3 Mar
2026
3 Mar
'26
12:14 p.m.
Hi folks,
These have come up before, but I don't think the board has ever
actually voted on them as an agenda item (forgive me if I'm wrong, but
I found no record of it).
Therefore, I would like these two membership-related proposals to be
picked up for discussion and voting by the board:
1) Make the publication of members' real names optional
This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.
This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.
I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership applications
It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.
Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.
For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.
Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.
I am not proposing changes to our council or board elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.
Regards,
Matthew
3 Mar
3 Mar
12:24 p.m.
On 3 Mar 2026, at 17:14, Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1) Make the publication of members' real names
optional
I can see the motivation here and probably the reasons you give outweigh the risks. One
risk that comes to mind is having bad actors avoid people realising who they are when they
join.
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
I can’t really think of downsides for this.
/K
12:33 p.m.
* Kevin Smith via Members <members(a)xmpp.org> [2026-03-03 18:25]:
On 3 Mar 2026, at 17:14, Matthew Wild
<mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Make the publication of members' real names optional
+1
I can see the motivation here and probably the reasons
you give outweigh the risks. One risk that comes to mind is having bad actors avoid people
realising who they are when they join.
Given that most people use nicknames in the MUCs and there is no
requirement to use real names on the lists, I don't see a fundamental
change if we lift this restriction.
> 2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
+1
Georg
12:47 p.m.
Hi,
On Dienstag, 3. März 2026 18:14:46 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Matthew Wild
wrote:
1) Make the publication of members' real names
optional
This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.
This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.
I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).
SGTM. Do we have to adapt the bylaws for this?
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.
Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.
For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.
Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.
SGTM.
I am not proposing changes to our council or board
elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.
kind regards,
Jonas
1:17 p.m.
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.
On vote tallies:
I don't personally see the "popularity contest" angle as the main issue.
What I do recognize is that vote counts can create tension, especially for
first-time applicants. I haven't yet formed a strong opinion on switching
from publishing counts to publishing only outcomes. One concern I have is
that if tallies are no longer public, a later negative decision (e.g.
someone not being renewed) could feel more dramatic or suspicious if there
wasn't a visible downward trend beforehand. So this is still an open
question for me, and I'm curious to learn of other views.
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.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:47 PM Jonas Schäfer <jonas(a)wielicki.name> wrote:
Hi,
On Dienstag, 3. März 2026 18:14:46 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Matthew
Wild
wrote:
1) Make the publication of members' real
names optional
This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.
This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.
I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).
SGTM. Do we have to adapt the bylaws for this?
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.
Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.
For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.
Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.
SGTM.
I am not proposing changes to our council or
board elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.
kind regards,
Jonas
1:48 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.
2:08 p.m.
El Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:14:46 +0000
Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> escribió:
Hi folks,
These have come up before, but I don't think the board has ever
actually voted on them as an agenda item (forgive me if I'm wrong, but
I found no record of it).
Therefore, I would like these two membership-related proposals to be
picked up for discussion and voting by the board:
1) Make the publication of members' real names optional
This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.
This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.
I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).
+1 with the "default" and "opt-out" path for the same reasons exposed
by Guus in
his reply
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.
Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.
For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.
Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.
+1
I am not proposing changes to our council or board
elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.
Regards,
Matthew
Thank you for keeping it concise and to the point.
Excellent proposals Matthew.
Regards,
Gonzalo Raúl Nemmi
3:52 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 05:14:46PM +0000, Matthew Wild wrote:
1) Make the publication of members' real names
optional
:+1:
This is basically standard practice in every other association I've been
involved in, tho none of those were standards organizations.
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
:+1:
No other association I've been involved with has this kind of membership
admission. Instead there is usually a membership fee (can be zero).
--
Zash
4 Mar
4 Mar
5:23 a.m.
Thanks for the well written proposal Matt.
+1 on both from me.
I usually prefer real names, but I fully understand that some members or
applicants don't want to disclose them.
Even we have real names on the website and Wiki today, we do not verify
those. The whole process is build on trust anyway.
Alex
5 Mar
5 Mar
1:11 p.m.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 17:15, Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
These have come up before, but I don't think the board has ever
actually voted on them as an agenda item (forgive me if I'm wrong, but
I found no record of it).
