical address, or merely a
>> mailing address?
>>
>> The bylaws should be changed to provide for a seat in Europe with a postal address of any kind.
>
> BTW, the current Bylaws specify an address of 1899 Wynkoop Street in Denver, but that was the old Jabber Inc. address and we no longer receive mail there. At this point the Principal Address is probably my house! (We do have a post office box, but business operations are not conducted there.)
>
>> (5) Should we perhaps consider moving the organization to Europe
>> entirely instead of having some presence in the USA and some in a
>> European country?
>>
>> I propose to amend the bylaws, and I note two possible solutions:
>>
>> 1. change the registered office from the US to Europe and then have
>> only one office in the EU;
>
> See above. This is not a trivial undertaking and we'd need to estimate the costs, both initial and recurring. But I am not opposed to it.
>
>> 2. Add - as provided for in the statute - a seat in the EU that is as
>> official as the one in the USA; this second solution, legally, seems
>> less valid to me.
>>
>> It always depends on what one wants to do, i.e., what projects are to be realized and what XSF intends to do.
>
> True. We also need to think about things like organizational continuity and succession planning. Specifically, I am uncomfortable being one of the only active XSF members in the U.S., and the only one who can access our bank account, file tax forms, etc.
>
>> I'd like to "take a step back" and consider what our goals are.
>> Consider:
>>
>> *
>>
>> perhaps we feel it would be beneficial to significantly increase
>> certain kinds of activity, for example:
>>
>> o promote XMPP as a neutral technology for interoperability
>> (cf. DMA)
>> o raise money that we can use to help support implementation
>> of key protocols in open-source servers and clients
>> *
>>
>> perhaps we feel that the best way to do that would be to seek
>> out funding from European sources
>>
>> *
>>
>> perhaps we feel we won't be considered for such grants unless we
>> have a European business presence / co-domicile
>>
>> *
>>
>> then we might conclude that what you propose makes sense
>>
>> But it seems to me that we need to be clear on the goals, first.
>>
>> I agree, but XSF's identity and the goals it wants or would like to achieve need clarification. Therefore, an organizational, administrative (not technical) program is needed.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> P.S. Aside from the reasoning outlined above, there might be other
>> reasons to consider a co-domicile arrangement or moving the
>> Foundation to Europe entirely. For example: most of the XSF's and
>> the community's activity (Summits, FOSDEM, major open-source
>> projects and companies) is in Europe, not North America. So that
>> might be worth discussing anyway.
>>
>> I agree, and this is one of the reasons why I made my proposal.
>> We are in no hurry. We can discuss it together, but we must evaluate it soon. Otherwise, XSF remains isolated from the rest of the business world, with a role relegated solely to technical aspects. XSF deserves more.
>
> I'm curious to hear more about your thinking here.
I agree with you. As you said, it is worth considering a legal office in Europe.
> Peter
Ciao Peter,
Thank you.
All the best,
Nicola
***
On 2 May 2024, at 17:37, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/2/24 1:01 AM, Nicola Fabiano wrote:
>> On 2 May 2024, at 1:38, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>> Ciao Nicola, more thoughts below...
>>
>> On 4/30/24 1:32 AM, Nicola Fabiano wrote:
>>
>> We can discuss it together, but we must
>> evaluate it soon. Otherwise, XSF remains isolated from the rest
>> of the business world, with a role relegated solely to technical
>> aspects. XSF deserves more.
>>
>> I'm curious to hear more about your thinking here.
>>
>> I agree with you. As you said, it is worth considering a legal office in Europe.
>
> Specifically, I would like to understand more fully why you say that the "XSF remains isolated from the rest of the business world, with a role relegated solely to technical aspects."
>
> Since its founding in 2001, the XSF as a standards development organization has indeed been dedicated (or relegated) solely to technical aspects: primarily defining standardized protocols along with a very few ancillary matters. With a few rare exceptions, the XSF hasn't even actively supported (e.g., with monetary grants) the projects and companies that develop XMPP-compatible software. In large part, this is a legacy of the XSF's place in the Jabber/XMPP ecosystem and its founding as a neutral organization that would not favor any particular vendor or developer, or even favor open-source software over proprietary software. It is also consistent with the nature of our community, which consists of technically-minded people who don't know much about things like marketing or government policy.
>
> In your mind, what would a closer integration with the rest of the business world look like? What new activities would we engage in? What expertise would we need to acquire? And so on.
>
> Peter
Peter,
My meaning was that XSF—as a foundation—even though it was born in a technical context and is dedicated to XEP, could also organize public events, do dissemination, participate in competitions to obtain public or private funding, be proactive in the communication and dissemination of XMPP, etc.
I did not mean that XSF does not carry out activities but that these could extend.
From my point of view, I see more opportunities in Europe than in the rest of the world.
ssigen
Dear all,
we have successfully signed-up at Outreachy as community:
https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/xmpp-extensible-messaging-and-pre…
We are slowly getting familiar with the program which differs in several
parts from e.g. Google Summer of Code.
With the support of JMP.chat we have also a funding for one project.
This allows us to apply for Outreachy funding as well.
So, by this message I invite to sign-up with project ideas on our
Outreachy page. Please read the guidelines before you are engaging in
this and make yourself familiar with the program:
https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/#mentor
If you have questions feel free to reach out and I will try to answer
for you.
Other then that, the Google Summer of Code 2024 application is pending
and you can engage in this program, too.
Best regards,
Eddie
I have created the membership application page for Q2 2024 at:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q2_2024
The following XSF members have to reapply:
* Daniel Brötzmann
* Artur Hefczyc
* Wojciech Kapcia
* Guus der Kinderen
* Mickaël Rémond
* Arc Riley
* Paul Schaub
* Kevin Smith
* Andrzej Wójcik
* Mathieu Pasquet
Regards,
Alex
According to my records the following 19 XSF members have voted via
proxy in the current voting period:
* andrzej.wojcik (at) tigase.org
* arne-bruen (at) monocles.de
* bmalkow (at) malkowscy.net
* daniel (at) gultsch.de
* daniel (at) spacecloud.one
* emus (at) jabbers.one
* gnauck (at) conversations.im
* guus.der.kinderen (at) igniterealtime.org
* intosi (at) ik.nu
* jabberjocke (at) jabber.org
* kobit (at) tigase.org
* lbocquet (at) jabber.org
* martin (at) mdosch.de
* neox (at) a-lec.org
* nicola (at) nicfab.chat
* ralphm (at) ik.nu
* singpolyma (at) singpolyma.net
* stpeter (at) jabber.org
* winfried (at) tilanus.com
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
