3 Mar
2026
3 Mar
'26
7:48 p.m.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026, 18:18 Guus der Kinderen, <guus.der.kinderen(a)gmail.com wrote:
> Finally, it's possible that these changes would require adjustments to the
> bylaws. I'm not sure we've done that before, but I don't see it as a
> blocker: just something to be clear about and handle properly if we go down
> this path.
We've updated them before, such as when we switched to the
quarterly/rolling membership application process.
That said, I don't think anything needs to change for the proposals in this
thread. The bylaws only require the secretary to keep the records. They are
not required to be public, we just always did it that way (as far as I am
aware).
Regards,
Matthew
Hi Matthew, hi all,
Thanks for writing this up so clearly.
On real names:
I think a good way forward could be to explicitly define a process that
*defaults* to using real names, while clearly allowing for
non-disclosure. For example, the call for information could explain why the
XMPP Standards Foundation generally uses real names, but also make it
explicit that this is not a hard requirement, and document the process for
opting out (e.g. name known only to the Secretary).
Why I think real names matter (as a default): visible people help with
transparency and trust, make attribution of work clearer, and give some
continuity and accountability to what we publish as an organization. For an
open standards body, that public-facing human aspect does have value. That
said, I don't think those benefits outweigh legitimate privacy or safety
concerns, which is why having a clear, accepted opt-out path feels
important to me.
That sounds fine.