Therefore, I would like these two membership-related proposals to be
picked up for discussion and voting by the board:
1) Make the publication of members' real names optional
This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.
This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.
I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).
I'm not absolutely against this, and could be persuaded, but my concern is
that members have voting rights, and ultimately control the Foundation.
We are, and should remain, an open and entirely transparent organisation.
I don't know of another standards organisation that allows for voting
rights under pseudonyms.
IETF publishes full names for IESG, IAB, Nomcom, etc, for example.
I can be persuaded to change my mind, of course, and I do understand (and
worry) that some people may have legitimate reasons why they do not want
their name publicly listed.
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.
Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.
For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.
Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.
I am not proposing changes to our council or board elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.
I'm fine with the voting tallies not being public, I think that's fine to
change. I'll be disappointed in not being able to see how many people I can
get to vote against me, but I do understand that it's not necessary to be
public and could very easily upset people.
I also agree with the implied suggestion that we only list people who get
voted in, and not those that failed to get the votes.
Dave.
5 Apr
5 Apr
3:45 a.m.
On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 at 18:11, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
I'm not absolutely against this, and could be
persuaded, but my concern is
that members have voting rights, and ultimately control the Foundation.
We are, and should remain, an open and entirely transparent organisation.
I don't know of another standards organisation that allows for voting
rights under pseudonyms.
IETF publishes full names for IESG, IAB, Nomcom, etc, for example.
I can be persuaded to change my mind, of course, and I do understand (and
worry) that some people may have legitimate reasons why they do not want
their name publicly listed.
Nobody seems to have an argument counter to this, or at least, nobody has
raised anything.
The closest seems to be that we don't check real names anyway, so someone
could use an entirely fake identity. I'm not overwhelmingly convinced by
"it's potentially bad now, so let's lean into that" as an argument.
From an individual perspective, I totally understand that having one's name
publicly announced is a problem for some.
From an organisational perspective, I still think that having the names of
people empowered to control the Foundation be public is part of being an
open and transparent organisation.
Dave.
7 Apr
7 Apr
9:10 a.m.
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 at 08:46, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 at 18:11, Dave Cridland
<dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
That's probably because I got distracted halfway through writing it
and it got stuck in my drafts folder. The basis was that, as you note,
we don't verify anyone's names are what they say they are.
To me it seems that either this matters, or it doesn't.
If it matters, we should be performing some level of verification
beyond "yep, that looks like a real name to me" (which is absurd for
hopefully obvious reasons). If the names don't matter, we should be
prepared to publish whatever name someone supplies.
It seems to me that other organizations either don't publish names or
don't verify them. We seem to want to reject pseudonyms *and* insist
on publishing, and I don't see many examples of this in other
organizations (just for membership, not for holding elected roles).
I'm not absolutely against this, and could be persuaded, but my concern is that
members have voting rights, and ultimately control the Foundation.
We are, and should remain, an open and entirely transparent organisation.
I don't know of another standards organisation that allows for voting rights under
pseudonyms.
IETF publishes full names for IESG, IAB, Nomcom, etc, for example.
I can be persuaded to change my mind, of course, and I do understand (and worry) that
some people may have legitimate reasons why they do not want their name publicly listed.
Nobody seems to have an argument counter to this, or at least, nobody has raised
anything. The closest seems to be that we don't check real
names anyway, so someone could use an entirely fake identity. I'm not overwhelmingly
convinced by "it's potentially bad now, so let's lean into that" as an
argument.
From an organisational perspective, I still think that having the names of people
empowered to control the Foundation be public is part of being an open and transparent
organisation.
I would like to agree, but what we have now are almost arbitrary text
strings, they only passed the "LGTM" test, and there is zero guarantee
that they are anybody's real names. And even if all the names listed
today are in fact legitimate... if somebody wanted to be malicious,
obviously they would surely be the ones to game the system with fake
(but convincing) names. I think the rules only hurt the honest people.
I understand the value that people *think* listing "real" names
brings, but due to the lack of verification, I believe this value is
merely an illusion and these arguments have no logical foundation.
Finally, there are so many examples of successful member-driven
organizations that do not publish the details of their ordinary
members. It clearly can work.
