12 May
2024
12 May
'24
11 a.m.
Dear Mario,
On 12 May 2024, at 18:34, Mario Sabatino wrote:
Dear Nicola, thank you for your replay. You have
correctly indicated the real starting point of our discussion on this topic.
My proposal does not relate to the mission of XSF, which is the overall objective of the
foundation.
XSF is appreciably committed to the technical front for developing XEP and related
activities.
My proposal—already anticipated in Brussels during the 2024 summit—aims to implement a
program even in the short term (one year) that covers every aspect, not only the technical
one, for which I leave room for members who know more than me.
When I refer to the program, I mean it should be organizational because each reality
should have medium and long-term objectives, not just technical ones.
I am referring to every aspect (administrative, bureaucratic, financial, etc.) that should
outline a program and, thus, the path the foundation intends to follow and the goals it
intends to achieve over a certain period of time.
- what the XSF program will be for next year;
I believe the organisation's mission statement outlines the XSF programme for
the future.
https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/mission/
So, in my opinion, should be useful to debate whether lobbying the EU during the DMA
discussion could have been a good point for the XFS to achieve its goals. The same goes
for the implementation of DMA in the real world e.g. as part of the protocol
(interoperability XEP). These are only two examples of what could have been done and what
XSF could do in the future.
XSF representatives participated in some of the Commission's initiatives, but I
don't think they were able to lobby.
Recalling what I wrote in my previous email, lobbying is only possible once you have
decided on a program because when you are dealing with institutions and private actors,
you have to make explicit what the program of the organization you represent is.
The DMA is not the only aspect; many others exist, especially in Europe.
Lobbying in Europe is legal but needs registration in an ad hoc register, but this does
not mean that this is the decisive element.
Maintaining and developing an open standard requires hard work from the people involved.
Applying for funding to pursue this goal could be helpful and may also be of interest to
an EU institution or public body in another EU member state.
I have already made my point and do not intend to bore you with the subject.
Funding is not the only solution for an organization's effective presence.
Ciao
Mario
Il 12/05/24 17:27, Nicola Fabiano ha scr
itto:
> Dear All,
>> the discussion should cover two main points:
>>
>> 1) the possibility of lobbying into the EU institutions and how to start doing
so;
> From my point of view, this is not the first point to be addressed.
> It is certainly an important topic but secondary to the organization of XSF. It can
be discussed later, but only after it has been decided
> - what the XSF program will be for next year;
It would be fruitful to hear also the others’ opinions.
All the best,
Nicola
ssigen