I just wanted to respond to the suggestion that there are no
counter-arguments. If everyone is happy with the status quo despite
the arguments presented here, I'm not going to argue further.
Otherwise, I suggest we pick either 1) accepting pseudonyms or 2)
hiding member names (always|when requested).
Regards,
Matthew
16 Apr
16 Apr
1:27 p.m.
Hi all,
Following up to close the loop on this thread: the Board discussed and
voted on both membership-related proposals at its April 16 meeting.
On member name disclosure, the Board adopted the proposal to keep all
members publicly listed while making public disclosure of real names
optional on request. Members who opt out may instead be listed under an
alternative identifier (such as a username or handle) of their choosing.
Real names will still be kept on file by the Secretary and remain
accessible to the Board. This opt-out is not available to Officers, Board
members, or Council members, who must continue to be publicly identified by
real name.
On membership vote tallies, the Board agreed to stop publishing vote
tallies on the public voting wiki pages. The Secretary will continue to
retain the full results on file, and members may request access to tally
information.
For details, please refer to the meeting minutes and chat log, available at
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board-Meeting-2026-04-16
Thanks to everyone who contributed thoughtful input to the discussion. The
mailing list feedback was very helpful in shaping the final outcome.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 3:10 PM Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 at 08:46, Dave Cridland
<dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 at 18:11, Dave Cridland
<dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not absolutely against this, and could be persuaded, but my concern
is
that members have voting rights, and ultimately control the Foundation.
>
> We are, and should remain, an open and entirely transparent
organisation.
>
> I don't know of another standards organisation that allows for voting
rights under pseudonyms.
>
> IETF publishes full names for IESG, IAB, Nomcom, etc, for example.
>
> I can be persuaded to change my mind, of course, and I do understand
(and
worry) that some people may have legitimate reasons why they do not
want their name publicly listed.
Nobody seems to have an argument counter to this, or at least, nobody
has raised
anything.
That's probably because I got distracted halfway through writing it
and it got stuck in my drafts folder. The basis was that, as you note,
we don't verify anyone's names are what they say they are.
To me it seems that either this matters, or it doesn't.
If it matters, we should be performing some level of verification
beyond "yep, that looks like a real name to me" (which is absurd for
hopefully obvious reasons). If the names don't matter, we should be
prepared to publish whatever name someone supplies.
It seems to me that other organizations either don't publish names or
don't verify them. We seem to want to reject pseudonyms *and* insist
on publishing, and I don't see many examples of this in other
organizations (just for membership, not for holding elected roles).
The closest seems to be that we don't check
real names anyway, so
someone could use an entirely fake identity. I'm not
overwhelmingly
convinced by "it's potentially bad now, so let's lean into that" as an
argument.
From an organisational perspective, I still think
that having the names
of people empowered to control the Foundation be public is
part of being an
open and transparent organisation.
I would like to agree, but what we have now are almost arbitrary text
strings, they only passed the "LGTM" test, and there is zero guarantee
that they are anybody's real names. And even if all the names listed
today are in fact legitimate... if somebody wanted to be malicious,
obviously they would surely be the ones to game the system with fake
(but convincing) names. I think the rules only hurt the honest people.
I understand the value that people *think* listing "real" names
brings, but due to the lack of verification, I believe this value is
merely an illusion and these arguments have no logical foundation.
Finally, there are so many examples of successful member-driven
organizations that do not publish the details of their ordinary
members. It clearly can work.
I just wanted to respond to the suggestion that there are no
counter-arguments. If everyone is happy with the status quo despite
the arguments presented here, I'm not going to argue further.
Otherwise, I suggest we pick either 1) accepting pseudonyms or 2)
hiding member names (always|when requested).
Regards,
Matthew
6 Mar
6 Mar
1:30 p.m.
Dear Matthew and all,
First, for me, It is crucial, important, to have the real name.
Without it, we will have bad people, double agents, fake people, robots.
And for the future entity, real names are important.
No other official declared organization uses username.
Secondly, about the number of "no" votes.
It's not necessarily the one who does the most for the community who gets the most
votes.
If it is not showed, how to know the results?
Regards,
BOCQUET Ludovic
________________________________________
From: Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:14 PM
To: XSF Members
Subject: [Members] Proposal for membership process changes
Hi folks,
These have come up before, but I don't think the board has ever
actually voted on them as an agenda item (forgive me if I'm wrong, but
I found no record of it).
Therefore, I would like these two membership-related proposals to be
picked up for discussion and voting by the board:
1) Make the publication of members' real names optional
This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.
This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.
I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership applications
It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.
Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.
For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.
Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.
I am not proposing changes to our council or board elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.
Regards,
Matthew
11:56 p.m.
Hi all,
1) Make the publication of members' real names
optional
This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.
This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.
I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).
+1 from me. I am not personally affected, but I don't want to exclude
people who want or need a greater level of privacy. We should remove as
many barriers to XSF membership as possible.
Some people have raised concerns about not being able to discern
duplicate entries, bots, etc. I don't think removing the real name
requirement is going to have much effect in that regard given that:
a. we don't check the real names anyway. People can technically put in
duplicate entries and get away with it even under the current system
(and we trust that they don't; the system runs on trust which I think is
a good thing)
b. the XSF Secretary still gets access to real names under this
proposal, so it's not like they are completely anonymous. I imagine
other people such as the Board and anyone relevant could also get access
to real names, where appropriate, if there is some controversy
c. the default process is still to state ones real name, so it's not
like all XSF members are immediately going to turn pseudonymous
tomorrow. Given that it's a special case and not a general one, we could
also have the XSF Secretary (or some delegated volunteers) perform a bit
more due diligence to anonymous members if needed (I personally don't
see a need for this, but others may find it reassuring)
Finally, if many members have strong concerns about even this, nothing
stops us from allowing /XSF members/ to know peoples' real names without
making them publicly available for the whole world to see (eg. sent out
on a private mailing list or have it announced by memberbot). This is a
compromise position that complicates things a bit but I think it should
address most concerns regarding pseudonymous members.
Personally I know most XMPP folks by their pseudonyms anyway and I don't
really know or care what their real names are. If I meet someone in real
life and want to confirm they're the same person, I'd do it by asking
them to prove a connection to their JID, not to their real name.
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.
Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.
For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.
Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.
I am not proposing changes to our council or board elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.
+1 especially given that it's not common for organisations to announce
vote tallies for membership. Also agreed about leaving council and board
elections unchanged (i.e. leaving the vote tallies public for those).
~Badri
7 Mar
7 Mar
5:42 a.m.
I agree on this argument. I know about problems with life danger
revealing your real name on the internet - not by revealing them to the
XSF. These are two seperate "shoes" as you would say in German
On 3/7/26 6:56 AM, Badri Sunderarajan via Members wrote:
Finally, if many members have strong concerns about
even this, nothing
stops us from allowing /XSF members/ to know peoples' real names without
making them publicly available for the whole world to see (eg. sent out
on a private mailing list or have it announced by memberbot). This is a
compromise position that complicates things a bit but I think it should
address most concerns regarding pseudonymous members.
2 Apr
2 Apr
4:42 p.m.
On 03/03/2026 18.14, Matthew Wild wrote:
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
Yes please, but as I mentioned in today's board meeting, I'd like the
tallies to be accessible for members.
I am usually very much in favor of transparency, but the rationale for
casing the publication of the vote tallies is sound, the public doesn't
need to know the tallies, just the outcome. However, it feels wrong if
this would mean that the information is no longer accessible by XSF
members as it would be the opposite of being transparent.
If that means that we provide the information on a restricted wiki page,
via XMPP to authorized entities, or upon request can be sorted out later.
- Flow
4:50 p.m.
Maybe Memberbot can reply the latest tallies upon request from members who
can vote
Den tors 2 apr. 2026 22:42Florian Schmaus <flo(a)geekplace.eu> skrev:
On 03/03/2026 18.14, Matthew Wild wrote:
2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership
applications
Yes please, but as I mentioned in today's board meeting, I'd like the
tallies to be accessible for members.
I am usually very much in favor of transparency, but the rationale for
casing the publication of the vote tallies is sound, the public doesn't
need to know the tallies, just the outcome. However, it feels wrong if
this would mean that the information is no longer accessible by XSF
members as it would be the opposite of being transparent.
If that means that we provide the information on a restricted wiki page,
via XMPP to authorized entities, or upon request can be sorted out later.
- Flow
3 Apr
3 Apr
4:23 a.m.
Hi Flow,
Thanks for following up. I want to make sure I understand the value you see
in making tallies accessible to members specifically, because I'm not
immediately seeing what it adds over publishing outcomes only.
The concern driving this proposal is that vote counts create an
uncomfortable experience for applicants, effectively ranking accepted
members by how many people voted against them. That concern applies equally
whether the audience is the general public or fellow XSF members: the
applicant still ends up with a visible score attached to their membership.
I can see a general argument for transparency to the membership
(accountability of the voting body, trust in the process) but I'm not sure
tallies specifically are what delivers that. Knowing that someone received
30 yes and 5 no votes doesn't tell us much without knowing who voted which
way and why.
So I'd genuinely like to understand: what would you be able to do, or
assess, with access to the tallies that you couldn't do with outcomes
alone? That would help me understand whether this is a meaningful
transparency concern or more of a general comfort with having the numbers
available.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 10:51 PM Joachim Lindborg <joachim.lindborg(a)lsys.se>
wrote:
Maybe Memberbot can reply the latest tallies upon
request from members who
can vote
Den tors 2 apr. 2026 22:42Florian Schmaus <flo(a)geekplace.eu> skrev:
> On 03/03/2026 18.14, Matthew Wild wrote:
> > 2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership applications
>
> Yes please, but as I mentioned in today's board meeting, I'd like the
> tallies to be accessible for members.
>
> I am usually very much in favor of transparency, but the rationale for
> casing the publication of the vote tallies is sound, the public doesn't
> need to know the tallies, just the outcome. However, it feels wrong if
> this would mean that the information is no longer accessible by XSF
> members as it would be the opposite of being transparent.
>
> If that means that we provide the information on a restricted wiki page,
> via XMPP to authorized entities, or upon request can be sorted out later.
>
> - Flow
>
>
>
>
>
5:36 a.m.
The concern driving this proposal is that vote counts
create an
uncomfortable experience for applicants, effectively ranking accepted
members by how many people voted against them. That concern applies
equally whether the audience is the general public or fellow XSF
members: the applicant still ends up with a visible score attached to
their membership.
I can see a general argument for transparency to the membership
(accountability of the voting body, trust in the process) but I'm not
sure tallies specifically are what delivers that. Knowing that someone
received 30 yes and 5 no votes doesn't tell us much without knowing
who voted which way and why.
I agree that transparency in the voting process is important, and to me
the results belong to the transparency.
I am also wondering how we define "public" here. Is there an interest
outside of the XSF at the voting results?
if we want to show the results only to members then I assume we can lock
down access to XSF members only in certain sections of our Wiki.
It just becomes management overhead to sync the permissions after elections.
Alex
4 Apr
4 Apr
6:31 a.m.
On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 at 09:24, Guus der Kinderen
<guus.der.kinderen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Flow,
Thanks for following up. I want to make sure I understand the value you see in making
tallies accessible to members specifically, because I'm not immediately seeing what it
adds over publishing outcomes only.
The concern driving this proposal is that vote counts create an uncomfortable experience
for applicants, effectively ranking accepted members by how many people voted against
them. That concern applies equally whether the audience is the general public or fellow
XSF members: the applicant still ends up with a visible score attached to their
membership.
I can see a general argument for transparency to the membership (accountability of the
voting body, trust in the process) but I'm not sure tallies specifically are what
delivers that. Knowing that someone received 30 yes and 5 no votes doesn't tell us
much without knowing who voted which way and why.
A middle-ground here is also to just remove the "no" tallies (even
knowing they can be calculated). All we (and the bylaws) care about
for admission is the number of approvals being above the necessary
threshold ("Members shall be admitted upon the affirmative vote of a
majority of the Members of the Corporation voting. "). A 'no' is just
a lack of approval, but there are many reasons someone might not give
approval other than "I am actively against this person becoming a
member".
For example, a member might vote "no" for an applicant they do not
recognise as participating in the community, and maybe that is their
personal threshold for giving approval. If this member votes "no", it
doesn't mean they are necessarily *against* the applicant if
sufficient other members approve (maybe the applicant works with XMPP
in projects that don't overlap with our hypothetical member).
Calling it a "no" vote makes it feel like "actively against", while I
suspect the majority of such votes are the "lack of approval" kind
(more like a +0 than a -1).
In summary, if people are against removing the published tallies
entirely, a side proposal is to replace the "Yes" and "No" columns
into a single "Approvals" column.
And in fact, now that I've written this email, I just looked up the
latest minutes for reference and it seems Alex has already implemented
this (compare
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2026-03-05#Announcement_of_Voting…
with https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2025-03-06#Announcement_of_Voting…
). Not sure if I missed a discussion of this change already.
I think the newer approach is better, and consistent with our bylaws
(possibly more consistent, because they do not describe negative votes
for membership at all). Thanks Alex!
Regards,
Matthew
7:19 a.m.
I'm fine with that new approach of listing just the yeas, as we do not have
abstentions as an option. I maintain that for transparency, being able to see the tally is
essential, and therefore oppose restricting their public publication.
On 4 April 2026 12:31:36 CEST, Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 at 09:24, Guus der Kinderen
<guus.der.kinderen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Flow,
Thanks for following up. I want to make sure I understand the value you see in making
tallies accessible to members specifically, because I'm not immediately seeing what it
adds over publishing outcomes only.
The concern driving this proposal is that vote counts create an uncomfortable experience
for applicants, effectively ranking accepted members by how many people voted against
them. That concern applies equally whether the audience is the general public or fellow
XSF members: the applicant still ends up with a visible score attached to their
membership.
I can see a general argument for transparency to the membership (accountability of the
voting body, trust in the process) but I'm not sure tallies specifically are what
delivers that. Knowing that someone received 30 yes and 5 no votes doesn't tell us
much without knowing who voted which way and why.
A middle-ground here is also to just remove the "no" tallies (even
knowing they can be calculated). All we (and the bylaws) care about
for admission is the number of approvals being above the necessary
threshold ("Members shall be admitted upon the affirmative vote of a
majority of the Members of the Corporation voting. "). A 'no' is just
a lack of approval, but there are many reasons someone might not give
approval other than "I am actively against this person becoming a
member".
For example, a member might vote "no" for an applicant they do not
recognise as participating in the community, and maybe that is their
personal threshold for giving approval. If this member votes "no", it
doesn't mean they are necessarily *against* the applicant if
sufficient other members approve (maybe the applicant works with XMPP
in projects that don't overlap with our hypothetical member).
Calling it a "no" vote makes it feel like "actively against", while I
suspect the majority of such votes are the "lack of approval" kind
(more like a +0 than a -1).
In summary, if people are against removing the published tallies
entirely, a side proposal is to replace the "Yes" and "No" columns
into a single "Approvals" column.
And in fact, now that I've written this email, I just looked up the
latest minutes for reference and it seems Alex has already implemented
this (compare
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2026-03-05#Announcement_of_Voting…
with https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2025-03-06#Announcement_of_Voting…
). Not sure if I missed a discussion of this change already.
I think the newer approach is better, and consistent with our bylaws
(possibly more consistent, because they do not describe negative votes
for membership at all). Thanks Alex!
Regards,
Matthew
5 Apr
5 Apr
3:48 a.m.
On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 at 12:21, Ralph Meijer <ralphm(a)ik.nu> wrote:
I'm fine with that new approach of listing just
the yeas, as we do not
have abstentions as an option. I maintain that for transparency, being able
to see the tally is essential, and therefore oppose restricting their
public publication.
Again, I'm fine with not publishing the tallies at all. I think for
transparency, we just need to know who stood, and who was voted in.
That said, for Council and Board, we do actually need the tallies published
because of the issue around tie breaks, which only occur once a decade, but
still.
Dave.
8
days inactive
52
days old
23 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Alexander Gnauck -
Badri Sunderarajan -
Dave Cridland -
eevvoor -
Florian Schmaus -
Georg Lukas -
Gonzalo Raul Nemmi -
Guus der Kinderen -
Joachim Lindborg -
Jonas Schäfer -
Kevin Smith -
Kim Alvefur -
Ludovic BOCQUET -
Matthew Wild -
Ralph Meijer -
Travis Burtrum